:::I have no issue with the article saying that major organisations are worried; I've never suggested that this information should be removed. My point is that it should be reported as what it is - concerns - and not as evidence. 

 :::My issue with Doc James isn't his stubbornness; it's his occasional dishonesty in edit comments (not confined to this article, I believe), his refusal to engage where he doesn't have an argument to back him up and his reliance on a few stock phrases during any attempt at discussion. A typical conversation goes like this: 

 ::::Me: Why did you delete my edit? Your edit summary was misleading. 
 ::::DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. 
 ::::Me: But your edit comment said "Cited source does not mention whales." I wasn't talking about whales. I was talking about e-cigs. 
 ::::DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. 
 ::::Me: That has nothing to do with it. You deleted my edit because the source didn't say something that I wasn't saying either! 
 ::::DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. 
 ::::Me: OK, we'll come back to that. In the meantime are you going to tell me why you deleted my edit? 
 ::::DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. 
 ::::Me: Ohh FFS. Just answer the question would you? 
 ::::DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. 
 ::::Me: You are an ass hat. 
 ::::DJ: Maybe we should do an RfC and get some more opinions on that. 
 ::::Me: Slams head on desk, opens bottle of rum, gets shitfaced in despair. 

 :::It's very frustrating trying to discuss things when these tactics are being used.