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