Talk:Electronic cigarette

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has not been consensus on usage of the terms Vapor, Mist, and Aerosol as to the best word to use for what comes out of an e-cigarette. This disagreement has the words being changed all the time. The common term used by most average people and the media to describe the inhalable product of E-cigarettes is Vapor. A number of Medical journals describe it as Aerosol, but there are also a lot of uses of Vapor in journal articles. No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist. There is a discussion now on the page discussing this issue.[1] There is also one in the archives[2] that ended in a limited agreement for the start of the lede only. Some editors of this page have suggested that in the interest of being accurate we should use Aerosol over the common term Vapor.

Questions:

• A. Should we use Mist?
• B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• D. Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)
• E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used? AlbinoFerret 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article? AlbinoFerret 09:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines

As always the Wikipedia guidelines should be the basis for your answer. The controlling wikipedia guideline at this time is WP:MEDMOS because this article has Health sections in which the word will be used. MEDRS states:

• Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, these two groups do not by themselves represent the target audience.

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

• You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words (for example, consider using "kidney" rather than "renal").

The controlling Manual of Style guideline for Wikilinks is WP:SPECIFICLINK. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been a few comments on closing I will address it here. I fully intend to have this RFC run for some time while comments are still being added. Other editors that have been away from WP for a few days should get a chance to comment. The minimum is a week, but I think longer might be a good idea. When commenting has stopped for a day or so is when I will seek closing. Since there is controversy on the topic and clear consensus doesnt look possible in all sections I will go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and request it since I started the RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have requested closure since the RFC stalled about a week ago. link AlbinoFerret 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Answers

Please leave comments on the questions under the question sections below. If you leave them in the Discussion area they may get lost among people talking. AlbinoFerret 16:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A. Should we use Mist?

• No. Not at all. Ever.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• No This should be used in no locations on the article, it is used nowhere else and is confusing. AlbinoFerret 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also a good time to point out that if we link to the Mist article the first thing the reader will see is that mist is "small droplets of water suspended in air". As Quack is always quick to say, e-cigs don't release water vapor, so this is a spectacularly dumb word to insist on.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• No Mist never made sense. It is called vapor in general parlance and in a significant number of reviews, and aerosol in the rest, with a few using both terms. I can't recall anyone ever calling it "mist". --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Mist is the neutral wording. The terminology "vapor" is used in the marketing strategy for these products."[3] According to NPOV, we should write from a neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, "mist" is not neutral wording. It's incorrect, misleading and idiotic wording that isn't used anywhere except here. "Vapor" is used in most of the RS, the media and almost everywhere else, not just "marketing".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that mist is a synonym for vapor[4][5] and the text must be written from a WP:NPOV? QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If "mist" is a synonym for "vapor" why not just use "vapor", like everybody else in the fucking world does? You can't seriously be arguing that "vapor" is POV, can you?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So let us use effluvium instead - it is after all just a synonym.. and thus by the same measure even more NPOV since no one uses it, and no one favors it. Never mind the inaccuracy, the lack of sourcing etc.... just as with mist. --Kim D. Petersen 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How about "zephyr"? I kinda like that. "No adverse health effects of e-cig zephyrs have ever been found despite desperate data mining by the pharma industry and its lackeys..." Sounds good, right?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. Vapour is the usual term and it is the term that a novice reader is going to understand. Referring to it largely or exclusively as "mist" is only going to confuse them and beg the question, is this "mist" the same thing as the "vapour" they read about everywhere else? Moreover, just because the term is used in marketing doesn't automatically exclude it from use here - that would be absurd. However, we can if necessary cover all bases by saying something along the lines of "a mist-like aerosol, usually referred to as vapour". Barnabypage (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Call it "A mist-like aerosol, usually referred to as vapor" in the lede, then "vapor" throughout the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, Mist is not an accurate term for this, a "mist" is more akin to nasal sprays which are much larger droplets which usually describes a water-based fluid, so the term is not approprioate here. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus, opposed only by one editor with a long history of tendentious editing, POV-pushing and edit warring, that "mist" should be removed from the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please wait for a sufficient amount of time to pass before seeking a close. Zad68 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I intend to wait a bit Zad, I want a lot of comments on the topic and each question. I will wait at least a few weeks and when it starts to not get responses its time to close. Then I will go to the admin board for closing. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes mist is acceptable as an accurate term, it's certainly more accurate than "vapor". Zad68 22:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How is mist ("small droplets of water suspended in air") more accurate than vapor, which is what actually comes off the coil when you hit the fire button? And why do you want to use a word that nobody else in the entire world uses? Almost every RS says vapor. We should use vapor.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes agree with Zad Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Looking at the definitions for both words shows that Vapor is the correct word to use. Arzel (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Mist is acceptable I do not find most of the "yes" or "no" suggestions here to be admissible in making a decision, because most of them are giving personal opinions without reference to any reliable source. QuackGuru presents a source which discusses this and related terms, and because in that answer a good source is cited, I am persuaded that mist is acceptable. A thesaurus is not a reliable source for determining what words are equivalent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the source BR? The source refers to it as an aerosol throughout, vapor twice and mist never (although it refers to Propylene glycol mists in quotations). This source does not support the use of mist, Mist is not used in any source, the only options are the more technical Aerosol and the more Colloquial Vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I quote another source that is part of the discussion section? The answer is Yes. Please read the quote. Thanks. "Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[6] QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is one of the few that directly refers to the emissions as mist, once. It refers to them as an aerosol a dozen or more times and as vapor 3 times. Mist is not a common word nor an accurate word for the visible emissions of e-cigarettes. SPACKlick (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"These are likely to be due to exposure to propylene glycol mist generated by the electronic cigarette's atomizer. Exposure to propylene glycol mist may occur..."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mist is not acceptable The NIH source Bluerasberry cites above calls it "vapor", and the only use of "mist" is when they quote another source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No I cannot find any significant use of mist for the emissions of e-cigarettes in either medical or layman's literature. The technical definition of Mist explicitly relates to water so it isn't accurate either. Mist is the compromise that's worse than either of the original options SPACKlick (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After 6 days of discussion we have 8 No and 3 Yes. Arguments for No are that Mist points to water which is misleading. Mist is not commonly used in either technical or lay sources additionaly this novel term will lead to confusion. Mist is technically inaccurate. The compromise "mist like" to descrive the aerosol was proposed. Arguments for Yes are that Mist is neutral whereas Vapour is POV (which was disputed and not answered), That mist is a synonym for vapour that mist is a more accurate term than vapour (which was disputed and not answered) and that one source uses mist (which was disputed and not answered). This question seems to have a consensus both by vote and merit but the disputed points are probably what needs addressing if there is a swing for yes. SPACKlick (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - I don't see "mist" in significant use in the sources. "Vapor" appears more frequently. Jojalozzo 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No It's nearly always always referred to as vapour, if that's also more accurate there's no reason to use mist. HalfHat 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Use of mist would be resorting to a word that is used far more rarely than vapor. Oxford's "word of the year" was vape. If editors on Wikipedia are using mist while majority of the rest of the world is using vapor, then Wikipedia would show up as out of step with what is the common word that is most widely used, even by some in the medical and/or scientific community. Gw40nw (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

• Yes, if If the answer to D. does not reach consensus this is the best choice. AlbinoFerret 00:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, the term Aerosol is accurate, not only medically but it is also the accurate term for the physics involved. Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Damotclese: that should really be a No then, because B is to use the word that a particular medical source uses when citing it, and they are not consistent between aerosol and vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes but it should be the case in every usage in the article. In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe One term should be used consistently throughout the article. I expect that medical sources define the right term, but whatever happens, after all close terms are reviewed in one place then only one term should be used throughout the article regardless of the original source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• 'Weak No It would be preferable to have one term throughout. Whatever the source says (as long as we're talking about the same thing). Where a source distinguishes the emissions in a vapor form and in aerosolised form then we may need to refer to sourced words but in general a consensus word throughout would be preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Use one vernacular term consistently per WP:MEDMOS. There is no need to mimic each source individually. Jojalozzo 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No' The goal should be to use the simplest, most widely understood terms possible so WP is as accessible as possible. Only resort to professional terms for the lack of better. And once the most applicable synonym has been chosen, it should be used consistently. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• No' The word ought to stay consistent among Wikipedia editors. If based on an article, then Wikipedia editing takes precedent and consistency matters. If quoting the article, then of course go with what word is used in the quote. Gw40nw (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

• Yes, If If the answer to D. does not reach consensus this is the best choice. AlbinoFerret 00:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is preferred. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, and there already was a previous consensus where editors agreed to use mist (in the lede) with a wikilink to aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to consensus reached in the the agreement, limited to only one sentence in the lede, that delt with both the word vapor and aerosol? If so you are incorrect as that consensus was limited to one sentence. That you broke that agreement by placing "mist" it in selective spots, ignoring aerosol, has me questioning why you are citing it now, I am sure others will to. AlbinoFerret 15:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Another editor acknowledged there was consensus to use mist in the lede. If it is good enough for the lede then it was good enough for the body. If you supported it for the lede then what would be a rationale objection for the body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Except the agreement expressly stated it was not for the entire article, and in choosing to selectively change it you broke that agreement. AlbinoFerret 23:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, consensus can change. AlbinoFerret 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, stick with one term, specifically Aerosol as that is the most accurate term. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No agree with Damotclese Cloudjpk (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia does not need to carry ambiguity into this article. One term for the concept should be used in this article regardless of variation in the original sources. If various terms are used then they should be used while distinguishing various concepts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak No as above. Single term is preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Use one vernacular term consistently per WP:MEDMOS. Jojalozzo 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No The word ought to stay consistent among Wikipedia editors. If based on an article, then Wikipedia editing takes precedent and consistency matters. If quoting the article, then of course go with what word is used in the quote. Gw40nw (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

D.Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)

• We should use Vapor exclusively, because that's what the intended audience (as well as the users, manufacturers and most studies) use.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor should be used because it follows the WP:MEDMOS guidelines not to use jargon. AlbinoFerret 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor is also the most widely and comon term the general reader of average reading ability will understand. The definition of Mist is a fog, or something created naturally by the environment. The definition of aerosol is a liquid spray under pressure. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But you previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agreed to one instance in the lede, but you have done it all over. You broke the agreement that was only for the lede by replacing vapor all over the page, except you left Aerosol alone. But the agreement was to opt for mist over both vapor and aerosol in the lede. This is an ownership issue WP:OWNER. Secondly your repeating wikilinks to other pages has added to the very possible confusion to the general reader. Situations change, and this one has because of your breaking the agreement. Hopefully this RFC will come to consensus and we can move on to other matters. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Other editors disagree with you. User:Cloudjpk disagreed with your changes.[8] User:Johnuniq disagreed with your changes.[9] User:Yobol prefers to use the term aerosol because that is what the sources says.[10] More explanations about what is behind all of this can be found here. More details about the term aerosol are explained in the body. The article says "The aerosol produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you want to delete this sentence from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I want to delete it from the article. The vast preponderance of RS call it vapor, as do all the users, all the manufacturers and the majority of academics. Just because you want to insist on a word that suits your obsession with "particles" (actually droplets) and have found a source that supports that is no reason to stop using "vapor". This is not a medical article. It is an article about a consumer product and should be written for a general audience.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They are free to comment on this RFC, as are all editors. If you have additional comments to make, make them in the Discussion section. AlbinoFerret 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Vapor should be used, except possibly in a section describing the intricates of how it is both an aerosol and a vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 01:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor should be used exclusively throughout the article, as it is the correct English word per OED: [11]. I do think it's important to have a brief technical discussion about the exact nature of vapor as an aerosol/mist, but it should be confined to a small section. Mihaister (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mihaister right at the top directly under the introduction of the word itself is the note informal. You are saying it is appropriate to use what is clearly identified as an informal definition in an encyclopedia article? Zad68 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED "informal" applies to vape, not vapour. I agree we shouldn't be talking at length about vaping and vapers in the article but that doesn't exclude vapour (which is the source of vape, not vice-versa, of course). Barnabypage (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Informal or not, "vapor" is the accurate and appropriate English word used by scientific and lay sources alike. In contrast, "mist", which is currently used throughout the article, has no verifiable support either in the scientific literature or news media. Mihaister (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mist can be used in this article rather than the vapor. Mist is neutral and a synonym for vapor.[12][13] Editors can read the section Ultrafine particles which clearly explains vapor is inaccurate. Aerosol can be used where the sources use the term aerosol or we can sometimes use mist. The section name can be mist. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the majority of WP:MEDRS sources use the "inaccurate" term vapo[u]r [14] as opposed to the "accurate" aerosol[15]. (and if you use the filter for "review"s only - then you get the same result). --Kim D. Petersen 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. "Mist" is just odd (makes me think of Keats). "Vapour" is problematic because of its overlap with a promotional use. I think we'd do better with something more neutral like "emissions", which also has reasonable support in good sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol is the most accurate term which should be utilized exclusively, it is medically correct (and we are talking about a drug delivery system here) and it is also the correct term which describes the physics of the drug delivery system. Damotclese (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and commenting in the RFC. But e-cigarettes are not a medical device. A drug delivery system would be a medical device. E-cigarettes are a consumer product that to date has not been approved for any medical purpose, and the article is not in a medical category. AlbinoFerret 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "Aerosol" is the accurate term. But I'm OK with the compromise term "Mist" felt to be more neutral. "Vapor" is inaccurate and misleading. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor should probably be used as it is the term used in most general-audience writing about e-cigarettes. A paragraph explaining that the physically correct term would be aerosol should be added somewhere near the top of the article if it is not already there. More general terms such as 'emissions' as mentioned by Alexbrn above could also be used, particularly in sections where it's desirable to reinforce the notion that vapor, aerosol, mist, etc. are all terms for 'the matter that leaves the e-cigarette during active use'. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol is the correct scientific term. "Vapor" is misleading and should be mentioned as the common term. A vapor is a substance is entirely in the gaseous state. Mist is not entirely scientific, though more so than "vapor". The content of the e-cig plume contains condensed droplets of propylene glycol and/or glycerol. Therefore, the plume is not vapor. Glycerol has a boiling point of 290°C / 554°F, Propylene glycol 188°C / 371°F. Inhaling significant amounts of these as a vapor could cause severe burns. If "vapor" is used, the article should clearly note that it is not the scientifically/engineering correct term, and scientifically, the plume is actually considered to be an aerosol. Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol for technical descriptions, mist is an acceptable accurate, more reader-friendly term for word choice variation. Zad68 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor Aerosol is defined as a liquid released under pressure. This is not a spray of liquid. Vapor is the correct term. There seems to be an odd disconnect that because that is the term used by the manufacturers, then we cannot use that term because it is simply a marketing ploy. There seems to be an active effort to go out of the way to re-define the issue as to avoid using terms used by the manufacturers. Arzel (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol Cheng 2014 clearly states that the emission is an aerosol, not a vapor. As vapor appears to be the incorrect term, no matter how commonly it is used, we should be using the scientifically correct term (noting that the common term is vapor, and that it is incorrect). Yobol (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. But that goes against the WP guideline WP:MEDMOS as the article is to be written to the general reader and not like a medical journal. You might also be interested in this definition. The words used are starting to come into the english language disctonaries, Oxford is a very good one. AlbinoFerret 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe when we have a choice of being "readable" and being "correct", I think "correct" wins out. In this case, that means we should use "aerosol". In the case of "renal" and "kidney", both are equally correct, and we should use the more easily comprehensible word; in this case, one is correct, and one is incorrect. In that case, we should always use the correct word. Yobol (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we can say it's technically an aerosol, or a mist, or an iguana, or whatever, and then note that most people call it vapour and use that term in the rest of the article. That way we give the technically correct information and produce an article that's comprehensible to the lay reader - win-win. (I don't have an opinion on whether it is strictly speaking a vapour or an aerosol or both or neither. I only know that almost everyone uses the former word - apart from anything else, it's the word they're going to search for if they want to know about the emissions from an e-cigarette.) Barnabypage (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer not to use the scientifically incorrect term. Like I said, I would be up front in that discussion that the common term is "vapor" so that there is no confusion ,and then explain why we use the word aerosol (that it is the correct term). However, that the incorrect term is commonly used shouldn't mean we should use an incorrect term commonly as well. One of the goals of an encyclopedia should always to be correct. Where there is a common misconception, it is our role to correct that, not to propagate it. Like I said, if all terms were equal, I would agree that we should use the common term; however, in this case, the common term happens to be incorrect, so we should not use it. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary seems to think its correct, read the usage sentence in the link. I put more stock in a well respected dictionary than I do in a a review or two on the correctness of a term. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, being in the OED doesn't mean it's correct, just that it's in common usage. Barnabypage (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer academic sources such as the peer-reviewed literature over general use dictionaries for scientific information. If you prefer dictionaries for scientific information, there really isn't much else to say. Yobol (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mist or aerosol Mist is an acceptable term in layman's language while aerosol is probably the most precise term. Vapor seems to be a marketing term, and as a marketing term, it is an incorrect use of the scientific term "vapor". I fail to recognize a source which defines "vapor" outside the context of marketing use but I have seen a source which uses "aerosol" and "mist". I hesitate to suggest "aerosol" only because it is not a layman term, so for that reason, I say that "mist" is acceptable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand where this belief comes from that vapour is purely a "marketing term". Yes, it is used in marketing, but so are "battery" and for that matter "e-cigarette". Here is "vapour" used by Tobacco Control, the UK National Health Service, The Lancet, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, the BMJ, Public Health England, and JAMA:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70495-9/fulltext

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6882

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1812953

Other scientific/medical sources do use "aerosol" and "mist" as well, of course. But we shouldn't exclude "vapour" on the fallacious grounds that it is only used by marketers. Barnabypage (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know this is going to be unhelpful but I'm pretty even between Vapour/Vapor and Aerosol. Vapour is the common term for the emissions and also the common term for persistent colloidal suspensions visible in air. Aerosol is the technically correct term for colloidal suspensions of droplets in air. My preference is in the lede and any emissions section to make it clear that the "Vapour" is technically an aerosol and then use vapour throughout as it makes the article more accessible to use the lay term. SPACKlick (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After 9 days there are an equal number of people who find aerosol and Vapour acceptable as the unique term and a greater number of people find vapour unacceptable than aerosol, so on purely VOTE! aerosol has the consensus. I think the article would be perfectly acceptable using Aerosol rather than Vapour although it may make some passages slightly less readable for those with only a passing interest. SPACKlick (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Vapor per MEDMOS. Jojalozzo 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• We should use vapor, as this is what general readers will understand best and are most likely to use themselves. There should be a short section explaining that what leaves the device is technically a mist, and the water soon evaporates converting it to what is technically an aerosol (or whatever the words are that physicists prefer). Maproom (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor, i think mist is too associated with water vapor. Aerosol is unnecessarily scientific. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol because that is what it is. Informally sometimes called a mist. It is not vapour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol I guess as no one wishes to use the simpler term mist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Use vapor to describe molecules in the gas phase. If those molecules condense to form particles suspended in the air, they are an aerosol. A mist is a specific kind of aerosol comprising solvent droplets (typically water) as opposed to suspended solids (e.g. dust). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor is the most common vernacular term, even if not strictly pertaining to the precise scientific usage of the term. Aerosol is a confusing term, as in common usage, this term refers to aerosol cans (e.g. air fresheners) and their spray. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• 'Vapor is, to date, clearly the most widely used term. If there were scientific consensus and all scientific opinion pieces only used a word other than vapor (i.e. aeresol), then Wikipedia would be wise to revisit this topic. As it stands now, most people use vapor, Oxford dictionary made 'vape' its Word of the Year, and scientific articles do make use of the word vapor in at least some instances. Gw40nw (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used?

• No This practice is confusing. Wikilinks are fine, but they should go to the page of the same name as the word. AlbinoFerret 00:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hell no that would be a dictionary of thesaurus function, not really something dcone when talking about an electronic drug delivery mechanism. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, definitely not Wikilinks should link to the correct page, not one cherry-picked to suit an agenda. If you say "mist" link to Mist. If you mean "aerosol" say "aerosol" and link to that. No deceptive links.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure There are articles for mist, aerosol, and vapor. Only one of these concepts is best for describing what comes out of an electronic cigarette. I would not want disputes here to carry over into those articles, but yes ideally, one concept is used here, the name links to the article of the same name, and those articles are not disrupted to make a case here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No When the word is first introduced (whether it's mist, vapor, aerosol or emissions) it should be clarified that it's commonly called vapor but that the vapor condenses and leaved the device as an aerosol and the wikilinking should be done there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Since we should use a vernacular term not a technical term, a link would be confusing. Jojalozzo 02:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Not if consistency matters on Wikipedia and we are trying to embrace NPOV. Gw40nw (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article?

• Yes in the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• No A consensus must be reached here. Only one word should be used in this article to describe the concept being discussed. If multiple terms are used, then each term should be tied to a distinct concept. All sources discussing the same concept will have their term of choice translated into the Wikipedia term of choice when their information comes here. There should not be multiple terms used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" The lede clarifies this matter with the different synonyms. It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. There was obviously a previous consensus for the term aerosol because there was no prior dispute until this recent edit in October. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Work for a consensus that is in accordance with policy not personal preferences. Jojalozzo 02:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia editors ought to determine the term to be used if claim is based on an external article. Consistency matters more than consensus, and consensus ought to be sought always, but if minor opinion is detracting from said consensus, then a consistent term ought to be used and talk page will reflect that there is exhaustive debate over use of that term, but that Wikipedia is on main article page foremost concerned with consistency of the term within that article. Gw40nw (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

I'm not participating in this because I think minor questions of terminology which are very unlikely to confuse the reader are the epitome of trivia, and can serve only to distract from our far more important NPOV disagreements concerning whether inconclusive reviews of smaller numbers of primary sources "contradict" the multiple conclusive, prescriptive, high-impact journal MEDRSs reviews of larger numbers of sources. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, I respect your right to not comment. Sometimes the way words are used makes a difference,and some may be glad that others dont comment. If small issues are cleared up, more time can be given to larger issues. You also have to pick which things are possible to fix at this point in time because of continued argument on even the smallest point. That arguing shouls show you how important it is for each editor to post in RFC's. Every day more research is done. We will see in the long run which side is correct by the available sources. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." At the time he agreed to wikilinking to aerosol and did not have a problem with mist in the lede. Now he wants to change things back to vapor and delete the wikilink to aerosol? Please read the source: "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas".[16] We already had a discussion on this. Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are using a limited agreement for one sentence in the lede to change all instances of the word. This was caused by you constantly changing Vapor to Aerosol even though the source said Vapor. Situations change. When you broke the agreement by replacing vapor with mist in mass you lose the right to say there is an agreement and try and twist words which were part of the agreement. This RFC will hopefully find the consensus on the issue. If there was any consensus here it was limited and now gone because you broke the agreement. Your arguments fail because they go against Wikipedia Guidelines WP:MEDMOS and WP:SPECIFICLINK. 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Other editors disagreed with you.[17][18][19] QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, thats what a RFC is all about. Hopefully we will get the opinions of some editors who are neutral third parties on this. I also hope current editors can come to come to consensus on something. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless—a local consensus cannot decide to use incorrect terminology. It would be fine to talk about aerosols briefly, and to use other terms thereafter while noting that they are incorrect colloquialisms, but the sweeping wording of the voting topics is quite unsuitable. Many problems will go away if we focus on good article content using the usual criteria whereby the page must be neutral, accurate, and non-promotional. I wrote this before the ping above but was called away. I don't think more is needed from me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, While I disagree with you that it is incorrect terminology. I ask, your personal definition of accuracy, or the accuracy of the source? Because we are not allowed to correct sources. I also ask for you to provide a link to the policy or guideline we would be usurping locally with this RFC. As I see it, the guidelines I pointed out apply and they tell us what to do. The questions also include keeping the word the source uses, instead of replacing it all over the article with inaccurate terms like "mist". AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think I might imagine my personal opinion mattered? My edit summary pointed out that the source (Cheng2014) says "aerosol". Also, others have described what mist says so that word is out except as an acknowledged colloquialism, and vapor may or may not be appropriate—sources would settle that (although an acknowledged colloquialism would be fine). By the way, adding a ping like this does not work—the ping and the signature have to be added in a new comment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am not assuming anything, but asking questions. We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR. We are allowed to paraphrase and reform sentences for the general reader and not use jargon as WP:MEDMOS states. Again, I ask you for the Wikipedia guideline or policy we would be usurping locally with this RFC. Please provide it.AlbinoFerret 04:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors can read the section Ultrafine particles. This article clearly explains vapor is the incorrect terminology. AlbinoFerret continues to disagree with what reliable sources say. A 2014 review found "At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products."[20] Repeating what is promoted in the marketing here on Wikipedia that e-cigarettes are "vapor" is bordering on WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to carry on ideological WP:BATTLES. QuackGuru (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous again, much not to my surprise. "Not water vapor" doesn't mean "not vapor". When it comes off the coil it's vapor. It may or may not have partly condensed into an aerosol by the time it comes out the drip tip, but what comes off the coil is vapor.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack,

• We are not allowed to correct one source with another. Thats WP:OR.
• You are no longer debating the merits of this RFC. Posting negative statements about what you think my motives are, that go against WP:AGF, its just not right. This RFC is to see where consensus lies with the questions rather than the endless edit battles where one thing stays for a few hours or days.
• Some sources use Vapor. But vapor is not the only option in the RFC. The option exists to comment on letting the source tell us what word to use. But you have ignored that. My personal opinion is that we should use the word the General Reader is most likely to use. The same word the media uses. While they cant be used for medical claims, they can be used to show us what the common term is, vapor.

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The way I see it is this: the matter emitted by e-cigarettes is likely to be a vapour (i.e. gas below critical temp.) when first leaving the device, which then condenses into an aerosol as it cools. However, as most sources (and the general public) refer to 'e-cigarette vapour', that is probably the best default term to use. A paragraph explaining this somewhere toward the beginning of the article wouldn't go amiss. 'Mist' is not widely used and is a far more inaccurate description; a mention of the term's colloquial use at most I think. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reticulated Spline: Thank you for your comment. The short description at the top does state that the average person and the media use the term vapor. Do you think it can be improved? Also if you meant this as a comment to the RFC questions could you add it above to one of the question sections so it doesnt get lost in the discussion? Thanks again for the comment. AlbinoFerret 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying - I will have a look at the lead paragraph, but won't make any changes until the RfC is complete to avoid further inflaming matters. I shall also add my view to the question section above, thanks. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like one term for the whole article may end in no consensus. If so, there will be no specific term specified for the article because consensus did not exist before except for one sentence in the lede. If C falls to no consensus also I will retry that question alone. Some are answering as if the two are mutually exclusive, and in some ways they are. I should have worded it a little differently. I think I will add a question. AlbinoFerret 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would of requested from editors a first choice and then a second choice. This RFC is clearly malformed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

B, C, and D are all choices. But I did add F in case the other sections, mainly D do not come to consensus because B and C are close. AlbinoFerret 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting: "Oxford Dictionaries has chosen their 2014 word of the year, and it’s vape." [21] -- Mihaister (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pop quiz: what was their word last year? No googling, just do you know? Neither did I. That's about how enduring this is. (For the curious: Word_of_the_year#Oxford) Cloudjpk (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret claims because other editors prefer to use a synonym that using a synonym is OR. How could using a synonym be OR? QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you are tracking my edits. I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist. You previously claimed it was OR and you have not provided any evidence this is any OR. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont remember saying the changing of a word, based on editors wanting to correct other sources was OR. But it is sounding more like it to me by some of the answers surrounding this topic. Its a difficult question, best left to the more knowledgeable, uninvolved editors, at the OR notice board. The question I asked was just that, a question. To gain more information. I also question if you are getting your synonym information from your source or a general usage dictionary. Because a synonym is a word that means the same thing. If thats the case it cant be inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See Electronic cigarette#Ultrafine particles: "The aerosol produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" The synonym you want to use is inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You didnt answer the question. Synonyms are words that are spelled differently but mean the same thing. You source is saying they dont mean the same thing, one is a gas state and one has droplets. Where are you getting that aerosol or mist is a synonym of vapor from? It isnt Cheng he is saying they are different, not the same. AlbinoFerret 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents (Figure 1) invented in their current form by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in the early 2000s.1"[22]

"Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[23]

Please read the references presented. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have not answered the question, let me try and be more exact. What source, be it online or a book that gives information on what words are synonyms are you using to find out that vapor and aersol are in fact synonyms. I am not asking what source in the article says they are one thing or the other. AlbinoFerret 01:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources did answer your question. The text highlighted in black shows the sources are using it as a synonym. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but its not worth the time. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this diff on 14 November 2014 and this diff on 15 November 2014 it appears you did think aerosol, mist, and vapor are synonyms. QuackGuru (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus in the past?

Consensus.

There was a previous consensus for some text. AlbinoFerret was changing the wording back on 13 October 2014. I and User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the change to vapor. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you are still claiming consensus for a generic change of vapor/aerosol into mist. By now you know that this is incorrect or you should lay down diagnosed with a very strong case of WP:IDHT. Your links doesn't provide backing for your claims either. --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back a number of months at least as early as 10 July 2014 aerosol was in the lede (and seen in the body) before this ever become an issue. It only become an issue after this recent edit on 13 October 2014. If there is no consensus to change we shall stick to the status quo according to Wikipedia's WP:CON. Any editor who would try to say there was not a previous consensus for the wording such as aerosol being in the lede should read historical revisionism first. We can't change the history or the facts. This is a truthful account of the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are presenting a narrative here that is at odds with reality. The change[24] that you claim to be the "origins" of this, has nothing at all to do with the conflict over mist/aerosol/vapor.. but was instead a problem with direct copy/paste of sentences from sources. It is the the wholesale change of vapor into mist (or aerosol) that lies at the bottom of this conflict. --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent change[25] was disputed. I provided strong evidence for the previous consensus for the word aerosol before there was any content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought QuackGuru's actions here, and all the disruptive acts in the recent past to WP:AN/I. You can find it here. AlbinoFerret 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[26] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[27] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[28] However, this diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We have went over this art least once. You dont seem to get it. I explained why you are wrong yet you still persist. Here is the answer I gave yesterday on why I went to the OR board. I never claimed anything, I simply asked a question for information. Here is what I told you yesterday:

"I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another."

I changed the word because of a copyright issue, the whole sentance was a close copy of the source, I should have changed it more. We have gone over this quite a few times in the past. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed it to vapor but what did the source say? You changed it because you also preferred the synonym vapor over aerosol. Why would anyone think synonyms could be an OR issue? QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

All this discussion of synonymy is a side bar. The subtle differences are what matter in this RFC. I skimmed through some 600 Papers from a Google Scholar search (numbers after [] are total results) for ["e-cigarette" mist]737 , ["e-cigarette" aerosol]721 and ["e-cigarette" vapor]908 & ["e-cigarette" vapour]871, Mist: Almost always implies water which gets us back to the lie (that i'd love to see the origin of) that it's "just water vapour", very rarely used in sources discussing e-cigarettes although sometimes in relation to fog machines. Aerosol: Technically the most accurate description of the emissions as they are inhaled, any vapour has condensed to suspended droplets. This term is used reasonably often in the literature although it is commonly, but not mostly IME, couched as e-cig vapour is an aerosol of... Vapour: Technically incorrect for emissions as inhaled, Although the production of the emissions is by vaporisation not atomisation or aerosolisation. This is by far and away the most common term used in non technical literature and edges out Aerosol as the most common term in technical literature. The answer seems clear to me. Why is this even a discussion? SPACKlick (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by QuackGuru were inappropriately moved here from another section above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor.QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Your post was moved here to Discussions because it was off topic in a section about closing, please keep all comments in discussion areas. I will remove the section header so the closing comment becomes part of the RFC question area so you dont think its an area to post in. AlbinoFerret 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And the lede is accurate, nobody is questioning the sentence introducing the emissions should refer to them as an aerosol commonly known as vapour. The question is whether in the article we should use the technical term "Aerosol" or the common parlance "Vapour" The medical literature uses both, the industry literature uses both. One is the technical term for the emission, the other is the common term. Mist is neither. There's no POV or neutrality issue in it. It's Common vs Technical. SPACKlick (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the general reader could care less is the "technical" term is used and would be shaking his head at calling it mist. AlbinoFerret 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Local consensus versus broad consensus Wikipedia wide.

Is this discussion pointless? Can local consensus intentionally use incorrect terminology against a broader consensus? It is odd anyone would want to use incorrect wording when we know what the correct wording is. On another page, there is precedent on Wikipedia to use the word cannabis rather than the commonly known name marijuana for the cannabis (drug) page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, "No". Long answer, the incorrect terminology is only incorrect according to you, according to the vast majority of sources, the vast majority of readers and a majority of editors this is the correct term. It's not a vapour in the sense a physicist would mean it but it is a vapour in the commone paralance. Google define: Vapour and the first result is;

noun
noun: vapour; plural noun: vapours; noun: vapor; plural noun: vapors; plural noun: the vapours
   1. a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid. "dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour"

Cannabis is a very common name for marijuana and I'd suspect the consensus reflected that. You are in a minority and the majority here have good grounds for their consensus. Accept it and move on to improving the article SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas."

Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157. According to the best available evidence aerosol is the correct terminology in accordance with WP:MEDRS. I will continue to expand the article. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, QG, Aerosol is the technical term for the colloidal suspension the emissions form, none of us has denied that. The suspension, however, is commonly known and is known in most of the reference literature and is correctly known as a vapour. This is how words work. What they're used to mean, they mean. Give it up already. Also notice I said improve, not expand the article. It needs careful pruning/rewording for readability and coherency more than expansion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I just pointed out above the MEDRS source said "but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’"[29] We know it is commonly known as vapor but you haven't provided a MEDRS source that says e-cigarette is correctly known as a vapor. There is a difference. You previously said "the lede is accurate".[30] and the lede does say the term vapor is common but inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You can point to that one MEDRS source all you like. The article should be written in common parlance not technical language except where such language would introduce error. The article should, in the lede, point out that the emissions are technically, by the definitions used by physiscits, an aerosol formed when a vapour condenses. However throughout the article the common term should be used. Almost every source in the article refers to it either exclusively or in majority as vapour. Just because you've got a closed minded idea of what the words should mean and what sort of article this should be doesn't make you anywhere close to right here QG. SPACKlick (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed "Short answer, "No". Long answer, the incorrect terminology is only incorrect according to you, according to the vast majority of sources, the vast majority of readers and a majority of editors this is the correct term." But you are mistaken and Wikipedia is not a vote. User:Yobol articulated that "Cheng 2014 clearly states that the emission is an aerosol, not a vapor. As vapor appears to be the incorrect term, no matter how commonly it is used, we should be using the scientifically correct term (noting that the common term is vapor, and that it is incorrect). "[31] The correct term is better and we should not use the incorrect term just because it is common.[32] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just one MEDRS source; there multiple sources saying the same thing: the accurate term is aerosol. And this is not merely a technical distinction: the ultrafine particles in the aerosol create health risks that would not be posed if the emissions were merely vapor. The argument that common parlance should be used has been been made in the past; but the argument that WP should use correct terms seems at least as compelling, particularly when the incorrect term is misleading. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry it is merely a technical distinction. In the common usage vapour is any visible collection of a substance floating in the air (it's slightly more restrictive than that but not a lot), whether that substance is in a gaseous or droplet form. This is definitionally a vapour on the common usage. It's worth noting that "ultrafine particles" are not part of an aerosol which is made of droplets. any particles would be contaminants to the intended aerosol and I also would love you to show any MEDRS that shows that there is any health risk of e-cig emissions as an aerosol that wouldn't be present if it was inhaled as a vapour, ignoring the additional health risks due to the temperature of the vapour if you like. There is nothing misleading or incorrect about vapour. The state of affairs is that "E-cigarettes vaporise e-liquid which condenses into an aerosol commonly known as vapour" When discussing composition of emissions the word Aerosol will likely be more appropriate at times. but when discussing the emissions in general the sensible term is the one most readers will understand and recognise and most reliable sources use to refer to it which is vapour. All this being said I'm not so anti-aerosol If we're talking preference out of 100 the Vapour/Aerosol/Mist is 55/45/0 SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"any health risk of e-cig emissions as an aerosol that wouldn't be present if it was inhaled as a vapour"; sure AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease Cloudjpk (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your link is to an article about traffic emissions - solid particulates - so it's irrelevant to this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my link is to the AHA scientific statement. Neither traffic nor solid is even mentioned. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry what part of that do you believe shows that the physical vapour wouldn't have the same health effects as the physical aerosol? It shows that particles in the airways are bad and that combinations of particles and physical vapors are bad. But it doesn't compare the 2. SPACKlick (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the particles are the only risk! But as to the question, is there any health risk of the PM itself, the answer is yes, and particle size is critical. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We must surely call it what it is; an aerosol (or informally a mist) we cannot call it a vapour because it is not one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is the sum of inaccurate all human knowledge. Accuracy is the most compelling argument thus far. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."[33] -- User:Jimbo Wales. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, the idea that we can base what we write on what most people think or how most people speak is a most insidious and damaging trend for WP. Taking the attitude, 'vapour, schmapour, gas, aerosol, plasma, it's all the same to most people' is not how WP was intended to be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin:, the disagreement is about what the correct word for what it is, is. This is basically the same argument which periodically comes up with the culinary definition of vegetable. While many culinary vegetables are technically fruits they are accurately referred to as vegetables under that definition. While this emission is physically an aerosol (having condensed from a physical vapour) the common term for matter of that form is a vapour as seen by the fact that it's referred to as vapour in most MEDRS, the vast majority of RS and by most people here. So while I'd agree that at some point in the article we should discuss in detail its composition as suspended droplets forming a vapour, when merely referring to it we should use the term that conveys accurate information best, which is vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The fruit/vegetable analogy is not a particularly good one, fruit are vegetable so, although 'fruit' may be a more precise term, 'vegetable' is not actually incorrect. Also there is a much longer history of that usage. Electronic cigarettes are a new invention and we have the chance to get the terminology right.

Vapour is incorrect and misleading (I do not know how significant the difference is in this case; it could turn out to be critical). As has already pointed out, the lead says, "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor[2]". The term vapour seems to originate from product marketing, I presume because it sounds more attractive to consumers than other words, and this word then seems to have been adopted by medical sources. The word 'aerosol' is not exactly unknown to most people and I think it is generally understood to be some kind of misty thing, so there will be no loss of comprehention for the average reader if we used the correct word.

What then is the reason to use 'vapor'? Is it because marketing sources use this word, to attract new users new to the product? Is it just because many medical sources use this word, probably because of its promotional usage? Neither of these seem justification for continuing to use inaccurate and misleading terminology in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though e-cigs are a new invention, the public referring to aerosols as vapour is not. Most suspensions in air are referred to as vapour. Heck, most people refer to the visible condensed water aerosol above their kettle as water vapour or steam and that's an aerosol. The common usage has always been that these visible suspensions are a vapour. For this reason I disagree that vapour is either incorrect or misleading. It is a less technical terminology and that is why the article should make clear (I would suggest in the lead and in the section on composition of the emissions) that the vapour is a condensed aerosol.

The lede is incorrect to say "Aerosol(mist)" because almost nobody refers to the emissions as mist and most people use mist for fine wet sprays based on water. Mist is neither technically nor colloquially accurate. I also dispute that vapour originates from product marketing, vapour originates from the labeling people give to the emissions and other emissions of the type. If people are going to continue making that claim they should back it up with some sourcing.

Most vapours, so referred, are technically aerosols. Most aerosols, so referred, are pressurised releases of liquid which never give the impression of condensing. Vapour is what most, subject naive, English speakers would call the emissions and so it most accurately conveys what they are. It's the word that people use to label this type of thing and this specific token of the type. To use a different word in the name of "accuracy" would make the article convey less accurate information to the general reader and that is the reason for using the term vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that to the vast majority of non-scientific readers aerosol is a spray that comes out of a can, and they would be quite puzzled (or - worse - misled) by its use in this context. In any case, the "aerosol/mist commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapour" still seems to me the best compromise between rigorous accuracy and comprehensibility. Whether or not it was originally a marketing term it's clearly more than that now. Language changes, some words have more than one meaning, and it would be quite persuasive to simply argue that vapour is what this particular aerosol is called.

BTW it would be interesting to know when "vapour" was first used - the original Ruyan patent does use both aerosol and vapour, as I recall. Barnabypage (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

the "aerosol/mist commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapour" still seems to me the best compromise I disagree with this and once this RFC has been closed that sentence needs looking at. I personally feel an aerosol, which is commonly referred to as vapor. conveys all the reader needs to know. However this RFC Isn't about that sentence it's about the body of the article.

Steam

I can understand that most people call the condensed vapour over their kettles 'steam' and that that is tecnically incorrect, but 'vapour' is a much less commonly used word and, in my opinion, does not have a generally understood non-tecnical meaning. Of course people who are interested may (having missed the disclaimer in the lead) try to find out exactly what a vapour is and we had better hope that they do not use Wikipedia or any other authoritative source to find out because, if they do so, they will be mislead.

Luckily we have a term that is technically well defined and probably understood by the general public just as well as the word 'vapour' and that word is 'aerosol'. If people think that what you breathe from an EC is like what comes out of an aerosol can they will not be far wrong, only the droplet size may be wrong. On the other hand, if they understand, or look up vapour they willfind the wrong thing. If they do not understand either word, or do not care, then we can call it whatever we like but WP is surely aimed at those who at least wish to be informed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but vapour is pretty common usage. Search Vapour in google images and you find almost exclusively pictures of water vapour condensed into an aerosol. Look Vapour up in a dictionary and the definition "A substance diffused or suspended in the air" is of the visible aerosol. The most common use of Vapour I can think of is Vapour Trails as the alternate name for Contrails Which are vapour condensed into an aerosol (or solid suspension where it's cold enough for ice). The OED defines water vapour as "In popular language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air in the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of gaseous water and air. [...] In modern scientific and technical language, applied only to water in the form of an invisible gas."

On the other hand to the common public an Aerosol is almost exclusive a substance dispensed from a container by propellant under pressure. Similar to vapour google images is telling, mostly the spray cans and a couple on cloud formation talking about actual aerosol. Simple English Wikipedia article "When they say aerosol most people mean an aerosol spray can or the spray it makes.". Aerosol is misleading for the majority of readers. Vapour is not.

TO use aerosol for this, outside of a specifically scientific and technical setting is Jargon. I mean really, when most of the sources and most of the people and most of the dictionaries agree on a word for a thing in the real world, what reason could there be to use a different word?SPACKlick (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand we have vapor and aerosol. These articles are both quite clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think either of us is going to convince the other and we have both stated our views. My real concern is the way that popular 'information' is slowly becoming fact through WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we're unlikely to convince eachother but I disagree that this is about popular information, it's merely about common language. Either way, It would be good to leave this RFC to an outside closer at this point.

Moved back from archive.AlbinoFerret 11:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump to prevent archiving before closure. It's currently sitting at Number 9 on the Requests for closure board. RFC has been open 37 days at this point, request for closure has been open for 26 days. I think it is unlikely it'll get closed before christmas. SPACKlick (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR accusations

The material was reciently added and is either consensus to remove them, or no consensus that they remain per WP:NOCONSENSUS. AlbinoFerret 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording to be removed is in the E-juice subsection and says "With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution.[78]" AlbinoFerret 03:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How many brands of e-liquid have weight loss or erectile dysfunction drugs added? Most? A lot? Or almost none?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost none. See www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide verification for your claim according to the source per WP:V. Where does the source verify the claim "some"? QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The way the article is phrased now implies "many". This is not true, so the wording needs to reflect the fact that most liquids do not contain any drugs except nicotine. Right now it's misleading.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of a different word that is sourced? Since you did not provide verification for your claim "some" then it was WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I clarified it is "With different types of devices,..." according to V. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement should probably not be in the article at all, as per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require "multiple" exceptional sources and the burden of proof for that lies with the editor(s) seeking to insert the claim into the article. Furthermore it certainly should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice (see WP:ASSERT).Levelledout (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Digging in the sources of Grana to find some mudd, QuackGuru? This is ONE ELIQUID casereport... Not multiple as "with differnt types of devices".--Merlin 1971 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the full report but the abstract gives no clue as to how many - if any - the drug was found in. Is "various" sourced? I have never seen any liquid advertised as containing medicinal drugs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even happy with mentioning that e-cigs can be modified to administer cannabis, to be honest. Firstly to the best of my knowledge they can't; secondly, as purpose-built cannabis atomisers can be easily bought, why would anyone bother? Smacks of POV-pushing really.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not right to continue to oppose text from a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is wrong. E-cigs cannot be modified to vape cannabis. For hash you need a dry herb vaporizer. For cannabis oil you need a special oil vaporizer. Both of these are freely and legally available, so not only is it not possible to modify an e-cig for that purpose, it's also pointless and a complete non-issue.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The OR was restored. The part some failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure... You have restored YOUR quality edit... ;) Btw: it was ONE company (E-Cig Technology) which sold ELiquid with tadalifil in 2010. ONE in 2010 - They have been formally warned by the FDA and, as far as i know, something similar never happend again. Your wording "some cases" means "more than one" - this is untrue!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording "some cases" is unsourced IMO. Please provide verification for the word "some cases" according to the review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This has no place in the article as it is WP:UNDUE weight and close to the 5 year mark we are supposed to be using per WP:MEDRS. So far there is no consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 23:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Cervellin, Gianfranco; Borghi, Loris; Mattiuzzi, Camilla; Meschi, Tiziana; Favaloro, Emmanuel; Lippi, Giuseppe (2014). "E-Cigarettes and Cardiovascular Risk: Beyond Science and Mysticism". Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis. 40 (01): 060–065. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1363468. ISSN 0094-6176. PMID 24343348.

The source is from 2014 and there is no consensus to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is citing something that happened in 2010. It should not stay as there is no consensus to add it. If by some crazy chance someone agrees it should line after it should read "The review cited the study "Analysis of electronic cigarette cartages, refill solutions, and smoke for nicotine and nicotine related impurities" that found one manufacturer, CIXI, manufactured the cartridges." AlbinoFerret 23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That proposal is OR and also unnecessary in-text attribution. You should not be conducting your own personal analysis of the review. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, I am attributing the findings to the study they appeared in, it is not original research. But it doesnt matter, the edit needs to be removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS AlbinoFerret 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It could even be broken up "The review cited the study "Analysis of electronic cigarette cartages, refill solutions, and smoke for nicotine and nicotine related impurities". That study found one manufacturer, CIXI, manufactured the cartridges." AlbinoFerret 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We are citing the review not a study. Only sourced text from the review is verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The study is also verifiable, and becomes usable because of your use of the review. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Were are not using a study that is not MEDRS. We can only use the MEDRS source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The study is MEDRS, and it has been given weight by its use in the review. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Removal There is no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS for keeping this edit diffdiffin the section below line 177, that was recently added before the protection. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Remove Clearly another case of WP:IDHT, where QuackGuru is advancing his POV and WP:FRINGE theories. The consensus here is clear: this statement is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. Mihaister (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal No consensus for the WP:REDFLAG changesLevelledout (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. We are using different reviews for different claims. We are not using a study to verify any claim. The study is cited by the review but the review does not explicitly mention the study itself. Therefore, the proposal above was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Remove This is a rather clear example of a cherry-pick, that ignores reality and the balance of sources. It really shouldn't be necessary to have this poll, but unfortunately QG is not cooperative or seeking consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Remove Clear POV-pushing, by trying to make out that this is anything more than a one-off. No consensus to keep it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No specific proposal has been made to delete any specific text because the diff shows me making a minor change. The diff provided above by AlbinoFerret does not show any text was added. So editors want to delete something without specifying what they want to delete. The comment above was "There is no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS for keeping this editdiff that was recently added before the protection." This editdiff does not show any text was added. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want specifics its this edit diff below line 177 with the wording

"With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution.<ref name=Cervellin2013/>

Is that specific enough? The language is easily found and the discussion above is clear what is being discussed. AlbinoFerret

The wording has been changed and that text was not added this month. That was added a while ago but all of a sudden you want it deleted it? QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That wording was placed 4 days before the protection, with no discussion on its addition in an unstable page. Shall I provide a link to previous discussions on the topic of removal of two week old material by Zad that you originally removed and agreed with its repeated removal? AlbinoFerret 02:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment AlbinoFerret is changing his comment to a different link after editors comments. It appears editors are supporting deleting sourced text without knowing exactly what was the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above clearly sets forth what wording was at issue. AlbinoFerret 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? Have you never given a wrong link? And he did it with strike-out in the preferred way according to WP:REDACT. I'm rather curious as to what you are trying to say here... it should have been obvious to you that it was the wrong diff in the first place. --Kim D. Petersen 02:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You claim "This is a rather clear example of a cherry-pick, that ignores reality and the balance of sources." Right? So if we balance the text with other sources we can keep it then. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Let's have a look at how much WP:WEIGHT this source actually has. Then let's look to see if the idea that e-cigs are being used to administer these drugs is widely mentioned in literature or if it's just your WP:FRINGE view based on what a single manufacturer did four years ago.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The text is sourced to a 2014 review. There are different types of e-cigs according to the review. E-cigs are also used as medical devices too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The review is extremely poor quality; the authors appear to think e-cigs are a form of smokeless tobacco. Where are e-cigs licensed as medical devices? Source please.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The review is high quality. Where are e-cigs licensed as medical devices? "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product [28,29]."[34] QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the review is very visibly poor. Smokeless tobacco products? They don't even contain tobacco. Where are e-cigs licensed for delivering erectile dysfunction or weight loss drugs?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't seen you defend the WP:WEIGHT here, despite it being the most expressed concern. Your whole argument seems to be "it is verifiable", but verifiability is not the end-all-be-all of wikipedia, it is only the first tier for information. The second tier is to present verifiable information according to the prevalence in reliable sources, and that is the concern that you should address. --Kim D. Petersen 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are not used just for vaping. There are different types of e-cigs that are used for other purposes such as to delivery drugs. This is non-controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Name a type of e-cig that's used to deliver drugs, because it's not really non-controversial at all. I'm not aware of ANY e-cig licensed as a (non-nicotine) drug delivery system. Are you?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Once more you are not addressing WP:WEIGHT. Please do. --Kim D. Petersen 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I already did. "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product [28,29]"[35]

When some countries use it was a medical device that is not a minority view. E-cigs used as vaping is only one use. There are other uses that can explained in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem, because only "several" countries do so, thats more than one but not many. So again you have a weight issue. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not take the bait and confuse issues - this section is about the weight loss/erectile dysfunction drugs. --Kim D. Petersen 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That doesn't address what this section is about. How about addressing the WP:WEIGHT issues regarding the weight loss or erectile dysfunction drugs - instead of something entirely different? --Kim D. Petersen 04:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The same source says "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."[36] Being used as a “drug delivery devices” in several countries is not a minority view at all. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Again you are not addressing the WP:WEIGHT concern that this section is about. Please stick to talking about the weight loss or erectile dysfunction drug issue. --Kim D. Petersen 04:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are being as drug delivery devices which may contain ingredients such as erectile dysfunction in several countries. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all. Can you find a source for this claim?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained the same source said "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."[37] QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The drug in question being nicotine. There is no country that licenses e-cigs for delivering cock enhancers or weight loss drugs, and you know that perfectly well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Once more: Please address the WP:WEIGHT of this issue. --Kim D. Petersen 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. QuackGuru, you want to include a very minor issue in the e-liquid section. Why do you think it's important enough to be added to such a small, sparse section? Give a reason please, not just "I have a reference".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to address the WP:WEIGHT issue or not? Why do you think it's worth mentioning that a couple of brands added drugs to the liquid, when 99.9% of brands do not do this?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a couple brands, but one brand as the study the review used shows. AlbinoFerret 15:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Remove The article should be primarily concerning itself with e-cigarettes as a product category, not with clearly anomalous flaws of a tiny minority of products. Creepy-crawlies are found in supermarket salad bags from time to time but I doubt that editors over at the salad article bother with such incidents. Barnabypage (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal - QG needs to stop POV pushing and listen to other editors. -A1candidate (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus needs to be assessed before this is ready for the PER phase. Please reactivate once the discussion has been assessed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Either way this is removed by the current discussion. There is either consensus it be removed. The opposite of no consensus because of one or two comments would have it removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS as it was added reciently before the protections, and there is clearly no consensus to have it remain. AlbinoFerret 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Society and culture.

I would like to add the following to Society and Culture:

• In the United-States, the vaping community and small businesses fears that the proposed regulations by the FDA (2014) concerning electronic cigarette products will impede innovation ref and will only benefit the tobacco giants and the pharmaceutical industry by creating a financial burden that specialized, independent companies will not be able to afford, driving them out of business. ref.

TheNorlo (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That URL comes up 404, can you check for the right one? AlbinoFerret 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why it doesn't work... there it isTheNorlo (talk)

Looks like a nice sourced addition, it might be better in the economics section. AlbinoFerret 15:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include that text it must be balanced with this text:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

Uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing on Electronic cigarette have deemed this source reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Quack, you don't get to say what "must" happen. Secondly we have quite enough from Grana/Glantz already. It's not a very good paper and its use in this article has gone beyond excessive; it's ridiculous. I will not support citing it yet again without a very good reason, and this is not one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They are on completely different things, and notability is not something the RS board decides. Secondly, this is about regulation and has no place on this page. Legal stateus on this page iis a summery, its already big enough. AlbinoFerret 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeeaaahhhhh...... I don't really see how it balances anything. We were talking about the perception that the vaping community has about the proposed FDA regulation, I don't understand your point. TheNorlo (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't have a point; he's just POV pushing again.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. First of all, there is no "have deemed this source reliable for the claim" consensus at the WP:RS board, and secondly almost no "Uninvolved editors" commented there, thirdly reliability doesn't mean that it passes WP:WEIGHT, or that it must be used. --Kim D. Petersen 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support The text is supported and TheNorlo's wording is good. I think Economics may be a batter place for it, but it should be in the article regardless of location. Additional wording QG suggests should be brought up in a separate section to gauge consensus. AlbinoFerret 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is a definite issue that's getting a lot of attention. Quack's suggestion is unrelated and should be considered separately, if at all; it's not well sourced.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support with reservations I agree with Quack to some extent here. The problem is that both the Grana source and the Vice source are pure opinion, no science involved, no objective truth and thus not a good idea to include such a partisan opinion without appropriate balance. However Quack's proposal does not provide balance against Vice's assertion, it discusses a slightly different issue. A better sentence to use would be from [Saitta]: "Obviously, these products need to be adequately regulated, primarily to protect users." Thus I would support something like

"One review argues that some degree of regulation is required in order to "protect users". However according to Vice, the e-cigarette community and small e-cigarette businesses are concerned that a 2014 FDA regulation proposal would stifle product innovation and result in an unfair advantage to tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical industry."Levelledout (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Vice.com is a publisher, the content is in Motherboard magazine, and its a news story that quotes sources, it is not an opinion piece of the writers. AlbinoFerret 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with reservations I am having trouble understanding why vaping culture and those who speak for it and those who are compelled to speak against it, insist on making the Electronic Cigarette article page the place where the debated points on usage, including perceived risks, needs to be appear. I have proposed on talk page a split that would separate content regarding "information about vaping" from content that deals specifically with an electronic cigarette is. I have other concerns with how this addition is worded, but they are entirely secondary to the larger issue that these type of points need not appear on the main article page for Electronic Cigarettes. I observe that such additions only fuel an ongoing debate that is very prevalent on the talk page and that has spilled over onto the main article page in a way that shows the overall content is poorly organized. Gw40nw (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So... We agree then. I have no problem adding the text to economics instead of society and culture. Can I add the text to economics without creating a nuclear reaction that will get this article locked? Quack can find a section to introduce is Grana (again!) claims. Are we cool? Here I go... TheNorlo (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There should be balance not one-sided content. I think you should include the following too per NPOV: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

QuackGuru (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem balancing the text if you think it is biased... But seriously, I do not see how that text balances mine... They are 2 completely different things. None of them balances the other out. And on a side note... And I know that it is cited by Grana (the end all be all) but the fact that totally wicked drafted a petition and that vaper signed it is hardly a concerted effort by all of the vaping industry... But anyways. I don't oppose you writing that, but I don't see how it balances the other, completely unrelated claim. And it surely has no buisiness in the economic section. TheNorlo (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that what was added is not related to what Quack wants to add. He is trying to mix apples and oranges. There is not one big e-cigarette industry but thousands of small businesses. What you added is not about cigalikes, Quack's is, and its about a minority of the industry. If Quack wants to add something he is more than welcome to start a section discussing it to see where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 14:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of claim

Currently the article says this:

"Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this shows that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths."

The evidence shows no such thing; all it shows is that some non-smokers have tried e-cigs. Trying an e-cig - which may not even contain nicotine - once does not equate to becoming a nicotine user, so this claim is inaccurate and alarmist. It should be removed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is technically true on the literalistic face of it (unless we assume that all the e-cigs that non-smoking youth have ever tried were nicotine-free). But I agree that the implications of the phrase after the semicolon are not supported by evidence and it therefore ought to go. Barnabypage (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is jut another ridiculous argument to promote the idea that vaping leads to smoking... This is an unsubstantiated claim. And while we are at it, let me make an unsubstantiated claim: Smoking is a gateway to vaping, not the converse. TheNorlo (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, should this claim be removed?

• Support - It's just alarmism; trying an e-cig does not mean you're going to become a "nicotine user", never mind start smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Reject The text can be tweaked if you think it is not accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let's tweak it by removing everything after the semicolon.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The evidence shows no such thing: Tobaccosmoking is on a new low although e-cigs has skyrocket.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support We should remove any unsourced text. AlbinoFerret 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I have no issue with stating useful, accurate and genuine usage statistics. But tabloid style statements intended to shock and create fear have no place here. Of course "some" youth have tried e-cigarettes, "somebody somewhere" in the world has done just about anything. The entire paragraph needs to be removed and replaced with something specific and accurate that truly reflects the multiple sources we have on this. We need actual numbers that quantify both age and usage, not vague statements about "some young people".
  Levelledout (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose looks like it is supported by a good ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just speculation. There is no evidence that anyone has initiated "nicotine use" through e-cigs. The claim is based on a cross-sectional study which the review's own authors admit do not, and cannot, support causal inferences like the ones they immediately go on to claim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - A new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine refutes the claim that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support with stipulation I support removal of this text from the main article on electronic cigarettes, but strongly feel all language on usage ought to be shortened to one or two sentences at most and another article page created that deals with "information on vaping" or however editors of that page wish to title such an article. The first line in this Usage section isn't stating, with clarity, what type of electronic cigarette devices have grown in sales from 2008 to 2012. And so a claim like the one in this sub-point is also not making that distinction. Therefore this whole sub-topic is rambling and lacking coherency within the overall topic of "electronic cigarettes." I have proposed a significant split on the main article page as I believe these sub-points are side debates to the main topic of what is an electronic cigarette. Gw40nw (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support unsourced speculation at this point. SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The text is clearly sourced. This is getting disruptive. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. See here. See here. According to FergusM1970: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill."[38] We should not allowed undisclosed paid editing (or recruitment) to interfere with editing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This is going to take time to work all this out. More editors might be banned. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/

As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes. "[39] How many times must I explain this? User:AlbinoFerret claims "We should remove any unsourced text." But the text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New review by AHA

The American Heart Association has just released a new review on the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation. They find that "available literature suggests that the use of e-cigarettes may be an effective alternate smoking cessation method." I think this merits inclusion in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And a new Cochrane review finds that (outdated and inefficient) e-cigs are twice as effective as patches, and that dual use does not reduce likelihood of quitting. About time this article started reflecting the actual evidence and not just "concerns".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the following text is removed from the lede:

"The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.[5] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."

• Support - With two reviews confirming efficacy this text is no longer accurate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Agree, although we should mention that research is still limited as mentioned by those 2 studies and should be continued.TheNorlo (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Reject The data is still inclusive and unclear according to the weight of the sources. The AMA says "In conclusion, available literature suggests...". That is not conclusive when the evidence "suggests".[40] The Cochrane review said "However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards."[41][42] QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

But there's also a review in Circulation, which you and your friends have spent months telling us is the best journal in the field. Make your mind up: is Circulation an RS or not? Because you can't have it both ways.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, a supreme amount of Grana citations have been added because at the time it was the latest available information and was published in a very well respected cardiovascular journal. Yet when that exact same cardiovascular journal and another review from Cochrane (an official partner of the WHO) comes out with newer evidence, suggesting that e-cigarettes are in fact effective as a smoking cessation of tool, those claims are apparently inadequate and should be rejected outright. Seems very odd to the say the least.Levelledout (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems Quack thinks a Circulation article saying "Stan Glantz has concerns" outweights one saying "the evidence suggests...". I disagree, and I'm pretty sure WP:MEDRS does too. Unless Quack can prove that Cochrane and the AMA aren't reliable sources I suggest we disregard this objection.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - We should take the AHA and Cochrane reviews into account -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support We need more high quality sources like this. AlbinoFerret 11:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Cautious support per TheNorlo. We certainly shouldn't say that the data is conclusively positive on cessation, but in light of the latest two studies it may be time to give less emphasis to its inconclusivity, and remove the sentence from the lede. We could if necessary say something that neither affirms nor questions efficacy, like The use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid continues to be studied. Barnabypage (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that phrasing.TheNorlo (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should at least say "Evidence suggests e-cigs are effective as a smoking cessation tool, although the small scale of existing trials means further study is needed."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have enormously strong feelings about it but I think that might be a bit too detailed for the lede - how about Evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool? Barnabypage (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be happy with that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's play the devils advocate here, The Quack is coming and will probably quack every thing up. How about Tentative evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool although further research is warranted?TheNorlo (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be all that swayed by what Quack wants. He's just one editor with a bad reputation, and if he doesn't like the consensus that's just the way it goes. So far everyone except him seems to want the latest reviews to be accurately represented.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not automatically follow any editor. But when a review has language that limits conclusions it should be included in some form. Perhaps "E-cigarettes have been shown to be effective as a smoking cessation aid, but more study is needed." We need to come up with some specific wording. AlbinoFerret 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either Barnabypage's wording or yours. What I wouldn't be happy with is it being excluded from the article when speculation is allowed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - AHA and Cochrane are high quality sources. The article should take the reviews into account.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support with some reservations - Yes I think the wording as it currently stands should be removed in accordance with the latest available evidence. However I think it needs to be replaced with something such as:

"The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation. Further evidence is required in order to clarify their efficacy relative to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies."
Levelledout (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That would do nicely, although the evidence is pretty unequivocal that they're much better than NRT.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If its going into the lede it should be simple language and very easy to read. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I write in a certain style and did try to make it as clear and simple as possible. But if you can simplify it further, by all means feel free to do so, I have no issue with that.
Levelledout (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: How about "The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" ? AlbinoFerret 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that reads fine and retains all the content of the original, I support it's inclusionLevelledout (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Cochrane review is here [43] and concludes "There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk."

So yes there is low quality evidence that electronic cigarettes help with cessation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. So the statements about there being no evidence need to be removed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making our point for us Doc James, I guess we have consensus then.TheNorlo (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

'Oppose See below Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and Comment I see no reason for why an article on what is an electronic cigarette includes information regarding smoking cessation. That is a side topic. All items in the lede that are in second (third and most of the fourth) paragraph are a sub-topic and ongoing debate, or controversy, that has caused the main article to be labeled as "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Surely other pages that speak to information on vaping (benefits and risks) can contain that type of content. To include it here is visibly leading to a battle where NPOV is constantly in question because current science and medical information is lacking long term data. So, as an editor, I support removal of this content from the lede with larger concern of the entire article on electronic cigarettes. I have since proposed on this talk page a significant split of the main article's content to distinguish, for readers, between information on what an electronic cigarette is, and information on vaping (benefits and risks). Gw40nw (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific changes

The specific changes proposed are this wording be removed

"The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.[5] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."

The following language replace it.

"The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" AlbinoFerret 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support This should be satisfying to any reasonable person and I think it accurately describe the findings of these 2 studies.TheNorlo (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support I can't see anything to argue with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support for reasons already discussed
  

Levelledout (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support The statement is backed up by the citation. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose With what reference to support? This does not appear to be published yet [44] but is in embargo. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

With the Cochrane paper to support it. That's published. I'm trying to AGF here but it looks like you're just reflexively opposing any removal of Glantz/Grana material from the article even if it's been superseded by real science. Please look at the current evidence and work from that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure so Cochrane paper says "the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’" [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the phrasing The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking, More data is needed to compare how effective they are... has been employed. It shows that the evidence is tentative.... but there.TheNorlo (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose See below. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per below, it's annoying that we have the same topic repeated in what appears to be four different sections now. Zad68 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific changes 2

How about change "The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid" to "There is low quality evidence that e-cigarettes help with stopping smoking" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessarily slanting the wording to deprecate the state of the science.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I might be convinced if "low quality evidence" was replaced by "limited evidence". Something like "There is limited evidence that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" But as soon as the AHA statement is out of embargo it will have to be changed. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Earlier proposal What about this earlier proposal that imo encopasses pretty much what the research says: "Although further research is warranted, tentative evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool " (unsigned comment by TheNorlo diff)

I could live with that. AlbinoFerret 00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I could support "tentative" as suggested by AF, but would like to see the size of the effect mentioned as well. It is quite small and we should not mislead readers by suggesting otherwise. See below. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I think the statement by TheNorlo is good enough, and may be a good middle ground. It may not be perfect, but I think we can all live with it. AlbinoFerret 01:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I could go with tentative or limited aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support it's an accurate representation of the source's characterization of the state of the evidence. Zad68 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Zad68 Cloudjpk (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A little less black and white

I think one needs to look at the Cochrane group's own summary of the findings here and be careful not to give our readers the impression that this is the golden tool that will solve all their addiction problems. This would not be fair to them.

"About 9% of smokers who used electronic cigarettes were able to stop smoking at up to one year. This compared with around 4% of smokers who used the nicotine-free electronic cigarettes"

"When the researchers looked at the data on reducing cigarettes in people who had not quit, they found that 36% of electronic cigarette users halved the number of conventional cigarettes. This compared with 28% of users who were given the placebos."

"Only one of the trials looked at the effects of electronic cigarettes compared with patches and this suggests similar efficacy of the two treatments"

So the bottom line looks a little like this: For every 20 people who smoke nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes instead of ones that don't contain nicotine, 1 will succeed in stopping smoking. For every 17 people that take up electronic cigarettes, one will halve their consumption of regular cigarettes. In terms of quitting, they are about as effective as a nicotine patch you can buy at Walgreens for about $2.50 each. And as Doc James has pointed out, the evidence quality for all of the above is low to very low

For the Circulation meta analysis we have, "Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20" Think about what an effect size of 0.2 means. It's two tenths of a standard deviation. Critics of antidepressants ridicule them as examples of worthless, overhyped drugs because they only provide a effect size of 0.3. This is smaller than that.

I would suggest that we stay true to the source and simply state that "There is low quality evidence that electronic cigarettes may be helpful in smoking cessation and reduction, but the size of the effect is small and similar to that of nicotine patches". I don't think you can say much more than that based on these studies. Certainly broad statements that they are helpful is going to be very misleading relative to what our sources say.

We owe it to our readers to accurately convey what the sources say, and not to jump on the opportunity to make statements. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the slow down approach, while speculation filled the article wasnt listened to. I think your going to have a hard time slowing it down now that it has started to swing the other way. AlbinoFerret 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article should reflect the conclusions in the literature, rather than the analysis of Wikipedia editors. We ought not to reflect on what an effect size of 0.2 means or whether it appropriate to equate 9% to 1 in 20. Either the literature does that for us or it doesn't. Formerip (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyways. I have no doubt that the claim that e-cigs are the best smoking cessation device, by a long-shot, will be substantiated by reliable sources in the next year or two, if not earlier, when they stop focusing on crappy product and actually study what vapers use. In the mean time, we have to remove the claim that there is no evidence that ecig have NRT properties as there are some. Even if the evidence is very low. "Very low" and "no" evidence are 2 different things. You guys can do what you want for now, it's just a matter of time until the unavoidable obvious fact that ecigs are better than NRT's will be well sourced.TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP: I think your correct, unless source quantifies what the numbers mean, editors adding meaning to them is Original Research. AlbinoFerret 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that we have an obligation to tell our readers what reliable sources say. Its not about giving comeuppance to those who you feel have not listened to you or making a statement. Its not about "winning". It's about giving people information, that like it or not, they will use to make healthcare decisions. And its pretty clear that what these sources say is that there is tentative evidence that they are helpful, but only to a very modest extent. I hope the three of you will think about that and not try to push in some language that overpromises by mentioning the former and leaving out the latter. It will effect a lot of people. Some of you have personal experience with addiction, as do I. If I were still smoking, I'd want the article to tell the full truth, and not get a message that was prompted by people's anger about not feeling heard in the past and needing a victory. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that is false, but I do lean toward something more along the line of "tentative evidence of a very modest benefit". There are a lot of sources out there, and just because one or two said there is a low level of evidence of a modest benefit, does not make the alternative point of view "false period". The world is full of nuance. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence exists that makes the statement false. It doesnt matter the percentages of proof a small amount of falsehood is still false. AlbinoFerret 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific wording 3

I suggest we remove this wording and all like it. ""The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid." AlbinoFerret 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see changing it to something using the word "tentative". But I don't see it as being something we want to push as established. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This specific wording isnt about changing anything. But the wording be removed while specific wording to replace it is worked out. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should we work out the new specific wording? In a new subsection?TheNorlo (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Removal I support removal while its replacement is worked out. AlbinoFerret 02:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Removal Same here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal We need to come up with wording that reflects the current state of the science.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Working out Specific wording

---

>Please don't support or oppose proposition here, just make a proposition and let's discuss them in another sub-section. <--------------------------------

• Proposition A: Although much research is still needed to establish electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, tentative evidence suggests that they could be used in such a way. ref TheNorlo (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Its a little on the long side, and could be simplified a little. Perhaps "Tentative evidence has shown that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking, but more data is needed." AlbinoFerret 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The only point I'd add is that the "more data is needed" bit is a detail that doesn't necessarily need to be in the lede. What the reader needs to know there is that the results are tentative, so that word should absolutely be in. Exactly why they are tentative and how that might be remedied is perhaps detail for further down. Barnabypage (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

RfC closure

Hi everyone. I've just done an overdue closure of the RfC here. Formerip (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for closing that. and the conclusion that starting out with health effects is impacting the neutrality of the article. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So does this mean we can switch to a more sensible order now?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no consensus for a change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It also means there's no consensus to apply an inappropriate medical layout to an article about a consumer product. The conclusion of the RFC does not back keeping this format and it should be changed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC question was narrowly about whether the article should be changed to conform to MEDMOS, and there is not consensus to do that. It does not mean, though, that the structure of the article may not be changed at all. Personally, I would guess that an RfC about moving the "health effects" section might have gained consensus. I don't see any reason why an editor who wanted to couldn't try changing the order and then fall back into BRD if they encounter opposition. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. The issue is that some members of Wikiproject Medicine are reluctant to see the article as anything other than medical, despite the fact that e-cigs are not a medical product and have no known health issues. I'll certainly try rearranging it, and if there's any opposition start a new RfC.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you know there is going to be opposition maybe try to get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK then. I think we should move the Health Effects section down the article, below at least the Construction and Usage sections, because this is not a medical article. It's about a consumer product with no known health effects. Do you agree?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. People are coming here wondering about the health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what, are you psychic? How do you know what people are coming here to look for?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I also would like to know the source of that statement. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Look at what the media write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Look at what the media write about" fails WP:RS so no, I won't.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well then, look at what the medical literature writes about. If you won't look at the media to decide what the popular view is of what the most important issues are, what will you use? Your own opinion. Mine happens to differ from yours. That's why we use notability standards. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I share your concern as an ex smoker, but we should not overpromise either. Look at what the studies say. An effect size of 0.2 is almost nothing. They will on average do equally well with a nicotine patch according to Cochrane. And much of what is said about e-cigarettes being helpful compare placebo e-eigarettes to nicotine ones, and so are really showing the efficacy of nicotine and not the electronic cigarette format. We have to be honest with our readers about the evidence. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

These are studies using Gen 1 cigalikes with no choice of equipment, strength or flavor, and they still work better than licensed NRT. The latest study by Polosa used Gen 2 devices and found a 36% cessation rate. My guess is that when someone works out how to do a proper study with Gen 3 equipment the cessation rate will be 75-80%. E-cigs work as a cessation tool; at this point, given 700,000 successful quitters in the UK over the last 4 years, only a fool would deny that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then work with the other editors instead of trying to shut things down or place language in it that is easily misunderstand by the average reader. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you all up in arms in the epipen article making the same points.... And that is clearly a medical device but the article actually describes what it's talking about before talking about it's effectiveness, which is health related.TheNorlo (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people come here seeking medical information is not valid reason to insist that the Health Effects section remains at the top of the article. We have no evidence as to what people primarily come here to look at but it is probably safe to assume that some people also come here to look at the regulation and construction sections. In any case what WP:BODY says is that we should take precedent from a similar article with regards to section order. Other articles about similar topics such as cigarette and vaporizer do not have the health section at the top. On a logical basis I really cannot understand why someone would want to force it to the top.Levelledout (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that when you are a health professional everything looks like a health issue.TheNorlo (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a prevalent medico-centric ethos amongst some editors. However there is no established consensus for prioritising medical information over all other information simply because it is medical information. The only established consensus is that the article should follow the structure of similar articles, we need to implement this.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As there is controversy on the medical aspect of eCigs and some readers will want to know risks and benefits from use, why wouldn't a link be made, perhaps in lede, to a separate page that deals specifically and perhaps exhaustively, with all the "maybe" suppositions that are currently permeating this debate? I observe vaping enthusiasts who wish to tout the smoking cessation claims and their adversaries who wish to dispute such findings, plus insert own POV into this type of article. I find all of this to be a distraction to the topic of what is an electronic cigarette, that presents a poorly constructed content page on Wikipedia. I favor splitting off the controversial items to another page (or ten) that allows those sub-topics to be vetted out with their own talk pages and separate debates. I have made a proposal on this talk page to help get this ball rolling. Gw40nw (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We have one already; Safety of electronic cigarettes. Sadly it is, like this article, an unreadable mess stuffed with duplications and tortured syntax. Feel free to help me clean it up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sections Reorder Proposal

It has [been determined] that there is no consensus to use WP:MEDMOS as a guideline to this article or to treat the article as a "medical article". Therefore section organization should follow advice at MOS:LAYOUT which states that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." The e-cigarette article is currently placed in the following categories:

• Cigarette types
• Chinese inventions
• Smoking cessation
• 2003 introductions

Of all of these, Cigarette types would appear to be the most useful since some of them contain section headings similar/equal to the ones in the e-cigarette article. Out of these, the most similar ones to the e-cigarette article are:

• Menthol cigarette - Section order: history, usage, regulation, health effects.
• Lights (cigarette type) - Section order history, usage, health claims, regulation
• Kretek - History, structure, health effects, regulation, international availability

The following article is also similar to the concept of an e-cigarette:

• Cigarette - Section order: history, legislation, construction, ....... , usage ... , health effects

As stated there is no consensus to follow WP:MEDORDER and the only WP:MEDORDER example that comes anywhere close to being similar to the concept of an e-cigarette is "drugs, medications and devices". However key sections are missing from this example such as "construction" and other sections do not really fit the current section headings anywhere near as well as the above examples.

I therefore propose the following section order for the e-cig article:

• History
• Construction
• Usage
• Health effects
• Society and culture (includes regulation)
• Related technologies
• References
• External links

This proposal follows the advice given at MOS:LAYOUT and WP:STRUCTURE, attaining neutrality by following established examples. It also follows the advice given at WP:MEDORDER regarding "progressively developing concepts".Levelledout (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Positions

• Support This makes much more sense. Although really we should remove the category "Cigarette types" because, despite the name, an e-cig is absolutely not a cigarette.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The order is fine as it is. There is no good reason for this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is: The fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hum. We just had a RfC on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we did, and it concluded that "there are not grounds for enforcing the section ordering detailed in WP:MEDMOS."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue with the way in which guidelines have been applied in developing the proposal? Or do you just not like it?Levelledout (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine_replacement_therapy is a much better comparator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. NRT is a medical product. E-cigs are a consumer product.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have still not explained why you think NRT is a better example. E-cigarettes are a consumer device but NRT is a medical therapy and follows WP:MEDMOS, precisely the guideline that it has just been decided there is no consensus to adhere to. Most section headings on NRT are completely different to the ones on the e-cig article. Doesn't sound like a great example.Levelledout (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NRT expressly goes against the findings of the RFC.AlbinoFerret 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a binary proposal, one that we have debated before and not reached consensus on. Why spend effort on this when there are other subjects we are more likely to be able to reach agreement on?

(Comment above was posted but not signed by Formerly98).

Please specifically state your concerns with the original proposal and Bluerasberry's one.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this, support the following counterproposal AlbinoFerret and I discussed this at Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Workable_proposals. We two came to consensus that this was workable.

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

In my mind, these section headings have the "medical" definition. Albino Ferret probably did not have those definitions in mind. I still would support this order. I think this need not be a discussion at all about medical guidelines; for any product in any context, I think this is a good ordering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks entirely reasonable.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better than what we've got at the moment, but why have usage before construction and history near the bottom?Levelledout (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Levelledout The way in medicine, and I would argue the best way, is to first say how a product is used. Currently, this article is presenting a usage section which in a medical article would be called "frequency of use", and in medicine, that kind of information would go in "society and culture". I would like for the usage section (the first section) to say something like "e-cigarettes are plastic battery-powered electric sticks that people put in their mouths so that they can suck vapor/mist/aerosol/cigarette juice as a way to experience the stimulation of nicotine", and otherwise explain to an alien what the things do. History is interesting, but in my opinion and based on precedent of product treatment in medicine - not that I am saying this is medicine - it is most useful to say what something is functionally, then what it is materially, then go on with other topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's the whole point; this is not a medical article. You're also missing the point that a large percentage of e-cigs don't contain nicotine at all, including apparently 96% of those used by Canadian never-smokers (although that's not from an RS).--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970 No one said this is a medical article. I said the first section should describe how and why the product is used, and the second section should describe the product materially. Do you oppose that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really. How about doing that but moving History up between Construction and Health effects?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Bluerasberry having heard the details of your proposal I actually mostly agree with it. The only thing I would still question is the placement of history, I think it has to accepted to a certain extent that this article will look a bit different to a medical article, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. But, bottom line, I would support Bluerasberry's proposal if we cannot get agreement on my idea.Levelledout (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It took quite awhile to discuss this with Bluerasberry before. I think its a good order that is better than what we have at present. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd certainly support changing to BR's proposed order. I'm not 100% happy with it, as detailed above, but it's a lot better than what we have now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats just the nature of agreements and compromise. You seldom get exactly what you want, but you hope to end up with progress and something everyone can live with. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is something I can live with. Nobody who's taken part in the discussion seems to object, so maybe this is something we can ask for a change on.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK fine, there seems to be some consensus developing on this specific proposal so I will put in an edit request shortly if all is still well. A couple of issues though, we currently do not have the kind of usage section that Bluerasberry is proposing so we have two options, someone can make one in their Sandbox by extracting material from the existing text or we start out without one but with a consensus to add it in. Also, where is the existing usage/'frequency of usage' section going to go? I suggest it goes after health effects.Levelledout (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It was my understanding that during the conversation that came up with the order that the current Usage section was ok. I dont remember any discussion on creating sections, just reordering them. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But I dont have any issue with the usage section BR suggests above. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can add a few sentences to the start of the current usage section to say what BR suggests. "Electronic cigarettes are battery powered devices which release a flavoured aerosol, which often contains nicotine, that is then inhaled by the user through a mouthpiece." Something like that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That would seem a bit strange to me, this is two entirely different sections/concepts we are talking about. I think what Bluerasberry was referring to was "medical uses" or "indications", which in the case of this article would be "general uses" since it isn't a medical product. We can say that e-cigarettes are used for harm reduction and unofficially for smoking cessation but I'm not sure what else we can add to that. I'm going to put in a request for an edit now because we need to take some action, but I'd be happy to alter it if this conversation progresses any further. For now I'm presuming there is some tentative consensus for Bluerasberry's proposal, including the adding of a uses section at some point.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Current structure is inappropriate because this is not a medical article. -A1candidate (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Blue Raspberry's proposal. I would have had construction and usage the other way around but it's not a deal breaker for me. Levelled's proposal would still be better than the current mess. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current section order is appropriate for this article as previously explained in the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)'

We don't care what was explained in the RfC. What matters is what the RfC concluded, which is that there are no grounds for using MEDMOS as a guideline.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already given above.TheNorlo (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

With regards to why we need to change it I would have thought the need to follow appropriate guidelines was one good reason. A second good reason is that the current ordering is illogical and talks about concepts before explaining them. I have also yet to hear a genuine reason linked to actual established consensus as to why the health section must remain at the top. Stating that there's no reason to change it is hardly an answer.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC established that there's no consensus to apply MEDMOS and, as this is not a medical article, it's basically just inappropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

(Details edited) Whilst there is still some issues to be sorted out afterwards regarding the Usage section and a possible new section called Uses, there appears to be consensus for the core of Bluerasberry's proposal (detailed in the discussion above and also below). Thus the request is to change the order of the article's sections to the following:

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

Levelledout (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for this. The RFC was just closed as no consensus. Numerous editors commented in the RFC and this edit protected request is ignoring the previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It closed as no consensus but found no grounds for the current order. This is not a medical article and it is not discussing a medical product, so the order should be changed to something appropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate to get in the way of progress here as I see that AF and BR seem to be talking, and I think that's a great thing. But I'm not sure we can call this a consensus as BR's proposal has not been commented on yet by myself, Softlavender, Zad68, Yobol, or Cloudpkj and other contributors to the article who don't have time to spend 9 hours a day engaging in this discussion.

I don't think it needs to be unanimous, but I do think all the recent contributors should be pinged before we conclude that there is consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender isn't a contributor; all she's done is post two links to a crank site. Everyone else outside the MED group is opposed to the current order and as this is not a medical article there really isn't any reason for it to stay the way it is. However constructive comments are of course always helpful.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Softlavender is a contributor. We should not forget about all the other editors who commented in the recent RFC and the previous RFC. This has been debated for a very long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me just quote Softlavender here: "I'm not going to get involved in this article". She is not a contributor. The RfC found no grounds for MEDMOS and no consensus for the medical ordering; it also found that having health effects first does not look natural or neutral.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that this has been debated for a very long time because a group of MED-focused editors are insisting, for no reason that they have clearly explained, that a non-MED article be forced to comply to a MED layout. As the RfC has found that there are no grounds for doing so I would say that the burden of proof is now on advocates of the status quo to give a convincing reason why it shouldn't be changed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done per rough consensus established above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; it was long overdue.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but MSGJ, presumably by accident the subsections "Device generations", "Atomizer", "Power" and "E-liquid" appear to have been moved out of "Construction" and into "Health effects". Could you please correct this?Levelledout (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow one day. No consensus and still the edit occured. Will give User:MSGJ some time to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep a layout that the RfC found had no grounds for being applied. Nobody has supplied any real reason for using the MED layout. This edit reflects that. I don't see what the problem is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There were lots of reason 1) people are looking for health content most often (we see that the coverage of e-cigs is primarily focused on this) 2) so that it follows WP:MEDMOS

There should be a 66% support for changes to occur as is usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked you before: How do you know what people are looking for? There is no reason for this to follow MEDMOS because it is not a medical article. And was there 66% support for using the MED layout in the first place? No. There is no consensus to follow MEDMOS and no grounds to do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just undid the edit but I reverted it until discussion is done on it. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say discussion already is done on it. There was no consensus or grounds for the MED ordering in the first place. It's been discussed ad nauseum and no good reason for the MED ordering has been presented. It was all discussed again yesterday, at length and in detail - a discussion that Doc James took no constructive part in - and it's been decided. This is just disruptive editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been involved in an edit war. 3 reverts. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've raised this at AN/I. I'm sick of the OWN attitude Doc and others bring to this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked the locking admin to undo Doc's final edit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So were is this clear consensus for the "construction" content going first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have looked through the whole thing and I see that User:MSGJ did decide that there was a consensus version. So I have restored that version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After 1 day and after User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus" here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop quoting so selectively. FormerIP ruled that there were no grounds for the order you insist on and that it does not look neutral.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One typically needs a consensus for a change. Where is that consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to impose medical ordering in the first place? You need to accept the fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I have no idea why you can't come to grips with that, but it's making rational discussion with you impossible.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Useage

The next thing we need to discuss is the wording for Usage, and what to do with whats in the section now. I dont have wording for it, and perhaps Bluerasberry or someone else has an idea. I dont know what we will do with whats there now, but one option is to create a subsection, perhaps called Statistics to hold whats in Usage now. AlbinoFerret

But the thing is that Uses/Indications is a completely separate topic to Usage Statistics. I would be happy with Bluerasberry's earlier suggestion of putting Usage (statistics) in a subsection under Society and Culture. Then creating a new section titled something like Uses/General uses with whatever text is required.Levelledout (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Either of these options is fine; I prefer moving this content in a subsection under society and culture. I am not sure what source to use to populate this section, but I advocate that the usage/uses section explain fundamentally what the product does and why it is used. I think this is of broad interest to many people, but in particular, the section should explain the concept of using e-cigarettes to someone who has never seen the product and who is not familiar with the concept of inhaling the output of the device. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, its ok if it is moved to a Statistics subsection under Society and culture. But we need wording to replace it first, empty sections are not a good idea imho. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording

The wording below is a rough draft based on the lede, please make suggestions so it can be improved or make a proposal.

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger devices that look nothing like a cigarette. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not use tobacco. In general, they all have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or in the case of automatic batteries activates it by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

AlbinoFerret 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? -

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

I think it carries the same meaning, but flows slightly better. I removed ENDS because it's really only used by a few ANTZ and certainly isn't widely recognised. It's already mentioned in the lede and I see no reason to overuse it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think ENDS is an antis' term, specifically? IMHO it's actually rather a useful one, though obviously MHO isn't an argument for using it here. :) Barnabypage (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's basically an ANTZ term. The intent is to imply that vaping is just about getting nicotine, therefore why don't we use nice, safe (useless) patches or inhalators? There was a recent article about why vapers should oppose the term; I'll try to find it later (need to sleep now). It is nice to have an alternative to e-cig, which personally I hate but use because it's the common term. PV isn't bad. I like Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System, but that's just because I have a sick mind. I totally hate ENDS though. Vaping is our thing, not the WHO's, and they don't get to decide what stuff's called.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I like that wording, minor nitpicks. "aerosol,^[2][3]" Should be "aerosol.^[2][3]" and I would prefer "aerosol,^[2][3] commonly known as vapor." although we may need to add a source for that claim. We probably also need to specify a source for the last couple of sentences. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted the comma that should have been a full stop but was too lazy to change it. Do we really need an RS to say it's commonly known as vapour? I know, the wikilawyers will be all over me for saying that, but it's not actually something that anyone with a functioning brain could dispute (see OED Word of the Year).--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheng, already in the article can be used to source the last sentences as well as the "commonly called vapor", its #3. AlbinoFerret

Yeah just found the same source as the right one. I say source basically every claim in the article to begin with. It's a controversial topic there should be a source for any claim that any advocate on either side might dispute.SPACKlick (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I take your point and I agree that we should source everything as thoroughly as possible, but I doubt anyone could dispute that it's commonly called vapour with a straight face.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hayden McRobbie, #38 could source the generations and how they look. As well as #31 Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 23:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding! Sorted then. Any comments on this wording? Any suggested improvements? Anyone just not like it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Since Bluerasberry and Levelledout have been involved in this, I think we should give them a chance to chime in. AlbinoFerret

Absolutely. We do finally seem to be seeing some progress at building consensus, rather than people just refusing to agree with edits.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It obviously repeats the lead a fair bit but I think its a decent starting point. I think we need to say something about why the device is used, we could use Public Health England for this which states that: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged, to cut down on smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, or to quit smoking".

So we could say:

• "Electronic cigarettes are used for tobacco harm reduction, smoking cessation, reducing tobacco intake or as a tobacco substitute in places where smoking is prohibited."
  Levelledout (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. While we're at it can we agree to get rid of "to circumvent smoke-free laws"? That's pure POV, because not smoking isn't circumventing a smoke-free law; it's obeying it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah of course, it's blatant POV, might be best to start another section to sort that out though.Levelledout (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• support I like the intent here. I am going to qualify my support. I would like for this to include information about why the device is used. "The device is used for the same reasons that people would smoke tobacco or use tobacco" or "the device is used because... (it is a social custom, or whatever)". There is a sentence saying "Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine". In my opinion, if this is a minority usage (less than 10%?) then it should be noted as a minority usage, or if it is a really small percentage of sales then just included in sales figures. I wish to avoid indicating that this is a typical use if smoking/using non-nicotine solutions is uncommon. The article on drug culture comes closest to what I imagine, but right now there is no smoking culture article like there is for many other concepts in Category:Drug culture, like drinking culture, tea culture, coffee culture, kava culture, and others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Electronic cigarettes are used to inhale a flavoured vapour that usually contains nicotine." I'm rummaging for stats on how many vapers use nic-free, but it's definitely pretty common. I'd say that most "advanced" vapers who use drippers would use nic-free at least some of the time. The "e-shishas" that teens like are all nic-free as well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nic-free usage seems to differ quite a bit among countries. I suspect it's talked about more than it actually happens because it's more likely to be the more vocal, interested vapers with the more advanced tech who do it than the casual, not-particularly-interested cigalike users. Barnabypage (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could always create an article on vaping culture :-) --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is deleting parts of other sentences based on the lede. Oppose. I starting a new proposal without deleting other parts based on the lede. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposal_to_expand_the_lede_without_changing_other_sentences_in_the_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James[46] and others disagreed with the word "emulated". There was a previous discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the lede. If you don't understand what people are talking about please ask them to explain it to you; don't start arguing with them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The above proposal is for based on the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not. It is for the Usage section. Please DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THINGS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. You are not helping the article by blundering around like this; you are just interfering with, and annoying, everyone else.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 opposes changes to the lede for now. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You misread what I said. QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand what you said, because what you said is blindingly obvious; you thought this discussion was about changing the lede because you either did not read, or could not understand, what had been written.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this proposal for the usage section? "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user."

QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It has no advantages over the previous proposal and several issues. Vaping does not have "a similar feel to tobacco smoking". It's very different. Adding "(mist)" is a) unnecessary and b) stupid, because outside this article nobody calls it mist. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is just exactly, and pointlessly, duplicating text which is already in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the point here is that it has a much more similar feel to smoking than, say, using a patch or chewing gum, and that is part of its appeal to some users. Feel may not be quite the right word, and it is certainly psychological feel as much as if not more than physical feel. Barnabypage (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed mist. The word "emulate" was previously rejected. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is not duplicated in the body and we should accurately summarise the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Emulate" was not rejected for this section because it has never been discussed in the context of this section. AF claimed that it was contrary to MEDRS so unsuitable for the lede. As this is for the Usage section, and not about health claims in any way, MEDRS is irrelevant. "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" adds nothing to this section, which is about how e-cigs are used; it is not about fluid dynamics. I do not support your proposal in its current state. I also do not think you are competent to edit this article, for the reasons I have explained at AN/I. I have no intention of having any further discussions with you about any vaping-related article, because either you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can go for WP:BOOMERANG or you are failing, at a fundamental level, to understand why your behavior is an obstacle to progress. Either way, talking to you is pointless. Closing this net; Fergus out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose QuackGuru's version A workable one is already in progress that is only on Usage and doesnt add things that are off topic to Usage such as the word vapor is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where we are on this re-write. Is any of it in the article as yet? SPACKlick (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes in the article, because we're all too busy explaining for the millionth time why this isn't MEDMOS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections 2

There have been ongoing disagreements regarding the ordering of sections of this article. A prior slightly different RfC was closed as "no consensus". A new discussion but not a RfC was open the next day and after a day of discussion. Might be good to have another formal RfC regarding the ordering of the first three sections.

Option 1

• Health effects
• Construction
• Usage

Option 2

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects

Option 3

• Usage
• Health effects
• Construction

Positions

• Option 1 (second choice is Option 3). If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily. The weight we give within our articles should be similar to the weight given in the literature. Also per WP:MEDMOS we discuss "health effects" before we discuss construction or chemical composition of medical devices or medications. As e-cigs are a type of nicotine replacement therapy follow MEDMOS is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:

• Health: 23 Articles
• Regulations: 22 Articles
• Usage: 10 Articles
• Other: 25 Articles

I don't see this "one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily" claim your making to be valid. TheNorlo (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake. MEDMOS is not relevant here because these are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I might be more easily persuaded if there were some actual health effects to include, but what you are demanding is that speculation about potential health effects comes before any information about the actual subject of the article. No. This is not a medical article, Doc. Please just accept that and move on.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to that, e-cigs are not a type of nicotine replacement therapy. They are not licensed as such anywhere. They are not intended as such. Many of them don't even contain nicotine. By this point I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't realize this. The RfC found no grounds to use MEDMOS and as you well know there is not a majority in favour of doing so. You're verging on deliberate dishonesty now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is the standard layout in most journal articles. The Health effects first leads to a POV slanted article as found in the closing of the last RFC on this topic. The previous RFC found no consensus for a medical order with Health effects first. AlbinoFerret
• Option 3. Information about what it is and how it is used is probably the reason most people come to the article, probably because they saw an advert somewhere and were curious about it. Information about what impact it has on health, the risks/benefits, what research has been done on safety etc is probably the second most common reason people come to the article. The minute details of their construction (which could probably be trimmed considerably with no loss to article quality) would seem to be of interest to a much smaller subset of enthusiasts, so it makes sense to bury it later in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, the standard order for articles about consumer products. Option 3, with extreme reluctance, if someone can present a very compelling reason. Not option 1 because it is inappropriate. Doc still witters on about how articles on medical devices should be written. Sorry, that's just WP:IDHT. These are not medical devices and he should stop pushing this bizarre POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 Contrary to the inaccurate wording of the RFC, the majority of editors (7/11) supported the change. The 4 editors that opposed the change either provided inadequate reasons (i.e. "this is a better example") or basically no reasons whatsoever (i.e. "it isn't necessary"). Conversely, detailed discussions, a compromise and a consensus developed between the rest of the editors. Some editors appear to be refusing to accept this consensus. Firstly, a discussion was started on the talk page of the admin that made the protected edit to try and persuade them to revert the edit. That didn't go to plan, so attempts were made to simply edit war the previous order back into the article in spite of consensus. Finally we have this RFC, I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to see this as anything but WP:IDHT.
  Edit: I also refer you to my previous argument which details how the previous RFC found that there were no grounds for enforcing WP:MEDMOS, how the article must consequently follow WP:MOS and subsequently should follow the page order of similar articles, hence my continued support for Option 2.

Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per Doc James arguments. We should be reflecting the majority of the literature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would that be the same majority of literature which generally starts off by explaining construction before moving on and looking at the health effects?Levelledout (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim nailed it anyway. This is a medical topic, because the majority of the reliable sources focus on health, because the reliable sources we use are medical journals, because this is a medical topic. It's a circular argument.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 3 would be a nice compromise from my POV, and failing that, Option 1 as a second choice. I agree with Doc James that most of what one sees in published sources is about health (Yes, Norlo, the reason are regulated is because of health concerns). But I also see the arguments of those who think some description of what these things are for belongs upfront. I don't like option 2 in part because the "

Construction section is so long and detailed, putting it up front turns this article into a buyer's guide, and that's not what we do here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, we definitely should right a separate article about the construction section. Maybe that we could call this new article that details electronic cigarettes "Electronic Cigarette". TheNorlo (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly, "Aspects of Electronic Cigarettes Other Than Those Discussed in the Press and Academic Literature" Formerly 98 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we could create an article called "What the press and academic literature say about electronic cigarettes" and make this one about, you know, Electronic cigarettes.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of these Options See Expanded Options. If Doc James wants to emphasize the medical aspect of e-cigs, we could maybe direct the readers, in the leed, to the (medical) article that actually talks about the subject, i.e. Safety of electronic cigarettes. But he has to understand that this article here is mainly about the devices themselves not about the health hazards related to these devices. Should we talk about the health issues of these devices here, yes, but it should not be at the forefront TheNorlo (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 per review of sourcing, health effects as a topic make up the plurality (if not majority) of reliable sources. It is likely that readers come to the article to look for that information, given the frequency of discussion of that topic in reliable sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV policy to reduce the emphasis of the health effects topic. Zad68 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of search results given above would seem to disagree.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 is best. Option 3 is second choice. Option 2 is not appropriate at all. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Option 2 isn't appropriate, or do you just not like it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the one you favour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Anyway, never mind. By all means, don't give any reason for your position. You don't have to if you don't want to; I was just suggesting it. Feel free to ignore me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1. Saw the notice of this RfC at WT:MED. Option 1 is best because it best mirrors the way this topic is handled in RS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't. Practically every source describes electronic cigarettes first then discusses health issues. That's exactly what the article does with the current layout - it describes what they are and what they are used for before moving on to discuss other aspects. Also non-medical articles have their own MOS, so MEDMOS is inappropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 second choice Option 3 Agree with Zad, Doc James. This is not just another consumer product like cheese or ping pong balls. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is the most logical layout, and the layout that is closest to how WP:MEDRS reviews take on this topic. You need an understanding of what a product is before you get to the description of how/what its physiological effects may or may not be. Assertions that people come here for health information is afaict based on gut-feelings rather than facts. To be encyclopedic we need to describe what it is, before we get to its effects. [nb. imho this RfC should be scrapped - see below, since it is mostly a rehash of the earlier RfC]. (second choice option 3, option 1 is simply silly) --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

That's exactly it: He refuses to accept what happened. The impression I get is he's just going to do this over and over and over again until we all get fed up and give him what he wants. It is not collaborative or helpful. He has no support whatsoever for his claim that these are medical devices and it's time he accepted that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed these are "medical devices". I have said it is a drug. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, what I am holding in my hand right now is a six-inch-long stainless steel cylinder with a whacking great industrial battery inside. Are you seriously telling me that it's a drug?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop focusing on trivia and address the point. This is not about whether you are falsely calling e-cigs a medical device or falsely calling e-cigs a drug. It is about your IDHT issue and refusal to help build consensus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so no dif than for "medical devices". So you are saying that e-cigs are not drugs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are not drugs. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, an electronic cigarette may (or may not) contain a drug, in exactly the same way that a needle and syringe may (or may not) contain a drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree, really.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

File:2014-Nemesis.jpg Does this look like a drug?FergusM1970 * Is that cocaine? I think it looks like cocaine. TheNorlo (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Come on DJ, is a syringe a drug? It can be filled with something infused with drugs and used to deliver drugs, with different attachments it can be used as a one shot water pistol. E-cigs are a consumer product which is most commonly used to deliver nicotine recreationally just like espresso cups are a container most commonly used to contain and deliver caffeine recreationally SPACKlick (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Doc, I added a photo of the device I'm using right now. Please explain to me how that's a drug. That will give us a baseline for further, and hopefully more productive, discussion.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: when all you know how to uses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When all your training is medical, everything looks like a drug or medical device. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) But that's Doc's problem and he should stop trying to make it ours. He needs to accept that there is no consensus to adopt MEDMOS, that the RfC did not go his way and that progress was being made until he started edit-warring and IDHT. Ideally he needs to walk away from the article. If it's drugs he's interested in he should go edit Nicotine.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC) An e-cig is a drug in the same way that a bottle is a drug. You can use a bottle to drink water (which btw is not a drug) or you can use a bottle to drink a hefty amount of GHB before going dancing at your favorite electro-douche rave. That does not mean that a bottle is a drug. TheNorlo (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I seriously can't believe that after the progress we were making yesterday he's managed to reduce things to this mess. Article locked again, pointless RfC taking up everyone's attention and Doc, having been confronted with the thorny problem of explaining why a device that's 90% identical to a flashlight (and might actually have been made from one) is actually a drug, nowhere to be seen.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) For fuck sakes!!! Where's this rfc page thing.... What a waste of fucking time TheNorlo (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I think I confused it, sorry. You should state your preferred order above, under Positions.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Oh! I thought it was on one of those special wiki pages. Got it. But I have to say that I preffer the 6 possible arrangement table below. TheNorlo (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer it if people would make some attempt to improve the article instead of spouting nonsense. "E-cigs are a drug similar to caffeine." Jesus.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Since when did "Not needed" mean "Not true"?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have concerns that there is an efforts to de-emphasize the discussion of health effects even though this is what the majority of the popular press concentrates on and thus our readers are likely looking for. The evidence for health benefits are not nearly as positive as those within this billion dollar industry would like so maybe this is not surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Go look at the article on Cigarettes. Health effects is in section 11, despite being what the majority of the popular press concentrates on. Can you give a reason why e-cigs, which carry maybe 1% of the risk associated with smoking, should be so radically different?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, it is equally possible that people would be looking for info on the many aspects of e-cigs that aren't covered in the popular press, for precisely that reason. If someone has read about "mods" and wants to know what they are, they're not going to find the answer in their newspaper or on TV. Barnabypage (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Its always best to understand exactly what makes up a device before going into issues with it. There is no way to tell what a general reader is looking for. Its just as possible that some people are interested in the construction of the device because they like hardware and how things work. Those looking for health effects will easily find it in the contents box. Since its a consumer device it should follow the listing of other consumer devices like it, like Cigarette that place construction above health effects. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, WP users (like myself) are likely to come to this page to broadly answer, "what exactly are e-cigarettes?" which includes how they work, how people use them, how prevalent/popular they are, how safe they are, whatever wasn't satisfactorily covered after a conversation or media mention or news report or blog post. As a general encyclopedia article, it should provide all of this information, just as it would for any other device: intro, history, how it works, usage, problems with, the usual. Why not put History first, that is common, and a well-written history section is frequently extremely helpful in WP articles. Otherwise, Option 2 2 or 3 seem...normal. Putting Health Effects first isn't functionally terrible as long as there aren't too many sections to scan in the menu, but seems to be emphasizing that Health is the most important aspect (if so, um, NPOV...), when it is really just one aspect of this mechanical device. To make sure health effects get their due, making sure the section is at all readable is probably the most important thing, not where the link goes in the menu. In all seriousness, take a look at jackhammer, clear and straightforward. --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• The 5-4 against statistic in the wording of the RFC is innacurate:
• Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
• Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)

Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote. We do not determine consensus based on raw vote counts. Zad68 14:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell Doc that; he's the one who (falsely) claimed there was a majority in support of the MED order.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to abstain from this RFC because my preferred option isn't there (Option 2 is closest) I prefer Construction, Health effects, Usage. I believe that telling people what the thing they're reading an article about is first makes sense. Then most people will want to know the effects of it and fewer people will want to know how they're used. Using current heading titles I strongly favour Construction, Health Effects, Usage, Society and Culture, History, Related Technologies. SPACKlick (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option X Same here, my preferred order is not mentioned in the arbitrary choices of option above. See below. TheNorlo (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think this RfC is frivolous. It seems to be based on nothing more than Doc's belief that e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine", which is manifestly wrong. I just had a quick scan through the first five RS used in the article. Caponnetto et al refer to them as "devices". O'Connor refers to them as "devices". Cheng refers to them as "devices". Saitta et al refers to them as "devices." Even Grana/Glantz, which is a very controversial paper indeed, calls them "devices". I do not recall seeing them referred to as "drugs" in any source, either general or medical, ever. Doc's argument for applying MEDMOS is wrong. That's really all we need to know.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument that a plurality of sources discuss health therefore health goes first spurious. The plurality of articles being about health means we should give more weight, and therefore likely more article words to the health discussion found in RS on e-cigs. It doesn't mean we should make the article less informative by talking about the effects of them before describing them. Also, as others have pointed out, most sources that discuss the health describe the devices first.

Expanded Options

There are 6 options for the order of three sections, it seems silly to consider only 3. It might be best for consensus to see what order people rate them in. Please add to the relevant column your initial, linked to you as a user, for each of the 6 options SPACKlick (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Option	Preferred	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	Oppose
Construction, Health effects, Usage	S		TN A	F			Ts
Construction, Usage, Health effects	F TN A Ts	S
Health effects, Construction, Usage				S			TN A TsF
Health effects, Usage, Construction							S TN A TsF
Usage, Construction, Health effects		F TN A Ts	S
Usage, Health effects, Construction			F	A			TN S Ts

Wow. My question here is, why are we limited to three section heads, and these three in particular? In my opinion, Construction isn't very useful a section, what makes more sense is a Types section organized like this:

Types (with one para overview: various generations, basic similarities and diffs)

Basic components (or Operating principles, or Basic technology, or similar)

Generation 1

Generation 2

Generation 3

Related technologies

That set-up is more functional for this topic, at a glance it informs: "there are several types/generations sharing common technology, plus other technologies doing similar things." It also clearly perpares for breakout articles, for example, when Basic components has a dozen subsections, it's probable time for a separate article on components. --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree but for the purpose of this RFC I wouldn't want to propose changing the section. The construction section is intended to deliver the above information, we can deliver it differently but for the above table consider it those chunks of information, however they end up formatted. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand. My real compound question, then, is, does this painful process actually ever work? Does this series of convoluted arguments and RfCs and invoking of past consensus actually produce results? In three months, with spring in the air, will page protection be removed from a briskly written and informative, conflict-free e-cigs article? Is there any real value for me to stick around in the process, as someone who came to here for info, was disappointed, and stayed to try and help? I have no doubt that the people who have contributed to this page in the last couple of days could turn out a fantastic article in just few hours if they chose to actually collaborate...but will they? In the next weeks? Months? This is the question... --Tsavage (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not really so far because the time of protection has been to short. It has a better chance than people just doing what they want, that wont last till sundown. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of honesty I'll remind everyone that the majority are not opposed to this change. Let's not stoop to making up our own facts, eh?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to sleep and then came back to realize that WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TheNorlo (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Its Groundhog day!!! AlbinoFerret 03:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We were working yesterday on making the construction section better.... I guess that will have to wait until this ridiculous waste of time is settled. No point in talking reorganizing the construction section now..... You know, the section that actually explain what Electronic Cigarettes are!!! Funny how Electronic Cigarette sounds like the name of this article. Or am I dilusional and the article is actually called Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes TheNorlo (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheNorlo: The section will need to be improved regardless of the order. This RFC should not get in the way of us improving the articles content. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But see how I am not working on improving this section right now because of this rfc? Doc James is disruptive. TheNorlo (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

He is, but unfortunately nobody at AN/I seems interested in looking at him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Italic text

I would like to make one comment on my responses in the table. While I would prefer one order, its not always possible. This article needs to be edited as a group and we as editors should make reasonable compromises for the sake of getting things done if the choices are both good. Thats why in the RFC I said I would prefer #2. Sometimes its best to have something that you can live with instead of fighting for your ultimate goal so that progress can be made. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree Formerly 98 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrap this RfC

Doc James has put forward this RfC because he claims e-cigs come under MEDMOS. His justification for this claim, stated here and at AN/I, is that e-cigs are "a drug, similar to caffeine." Devices made of metal, plastic and glass are not drugs, so his claim is clearly invalid. However he attempts to get round this by claiming that "A cup of drug is a drug, A atomizer full of drug is a drug, A syringe full of drug is a drug". This leads to his position that an e-cig does not actually become an e-cig until it's filled with nicotine-containing liquid. If it's filled with nicotine-free liquid, according to Doc, it does not become an e-cig.

Extended content
This is utterly bizarre and leads to only two possible conclusions. Firstly, Doc believes in sympathetic magic and thinks a steel tube becomes a drug if you put a drug in it. Or secondly, Doc is deliberately misrepresenting what an e-cig is in order to claim that the devices themselves, rather than only any nicotine content, are drugs.

This is simply a crude use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, by claiming that any e-cig that doesn't have the characteristics he wants it to have isn't an e-cig at all. In reality E-cigs are not medical devices, as has been clearly stated by the EU, FDA, WHO and Health Canada. Nor are they drugs, because they are manufactured objects made of plastic, glass and metal. These manufactured objects are not mystically formless things that only become e-cigs when filled with nicotine-containing liquid; they are e-cigs from the moment they are assembled. Just as a rifle remains a rifle with the magazine removed and the chamber clear, an e-cig remains an e-cig even if the tank is empty. The devices are not drugs, similar to caffeine or otherwise. They are recreational products that can be (but are not necessarily) used to deliver recreational drugs, and they do not belong under MEDMOS any more than a Meerschaum pipe does. Doc should accept the facts and work to improve the article as it is, instead of trying to force his preferred rules on it by using misrepresentation, stonewalling and WP:IDHT.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support Of course. What is mind boggling is that we are not saying that the Electronic Cigarette article should be free of an extensive health section. No one is saying that. But since there is no consensus to treat this article has a medical one..... It should not be treated as one. It should be treated has a regular article. TheNorlo (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Just simply weight in and walk away to give others a chance to do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that I don't understand. thanks TheNorlo (talk)

That's OK. Neither did anyone else.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support An RfC on the order of three of the six current article sections I find...bizarre. If the reason is to put health first, I think Health Issues as the first section would be confusing to readers by giving it unusual and unwarranted emphasis. And if it's relevant here, e-cigarettes are clearly not drugs, they are little machines, electromechanical devices, whatever: health issues are one aspect because of their usual nicotine use, but their design and operating principles are independent of any drug use. IMO, this RfC doesn't make sense and is a time-waster. --Tsavage (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

One can even ask the question; is wasting time the main goal of this RfC? TheNorlo (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeing any determination to improve the article, given how he started an edit war that was pretty much guaranteed to get it locked again.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy scrap - Per FergusM1970 amd TheNorlo. -A1candidate (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, this vote is out of order Its nonsensical to have a vote on the subject "we shouldn't have a vote". One can only expect that anyone who who vote yes in the RFC will vote No here and vice versa. What are you trying to accomplish here? Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But the thing is we did have a vote, and it didn't support Doc's MED template. So now he wants to have another vote, on exactly the same thing. Is this like the EU, where we keep having referendums on the new treaty until everyone gets fed up and votes Yes?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As for what I'm trying to accomplish, it's to knock this pointless time-wasting on the head and bury it behind the chicken coop so we can get on with the urgent task of making the article comprehensible.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, this vote was done already. We already recently had a no consensus vote for basically the same reasons. Are we really to expect a different outcome? The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie. TheNorlo (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for closure So far Docjames has wrongly claimed that a majority of editors opposed the original change (the minority of users that did in fact oppose it mostly did so with WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments), tried to persuade the editor that made the protected change to revert it, attempted to edit war the original order back into the article. Then when all of that failed, still refused to accept consensus and started an RFC in yet another attempt to get the change reverted. This of course involved notifying WP:MED of the RFC in an attempt to get backing for having the Health Effects section at the top of the article. Seeing as this is a clear-cut example of WP:IDHT, I think the only reasonable thing to do would be to close this RFC.Levelledout (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support Starting an RfC on (almost) the same issue as a just closed RfC, because the results do not fit what you want, is an attempt at WP:FILIBUSTER. Now instead of progress based upon the earlier RfC, we have to wait (considering the time the last RfC lasted) more than a month to get on with improving the article. There was no consensus for a WP:MEDMOS approach - deal with it, and let the editors discuss first what the sensible approach is instead of this bureaucratic nonsense. This is not what RfC's are for. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support I might as well note my own support, in case anyone's counting. This RfC is basically a rerun of the one that just closed. That RfC found no grounds, and no consensus, for the order Doc wants. There is no reason to suppose that this has changed, and nobody has presented any evidence that it might have. Given that, asking the question yet again is pointless. Kill the RfC and let's do something constructive instead.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest folks The "last RFC on this subject was closed 24 hours after it opened, and this early closure appears to have been a deliberate strategy to declare a "consensus" before most of the editors who would oppose it became aware of it. The fact is that we have a large number of advocates working on this article who are here 6 or more hours a day fighting for their cause, while more typical editors drop by once or twice a day tops, because this isn't the only article they work on. This is not a healthy thing. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: Lets not be dishonest the RfC i was talking about is Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Ordering_of_sections, which i think you know well, and it was closed on the 17th of December and started on the 26th of October - which is more than a month. --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not true. The last RfC was open for nearly eight weeks and concluded that there were no grounds for using the MEDMOS layout and that it does not look neutral. What is not a healthy thing is the obsession with applying MEDMOS to an article about a consumer product, and the willingness to obstruct progress to achieve it. The article is currently locked again because Doc, for the second time in three days, started an edit war over a change he didn't like. There is no consensus for MEDMOS so let's just put it to bed and get on with rewriting this festering mass of repetitive, turgid prose.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support This RFC is an attempt to wear down the opposition, successive RFC's hoping the other side will get fed up and not respond. Not responding is the goal and so win when the other side forgets to respond while arguing against the RFC. Everyone who thinks this RFC should end still needs to comment on one of the choices. AlbinoFerret 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT A VOTE

• I'd like to remind editors that we do not determine consensus on the basis of raw vote counts. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments based in Wikipedia content policy and sourcing. Theoretically a vote result of 100-to-1 against a suggestion where the 100 votes are "I don't like it" and the 1 vote is a well-reasoned argument based in sourcing should be decided as consensus in favor of that one vote. Due to the level of contentiousness on this page, we will have to get experienced uninvolved outside editors to review the arguments and determine consensus, we cannot trust ourselves to do it. Vote-count charts of "7 for, 6 against..." are singularly unhelpful. Zad68 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you! That's just what we have here; the last RfC on exactly this question found there were no grounds for having the health section first and that it looked neither natural nor neutral to do so. The admin who made the change pointed out that the only argument against the change was "I don't like it."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad. Thank you. Everyone needs to comment on the RFC based on logic and WP guidelines/policy. The table above while nice is not a comment. Those that have comments will be weighed in the RFC, those that do not, will not. Everyone who has a opinion must comment if they want to be involved in the decision. Simple yes, no, or a number without reasoning behind it is a vote and will likely be discounted by whoever closes this. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, to explain my reason for inserting the table, I wanted to see if there were enough other editors preferring the other three options that it was worth broadening the discussion. Yes discussion is key to consensus but in an issue like this where ultimately the order is going to be, at least in part, stylistic preference, seeing where people prefer in a clear fashion can only improve the consensus building. SPACKlick (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Vapist?

The Society and Culture section refers to users of ecig as vapists. I have personally never heard that and a quick Google search yields very few results. I propose that we either need a WP:RS or remove the word.TheNorlo (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to remove that. It's an insult used by some ANTZ, because it sounds a bit like rapists. Cathi Carol of San Francisco (where else?) tends to throw it around when she's drunk, which is often.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct term would be vaper, a person who vapes. 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it was pure original research, I have removed "vapist" from the article.Levelledout (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TheNorlo (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wantd to add for posterity "Vapist" was the term I was first introduced to long before I heard vaper. There was a time when as far as I was aware the two terms were equal and synonymous. Vaper is clearly more common now but some vapers do still refer to themselves as vapists, it's not just antis. SPACKlick (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And while we are at it. Let's remove some more Grana/Glantz nonsense.

The last sentence (or at least parts of it) of the usage section should be removed or replaced as per the new studies mentioned above. There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes, and no proven help with quitting smoking.TheNorlo (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support While the latest reviews aren't cast iron, I don't think anyone at this point is seriously arguing that e-cigs don't help with quitting, so that needs to come out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There is no proposal here. So oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a proposal: To remove the second half of the sentence he quotes, because it's no longer accurate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of "The last sentence (or at least parts of it) of the usage section should be removed..." does not sound like a proposal to you?TheNorlo (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is low to very low quality evidence that it helps with quitting smoking. We could change it to that. Ref says "the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’" [47] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting "very low" from? There is evidence that e-cigs help with smoking cessation, which is obvious anyway to anyone who lives in the real world. Your attempt to downplay the latest studies looks an awful lot like POV-pushing. You're quite happy to cite "reviews" based on newspaper articles, but not the Cochrane Collaboration?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me copy and paste from the abstract for you "under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’ because of imprecision due to the small number of trials" [48] You can search for this text in the abstract. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you read it again. "Very low" was for being better than NRT and smoking reduction. It does not apply to smoking cessation; that was "Low". But it's still evidence, so the article cannot continue to claim that the evidence does not exist.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me add some bolding "Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’ because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. "Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop this. The abstract very helpfully details exactly which outcomes were graded as low or very low, and very low was not applied to smoking cessation. You are just playing semantic games now. Why? Do you want this article to conform to the facts, or to an anti-vaping POV? Because you have not shown the same opposition to far less reliable studies that have been cited here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Circulation is one of the most highly cited journals in the medical literature. It does not publish "nonsense". The fact that it is called this in the heading of the section simply shows that someone does not like the articles conclusions. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Circulation does indeed not publish nonsense, and what they're about to publish (and have already released the abstract of) says that Glantz and Grana's claim that there's no evidence for e-cigs working as a cessation tool is wrong. It's outdated. It is old news. It has been overtaken by real science. It has shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir invisible. Add that to the Cochrane review and there is no justification for keeping that claim in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply wait for the next Circulation review to be published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While McNiel was blocked from being used in the article, the editors who have read it understand the problems with Grana. Turing a blind eye to the problems while increasing quotes from Grana fill the article is a problem. Saying someone has issues because they dislike error filled articles is a problem. AlbinoFerret 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition.TheNorlo (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Citing Cochrane this could be changed to a characterization of the evidence as "low quality". Zad68 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with that language, it is easily misunderstood. It is better to explain why, like more data is needed, which is in the source. This jumping from one thing to another is a problem, but not one that cant be fixed. AlbinoFerret 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)"

"et me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition." Mischaracterizing my position is not helpful, nor is your statement that the opinion of other editors should be "disregarded". Finally, entitling sectons with contentioous language does not help reach a consensus. Please review WP:CON. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant. TheNorlo (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Formerly 98 and Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something else to remove

"They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting."

The Cochrane review found no evidence of this, and it's also contradicted by the STS data and every other survey of smoking rates, which all show the decline in smoking prevalence accelerating sharply as vaping becomes more popular. In fact the only country that currently has an increase in smoking prevalence is Singapore. Where e-cigs are banned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change - that the text "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting" be removed from the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support It was a stupid claim anyway and now there's evidence against it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote that refutes this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane says there's no evidence that e-cig use reduces the chance of quitting. Why would it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not find "reduces the chance of quitting" in the abstract. Is it in the main text? What is the exact quote or is this WP:OR? By the way they looked at ECs with nicotine against ECs without. Thus both arms contained ECs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the plain language summary: "There was no evidence that using EC at the same time as using regular cigarettes made people less likely to quit smoking."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's more qualified than that. McRobbie says "There was no evidence that using EC at the same time as using regular cigarettes made people less likely to quit smoking" with further qualifiers in the summary. This isn't incompatible with "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting."--if there isn't good evidence that they don't promote, that still allows may. And as Doc pointed out Cochrane isn't the only one weighing in here. In general Cochrane's standards for evidence to make a recommendation are higher than other sources--While a practice guideline, for example, may say "Do X" Cochrane might still say "There isn't a sufficient amount of high-quality evidence to clearly support X", but that doesn't make the first source invalid. Zad68 05:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But there isn't any evidence that they May delay quitting, and nobody has even provided a credible reason why they would. It seems perverse that actual evidence, even if tentative, is being downplayed in support of vague "concerns" supported by no evidence whatsoever. We now have smoking cessation data from several countries that covers the period since e-cigs were introduced, and with one exception it shows quit rates unchanged or accelerating. The exception is Singapore, where e-cigs are banned. Why is an unsupported hypothetical being given more weight than the evidence? And why are the conclusions of the Cochrane review being deprecated for only using two studies, while the conclusions of Grana/Glantz are unchallengeable despite being based on no studies at all?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The moon may be made of green cheese. May is opinion, and it was placed in the article without attrib. AlbinoFerret 14:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and there is a serious issue here with opinion being elevated above evidence. Any attempt to qualify Glantz cites with "although this was based on a cross-sectional study that does not allow the conclusions drawn" would be met with howls of outrage, but it's OK to write off the Cochrane report because it only used two studies. I'll be interested to see how they respond to the AHA one, which used six.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviews from 2014

Stating that two 2014 reviews are obsolute is not appropriate [49]. Thus reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

They're "obsolute" (sic). Their central claim, that no evidence exists, is demonstrably wrong. Stop this. You do not WP:OWN this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because a new article has been published does not mean all previous articles are wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It does if the previous articles say there's no evidence and the new article provides it. Anyway take it to ANI.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here Fergus removed two 2014 review articles [50] calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation [51][52] calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete [53]

In this edit [54] they added "However this is contradicted by the Cochrane Collaboration, whose 2014 review found no evidence that electronic cigarette use is delaying or preventing smoking cessation" Which part of the ref states this?

The review did not state "no major health issues associated with electronic cigarette use". They found "low to very low" quality evidence of no major health issues

This is also not exactly correct "No serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use are known;"

So yes issues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review found no serious adverse effects. Nobody else has ever found any serious adverse effects either. As for the statements I removed, they are obsolete. They say there is no evidence. As you yourself conceded above, there is evidence. SO on what basis can you justify keeping those claims in the article?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A new review that finds "low to very low" quality evidence of an effect is just that. It does not exclude every other review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no living coelacanths. Oh look, yes there are. the statement that there are no living coelacanths is now false. So is the statement that there is no evidence e-cigs work for smoking cessation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With poor quality data reviews can come to different conclusions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean like Grana/Glantz, citing newspaper articles and their own work?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What was removed from the article was "The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear." The edit summary said "Removing obsolete information". That's simply not correct. No data and low quality data both result in the same kinds of conclusions, that the data doesn't exist to make strong recommendations. Reviews from 2014 summarizing the state of the evidence are not "obsolete". Zad68 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about making recommendations. I am saying that to claim no evidence exists is now wrong. That is an incredibly simple point of logic. Is that evidence, albeit tentative? Yes it is! Therefore any statement that says there is no evidence is not and cannot be correct.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Drummond quote has issues link AlbinoFerret 05:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing. Already.

The ink is barely dry on the Cochrane report but already some editors are trying to remove it from the article. Please stop pushing your POV. We have a high quality secondary source that disproves these claims. Do not revert again without discussion.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow down a bit, we need to take care of one thing at a time. There is no hurry, we need to get it right. AlbinoFerret 03:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that he's refusing to allow any obsolete claims to be removed, while downplaying the Cochrane review as much as possible. It's blatantly POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We may not be able to remove some previously sourced statements. What we need to focus on imho is getting the new stuff in the article first. AlbinoFerret 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane is a great source. We just need to make sure we do not misinterpret it. It is also not the only source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If one source says there is no evidence, then a later source provides evidence, then the earlier source becomes wrong. Is that simple enough?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but we cant just jump in and make massive changes off the bat. Lets focus on one thing at a time. The talk page is all over the place tonight. AlbinoFerret 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is "low to very low". Some would describe that as inconclusive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the source. For cessation it is "low", meaning further research is needed. "Very low" relates only to comparison with patches and reduction. It is not applied to efficacy for cessation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording you are choosing "low" is easily misunderstood by a general reader. It would be better to describe why it is considered that, which is also in the source as an example, "more data is needed". AlbinoFerret 04:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes for cessation there is low quality evidence or tentative evidence that they help with stopping smoking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your adding of wording still under discussion is not helpful. AlbinoFerret 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The removal of what are still up-to-date, WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources is also not helpful. Zad68 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I havent removed anything that was not discussed. But one of the things that were removed is OR link AlbinoFerret 05:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Toxins

Just submitting these to the talk page for editors to use as they see fit (I'm not going to get involved in this article). If the source isn't deemed appropriate, there's a clickable list of citations (many of them MEDRS) at the end (titled Sources and References) of each: [55], [56]. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but those dont appear to be WP:MEDRS sources. We need secondary sources. Most of whats on that page is old news and is on a daughter page. AlbinoFerret 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the citations to the articles, not the articles themselves. The first article has 17 clickable citations from NEJM (several from Sept 2014), Lancet, and other studies; the second has 28 clickable citations from 2010 to March 2014. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We need reviews for this article, not studies. The article is based on secondary sources, not primary. AlbinoFerret 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 page protection of electronic cigarette

Current request for page protection

There has been a request to put the page back under protection by Doc James and Formerly 98. link AlbinoFerret 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate coincidence, that you did it the day after a significant new review was released that calls for major changes and the removal of a lot of outdated claims.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Article protection for a month at a time seems excessive

Locking an article for an entire month at a time seems excessive. Is there precedent for this, is this a usual edit war remedy? I've read some of the talk page discussion, and it seems to be a handful of editors arguing intensely over points that are largely inconsequential to a general encyclopedia audience. The intro clearly explains that it's all new and the jury is out, the rest is haggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsavage (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How did this page get protected?

How did this latest page lock come about - I'm not familiar with the procedure - did an admin come along and just do it, or was it requested, if so, by whom? --Tsavage (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was requested by Doc James and Formerly98.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was requested by me. Comments by Doc James and others came later. The request was made with the goal of limiting edit warring. I also requested the previous 2 protections. The article needs everyone to try to calm down and try to work together rather than just engaging in an endless cycle of reversions and counter reversions. It was not done with the goal of "freezing" the article in a version favorable to one side or the other, and in fact I voted in favor of reverting QG's non-consensus edits performed just before the last protection, even though my opinions are closer to his than those he is fighting with. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you; you do seem genuinely committed to building a consensus. Unfortunately it's had the effect of freezing the article in its current deplorable state. It's especially unfortunate that this happened the day the Cochrane review came out. If certain editors would actually try to work towards a consensus, rather than simply popping in to say "I disagree" every time a change was proposed, we might get somewhere. At the very least we might manage to clean up the writing so it no longer looks like it was written by throwing letters at the screen.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

:::The maddening thing is, many editors seem quite sane and reasonable in this sort of peripheral conversation, but when it comes to actually doing something, it's back to the same circular arguments and tit-for-tat actions. This article is not difficult to fix, and could be one of the more timely and truly helpful pages on Wikipedia in the next few weeks and months.

• Agree to reduce each of the current five subsections of health issues to max four-sentence summary, with no direct mentions of specific findings in the text, and multiple citations as required.
• Create a pros/cons / controversy / opposing views section with a comparison table with subsections as required, to present pros and cons in summary/bullet-point form.

By actually doing that, the article WILL hold together, and with a decent example in place, should be easier to maintain/defend as necessary.

If anyone here is actually on the job, and the goal is to muddy the waters, well, you're doing great! :) --Tsavage (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. If we can get agreement on this it will vastly improve the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved the above to new section below to separate page fix proposal from other stuff. --Tsavage (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately vaping seems to be a topic that turns otherwise normal people into gibbering idiots. Three months ago Missouri passed a law banning e-cig sales to minors. It was supported by the tobacco industry and local e-cig vendors. It was opposed by - drum roll - Smoke-Free Missouri, the ACS and AHA. Tell me that happened in a sane world.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That Missouri legislation was quite a saga. It was opposed in large part because it explicitly didn't treat e-cigs as tobacco products, which is how many sceptics would like to see them classified. (Also, the tobacco cos. tend to like state-level regulation because it's much easier to concentrate lobbying in one capitol than deal with a hundred little communities that may be much more hasty to ban something they're suspicious of.) Barnabypage (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Luckily law isn't (always) made on the basis of what people who are wrong would like. Whether you love e-cigs or loathe them, if you think they're a tobacco product you're a moron.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a better way to put that would be, Whether you think they are a tobacco product or not, we should all agree that they need to be kept out of the hands of kids. AlbinoFerret 16:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I find it odd (and morally repellant, but never mind) that these groups are willing to leave them available to minors while they squabble about definitions. However I do think they should be available to teenage smokers; why should people have to smoke until they're 18 before being allowed to give up? This is the best - perhaps the only - argument for having a medically licensed e-cig that could be prescribed. And after all under-18s are allowed to buy NRT, which a) contain nicotine and b) don't work.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is one area we will have to disagree. I think that all nicotine products should be kept from people under 18, they shouldnt have tobacco cigarettes. I think anyone found guilty of giving any nicotine product to kids should get a life sentance without the possibility of parole. That kids are using any nicotine product is a shame and it would be better if they were forced to go cold turkey and have to give up all nicotine products. E-cigs and all products that contain recreational nicotine are an adult products. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WTF? It's only nicotine. Sure, I'd prefer kids didn't start using it, but jail time? Why not jail parents who give their kids coffee, too? Nicotine is being demonized far too much. It's a pretty safe drug by any sane standard, as even the MHRA agree. Anyway the fact is that no, kids shouldn't have cigarettes, and they're not allowed to buy them, but they get them anyway. And if they want a quit method that actually works it should be available to them on prescription.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about to become illegal in the UK to buy e-cigs for anyone under 18. My friend Lorien Jollye says that if she found her kids were smoking she'd buy them e-cigs and persuade them to switch. Should she go to jail for LIFE, just for practicing harm reduction? Sorry, that's absurd.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of page protection and Talk page refactoring

In the wiki spirit of refactoring, I've moved the following comment to its own more clearly described section. --Tsavage (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(re: section Proposal to fix article) I think the idea is that you work on it, not wait on it and vote. Indefinite protection is not a solution. Open editing is fundamental to Wikipedia, therefore extraordinary measures like protection are just that, extraordinary. For editors so committed to the topic, it should be a simple matter to summarize a few paragraphs, neutrally and without specific study references. That would be the first step. --Tsavage (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well with a month of protection left, we are going to have to see what is is and see where consensus lies before the edit is carried out. I thought the answer to whats stopping someone from dumping POV into it once its done would be nothing. The problem is that this page is plagued with people who dont discuss things first, and that ends up leading to edit wars. AlbinoFerret 22:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please dont move comments of other editors to new sections. AlbinoFerret 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply attempting to keep a section on point. That is what a wiki style open editing is for. This isn't a court transcript, I believe the idea is to discuss things. Threads tend to veer off topic and the central point gets lost. As long as there is nothing deceptive going on, there should be no problem with refactoring for clarity if the discussion is truly in good faith. --Tsavage (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, I think my reply was on point, and moving my post here has disrupted the existing discussion and the issues I pointed out. I believe you may have done it with good intentions. But please do not move my posts to other sections. AlbinoFerret 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the section I started, Proposal to fix article. Page protection and what might happen to the article at some future time are not relevant, so I created a new, relevant section for clarity. Now, your discussion of refactoring has taken the Discussion of page protection off topic, so I've updated this section's heading to accommodate both topics. --Tsavage (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever

Note. I didn't create this section and the content my comment is in reply to was deleted. Zad68 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• My goodness everyone needs to please STOP opening up the SAME discussion in so many different places on this Talk page! And these talking points aren't detailed enough to act on. Zad68 05:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can agree on that Zad, 100% this page needs to slow down and take care of one thing at a time. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure... let's keep talking over each other everywhere on this page.... Deleted. TheNorlo (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but we need to focus in on one section and thing at a time. Its just to much and nothing gets accomplished. AlbinoFerret

RFC on Safety of Electronic Cigarettes

There is an RFC to see if summaries of pages or sections that were not originally part of that page should be added to that page. link AlbinoFerret 06:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chocrane Review found statistically significant difference between EC and placebo

"Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; GRADE: low). " I propose writing in the titile sec. According to a Cochraine Review of the clinical trials measuring the effects of e-cigarettes on cessation, participants using an e-cigarette were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC, but the evidence is limited.Zvi Zig (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Its an odd comparison, its not comparing electronic cigarettes to quitting cold turkey, but comparing e juice with nicotine to e juice without. But this seems to accurately reflect what the article says, and I have no objection to adding it. It wasn't clear to me exactly where you want to add it, I would not give this article vastly more weight than others. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that if we wanted to include it in the article it should go in the smoking cessation section. But you are right, let's not give this article more weight than others.... At least not more than Grana, i.e. not more than 25 citations.TheNorlo (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not at all an odd comparison considering the fact that the only way we know nicotine patches and gum work is through comparisons to placebo patches & gum. Furthermore, studies show that even placebo EC reduce craving, so the results are seriously underrepresented. Furthermore, the trials on which the review was based on tested only short term EC use; participants were not supplied or instructed to use EC for more than 12 weeks after quit-day.Zvi Zig (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another point, Cochraine Review is considered the gold standard in medical reviews, they have many standards in place in order to prevent bias, thus there's certainly reason to give this article vastly more weight when it comes to a highly controversial subject.Zvi Zig (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Cochraine Reviews are high quality and should be added where the review speaks on a topic. AlbinoFerret 12:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But the article has now been locked again, which seems to be the pattern when the MED crew feel under pressure.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me respond to that.

• The article has been protected 3 times now, and it was a different uninvolved admin who did it each time. Might be worth thinking about why this keeps happening.
• I've requested all three protections. But I do not consider myself a "medical editor" according to your definition. IN fact I voted in support of removing QG's edits to the article just prior to the last protection, because they were made without consensus.
• Ultimately this is a war in which the two sides are equally matched, and can go on reverting and counterreverting forever. Consensus is the only way we will get anything done here. I suggest that comments on other editors like the one above do not help facilitate such a consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The big question is, why are there two sides? This article is very heavily skewed towards the opinions of Stan Glantz, who is not a scientist or medical researcher; he is an activist with no medical qualifications. No health risks of e-cigs have been found, but you won't get that impression here. The article is full of hypotheticals and "we don't know", even when actual research has been done.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example. The Cochrane report is cited, "but was based on a small number of studies." So is it OK to append the cites of Grana/Glantz with "but was based on a New York Times article, a cross-sectional study that couldn't support the claims he made and a couple of his own articles from 1995."? I suspect a few editors would find that unacceptable. So why is the Cochrane review being deprecated so much? Unlike Grana/Glantz it is based on actual research.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I agree you have posted some things that show you have an open mind on the fighting here. But that vote was basically undone today. The spotlight seems to be on one person but it appears from the section right below that discussion is being avoided and I can point to quite a few places FergusM1970 is discussing things. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As Cochraine is considered the most important meta-analysis on any medical question, it makes no sense that its results should not be reflected in the title section.Zvi Zig (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on that to some extent. They have taken positions well outside the mainstream on many issues, and for example their conclusions on the anti influenza drug Tamiflu have been explicitly rejected by the US CDC, the Infectious Disease Society of America, the European CDC, and the UK NICE. Ditto their opinion on the influenza vaccine. They are one voice of many, and there is a consensus to that extent on the MEDRS Talk page. Respectfully (truly, not being sarcastic), if you try to push that source as the the Truth^TM you will only attract more medical editors to this page, and I don't get the impression that you want that. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's pushing to regard Cochrane as The Truth, but it is the best evidence currently available. It also agrees with a huge mass of anecdotal evidence from thousands of ex-smokers who quit using e-cigs. If they're not an effective cessation tool how come 700,000 people in the UK successfully used them to quit?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly 98 and the MEDRS Talk page: Cochrane is one voice among many. Cloudjpk (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I in no way advocate for the use of Cochraine as as the Truth^TM, however you cannot argue that its due respect should not be given. It is not one voice among many; Cochraine reviews are highly respected for a reason and has standards set against bias . Chronologically Cochraine is now also the most recent review and has authors have mentioned and addressed other major reviews.

Edits removed by consensus replaced

A massive edit was reverted by consensus link. They were removed by an admin diff. Without any discussion QuackGuru has started to add the edits again. diff. I have removed them again diff leaving citation maintenance alone. Each edit needs to be brought up and discussed before adding them. AlbinoFerret 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical Medical group opinions

Looking over the article I noted that under the Level I heading "Health Effects" we have three subheadings.

• Positions of major medical organizations
• Smoking cessation
• Harm reduction
• Safety
• Addiction

Oddly (in my opinion), the Positions of major medical organizations section contains mainly the commentary of medical organizations that have expressed negative opinions on electronic cigarettes, then further down (ghettoized?), the Harm Reduction section contains the opinions of organizations that have adopted a more nuanced position. Is there a good reason for this, or should these two sections be merged to give more equal weight to the two positions? Formerly 98 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Some editors (including me) wanted a "Harm Reduction" section because e-cigs are a harm reduction product. Personally I'd keep that section for the research that's been done but move the opinions to the "Positions" section. Then move the "Positions" section to the bottom, because evidence is more important than opinion.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with merging the sections. Positions is a parrot section all on basically the same point of view and overloaded with it. AlbinoFerret 14:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The goal would be to make that section, which is a little more prominent, more balanced. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Which it could certainly do with. I have no objection to moving all position statements there, but I think the "Harm reduction" section should remain to cover the research.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: One of the problems that was pointed out by the closing of the sections RFC is that the entire Health section being first adds to a POV problem. It isnt just one subsection, but the whole thing. AlbinoFerret 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The Health section should be moved below Construction and Usage.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that is another burning issue for you guys, but it is a much more difficult one to discuss because it is binary. Can we put that on hold for now and concentrate on the issue I identified as being both important and perhaps easier to reach a negotiated solution to? We have failed to reach compromise many, many times in the past, and I think we need to focus on easier issues first, and try to build some trust and goodwill. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that positions of various organisations should be in the same section. I think that some form of summary might be needed in the future to stop the section being as repetitive but in essence, I agree Formerly. SPACKlick (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Grana

I have been burned many times in attempting to broker compromises here, but will try one more time.

The "Pro E-Cig" camp has repeatedly and over many weeks expressed frustration with the extensive use of the anti-E-Cig review from Grana in this article (23 times by my count). Given Wikipedia's emphasis on editing by consensus, the existence of many other high quality reviews (many of which adopt a more nuanced position), and given the importance of getting this article back on a track of cooperative editing, should we acknowledge the concerns of this group and cut back the use of Grana by 1/3 to 1/2? Twenty three is a LOT of citations. In return the "Pro" group could perhaps acknowledge that the new Cochrane and AHA reviews are something less than a rousing endorsement of electronic cigs as a quitting tool.

Overall, the literature seems to point to the conclusions that these are probably less dangerous than regular cigarettes, and that they probably help a very small number of people to quit or reduce smoking, but that there are some concerns about whether they have negative effects such as reducing the cigarette stigma that has played such a major role in smoking reduction. It seems to me that we could all back off a little bit from pushing for a description of these as "scary and dangerous" or a "panacea for the scourge of tobacco addiction". In fact, its all a little fuzzy right now and the truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. It would be nice to tone down the stridency of the debate. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The opinion that they're a panacea for the scourge of tobacco addiction is one that's being stated by a lot of scientists and tobacco control experts. However I agree that so far the literature hasn't caught up with that. I am happy with making it clear that the Cochrane evidence is tentative if Grana cites are reduced by at least half and a lot less prominence is given to "concerns" that conflict with the evidence, such as the claim that e-cigs will renormalize smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What has frustrated attempts at compromise in the past is the inability to agree on specific details, so I suspect this will be tough and it may help to do this stepwise. Can we agree that a reduction by 1/3 to 1/2 on Grana would be a useful first step, and that the new references should be presented in a nuanced way? I think that would be an improvement to the article from your side of the issue as well as mine, and we can continue to negotiate other changes after that first step is implemented. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with that. Probably a useful first step is to decide exactly which of Grana/Glantz's claims are most deserving of oblivion. Just to get the ball rolling I nominate "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting." This is based on a cross-sectional study, which as several people (including the main source of Glantz's funding) have pointed out, cannot support the claim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. May I suggest that we hold off on suggesting specific edits until we have some more comments from people on the general proposal? I'm concerned that delving into specifics before we get general agreement will derail this into arguments about details. Let's see if we can get broad agreement first. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. For the record I support the proposal, as long as acknowledging the tentative nature of the Cochrane review doesn't add up to making it appear insignificant.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2xTemplate:Edit Conflict I basically agree with the sentiment of this (Formerly's) post with some minor modifications of the final paragraph. I am much more Pro e-cig than you formerly but I think we're both more pro-accurate information on the page than devoted to our causes so I'm hopeful this can produce some form of consensus. Where I'd disagree on the final paragraph is

1. "Probably" -> "Almost certainly" less dangerous than cigarettes
2. "probably" help a "very small number of people" to quit or reduce smoking -> "appear" to help "Some people"
3. The passage starting there are some concerns I would like to make it clear on these that there is as yet no evidentiary support for those concerns.

I fully agree we need to back off on the stridency of the debate, however there are editors, on both sides, making that difficult right now. For this reason I would support indefinite protection while consensus is sorted and hopefully over time the evidence will become more overwhelming, one way or the other, among the scientific community.

The real issue is that Generalising will just lead to fights when it comes to problems. I think we need to focus on sections and say "is this repetetive?" "Is information missing?" "Is any review or source given too much/little weight?" Grana will stand or fall on its own merits at that point.SPACKlick (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I was against the protection this time. After some thought I agree that indefinite protection until consensus is archived that it be lifted may be the best thing that ever happened to this article. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a lot of blatant nonsense in the article, such as this:

"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways it is not intended to be used, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown."

It looks reasonable at face value, but a look at the source raises serious questions about the competence of the researcher. They give two examples of "using in ways it's not intended to be used", which are dripping directly onto the coil and stacking batteries. To drip you need a dripping atomizer. Guess, from the name, how that's intended to be used. Similarly, to stack batteries you need a mod designed to take stacked batteries. Again this is not "using e-cigarettes in ways it is not intended to be used", it's using it exactly as it's intended to be used. It looks like any source, however flimsy, is being crammed into the article just as long as it makes e-cigs look scary.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Some idle browsing suggests that teen use of e-cigs is almost entirely confined to eGo-style batteries and clearomisers. Given that I can tell you exactly the extent to which teens are dripping and stacking batteries: Not at all, because it's impossible with those devices. This is a clear case of a researcher who doesn't understand e-cigs at all seeing what (adult) enthusiasts do with high end gear and assuming it can also be done with a $15 eGo.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, but think it is best if we try to focus for now on finding areas of agreement. If we can agree on the general concept above, we can discuss specifics later. But if we start getting into specifics from the get-go, I'm afraid it will simply serve to emphasize differences and emotion, and we will not get to a compromise. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just meant it as an example of the sort of dubious research that's been stuffed in. I agree that we should get agreement on striking a better balance, then go after specifics.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph 2

I find some issues with the language that I'd like to request an edit on. Asking for consensus first. Current Version The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[7][8] One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data is inconclusive.[8] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[11] The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[10]

Edited Version The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[7][8] One review found some evidence of benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data inconclusive.[8] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[11] The evidence suggests that products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[10]

Any thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10]" is a statement taken from the abstract of Drummond. Inside of the review and the abstract the wording leads me to believe that the Harm reduction is not based on substitution as is commonly used, but on the harm that is eliminated by quitting. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can this YouTube video be used as a source for non medical claims?

I want to know if we can use this YouTube video as a source for the (non medical) construction section of this article. The video in question is an interview with doctor Farsalinos, who's work has been cited in review articles and is currently cited in the present article multiple times already and is definitely WP:RS. In the video, he talks about multiple aspects of vaping, including technical aspects of the hardware used by every day vapers that could be used to source the aforementioned section that desperately need RS.TheNorlo (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the video may be hard to bring in. But doctor Farsalinos has a website that may be brought in under the fact he is an expert, perhaps we can find the same info there. AlbinoFerret 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, why not? It's nothing to do with MEDRS, and Farsalinos is an eminent researcher - possibly the leading researcher on e-cigs. If you still disagree, perhaps you could say something more constructive than just "Ah, no."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I did but it appears it was lost in the edit conflicts. Videos are not good references. Youtube is not known as a reliable publisher.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah right; my apologies. I agree that the video isn't a suitable source. I assumed you were referring to AF's suggestion about Dr F's website. It might help if you explained your objections rather than just issuing flat refusals. It's hard to discuss when we don't know what you're saying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's too bad, What is being said in there is a goldmine of info coming from an actual ecig specialist when it comes to the device itself. His webpage is of no use for ecig tech, it treats exclusively of researches.TheNorlo (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. It's unfortunate that it's so hard to find RS for technical information. That would probably be of a lot more interest to readers than all the he said/she said health wibble.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this may be a question for the RS notice board since it is not about a medical topic. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the lack of RS on this topic, I would argue that this is better than nothing. We are talking about a well known specialist on the subject talking within his field of expertise. I say it again, I do not want to use this source for medical or scientific claims. I want to use it for describing the product itself (high powered devices that are absent of this article although very popular at the moment, materials employed in the fabrication of atomizers, airflow effects and wicking setups inside atomizers and so on). I would be willing to reference the time at which cited claims has been made in the video TheNorlo (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have taken this to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I am not holding my breath waiting for an answer. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And of course, as better srouce become available... This one can be removed.TheNorlo (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

"Another considered the data is inconclusive" should be "Another considered the data inconclusive" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other more pressing matters to discuss. This should be tabled for awhile. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also both are correct, so it's six and two threes which one we use. It's just a matter of personal preference.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, both are not correct, Data is plural and the sentence is in the past tense so the "is" would be "was" anyway. Ive requested the edit because it can be done in seconds unless there is any real objection to improving the grammar without hurting the content. Requesting an edit costs us nothing. SPACKlick (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was being nitpicky (which I will, because why not?) it would be "the data were inconclusive." I'd support that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was being a stylistic nitpicker I'd suggest "the data to be inconclusive" However I have no preference between the three, replacing

"Another considered the data is inconclusive"

with

"Another considered the data inconclusive"

"Another considered the data were inconclusive"

"Another considered the data to be inconclusive"

Let's just get it changed. SPACKlick (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done I went with the last one. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nature article

I came here from AN/I to add an external link, but the article is protected.

• Cressey, Daniel (4 September 2014), "E-cigarettes: The lingering questions: In the haze of incomplete data, scientists are divided over the risks and benefits of electronic cigarettes", Nature, 513: 24–26, doi:10.1038/513024a

Glrx (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent article, and great material for the Controversy section I proposed a while back.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This article in the British Journal of General Practice makes many of the same points. I really do think we should mention how the e-cig issue has split the PH/TC community.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And then of course there's this. Not an RS, I freely admit, but it demonstrates how many TC advocates are currently on the same side as the tobacco industry when it comes to e-cigs, and why the measures demanded by RJ Reynolds are so suspiciously similar to the measures proposed by the EU and FDA. Also it's funny, and this page could do with being lightened up a bit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me reiterate my support for a Controversy section. This subject is highly controversial within the medical field and in the way it is reported by the media, and the lack of a dedicated section doesn't help the reader appreciate the scope of the controversy. TheNorlo (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely something I think we need. There was opposition when I suggested it, but it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of what I was proposing. The objectors seemed to think I wanted a section full of all the controversial statements rather than a description of the actual controversy. I'm not sure how valid an objection is when it's against something I didn't actually say, but I suspect not very.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This may also be a good source for the controversy section Electronic cigarettes have a potential for huge public health benefit Hajek AlbinoFerret 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@FergusM1970: would you be willing to create an outline version of what you view the controversy section as saying either here on the talk page or on the Sandbox? I can't picture one that would fit in the article but I'm willing to be proven wrong because I agree that the controversy should be in some article somewhere, although maybe not this one...SPACKlick (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I'll do it later today, after I've salved my conscience by doing some actual paid work.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. There are now three developed countries where smoking prevalence is increasing. All have e-cig bans.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro & Con table

For the short term, at least, why not create a pro and con table in its own section, where different studies, different interpretations of the same studies, and whatnot can be freely posted, even posted once in each column with whatever wording seems to fit. This allows all views to be expressed, one does not have to replace another, and interested readers can at a glance understand the current level of disharmony, and easily parse through the points and follow any of them up.

We should stop trying to decide for everyone, down to the choice of individual words, instead present things as neatly as possible, accessibly sourced, and let the thousands and millions of other readers take it from there and decide for themselves. --Tsavage (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Or two sections called, for example, "Harm reduction arguments" and "Prohibitionist arguments", each one summarizing the actual points in a sensible manner. Half (at least) of the problem is that every single review is currently mentioned, leading to an uninformative and practically unreadable mass of "A review said X. A review said Y. A review said wibble." Much more sensible to condense it into "Many organisations say e-cigs have potential as a cessation aid.¹²³⁴⁵ Others think they could act as a gateway to smoking/crack/Morris dancing.⁶⁷⁸⁹." Right now, when it comes to imparting information, it's worse than useless. It looks like someone with cholera ate a bowl of alphabet soup.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A single "Pros and cons" section is what may do the job. It is a familiar editorial device for illustrating two sides without resorting to tricky summaries. The table itself can have all the sections anyone wants or needs. And it is a relatively safe place to vent because less-involved readers can just skip on by, no need to shut down the whole page. And it will point up any editors who still want to POV tamper with the rest of the article in bad faith. --Tsavage (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the time is to short, that the block should be indefinite or until we can all agree that a block is no longer necessary because everyone is discussing things first. AlbinoFerret 01:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A table might be useful. But in general I agree with Tsavage that there is a tremendous amount of quibbling going on here, which is driven by mutual distrust. We really don't know much right now except that these things are, to the average user, neither extraordinarily helpful nor extraordinarily harmful. (If they were either, it would be quite apparent by now and there wouldn't be anything to argue about). Both sides seem to feel that if they give an inch, the other side will take a mile, and so every millimeter (pardon the switch in measurement systems) needs to be fought over. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually a lot of people are saying that they are extraordinarily helpful, and that's not just the users; it's people like Hajek, West and Farsalinos. Louise Ross of NHS Leicester Stop Smoking Services says that since she started recommending e-cigs her clients' success rate has increased by 20%. John Brittan of the Royal College of Physicians recently gave a presentation in which he launched a ferocious attack on e-cig opponents. Personally I've tried patches, gum, inhalators and Allen Carr, all of which were hopeless; I never tried Champix because I don't much fancy killing myself. Thanks to e-cigs I quit a 25-year, 40 a day habit in an hour. One hour. No withdrawal, no relapses. E-cigs are an extraordinary cessation tool and that's glaringly obvious in the real world. Less so in clinical trials because it's hard to construct a good one; the effectiveness of e-cigs depends on a choice of equipment, strengths and flavours, whereas trials rely on consistency and repeatability. That's why most of them have used cigalikes. However Polosa's latest trial used Gen 2 devices and achieved 36% cessation in unmotivated smokers. That's extraordinary enough for me given that patches struggle to hit 4%.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I think it will be as useful as the Editor Poll, and that wasnt as useful as hoped. As to distrust, I agree there is lots of it on both sides. I think its best if the protection is indefinite to force working together and perhaps remove some of that mistrust. No other solution has worked. The problem is that the short protections allow some editors to stay away until they end and then come back and take up where they left off. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems that being able to trigger a lengthy page lockdown is one way of POV pushing a particular article or topic, by freezing it in a certain state, with no updates and topped with protection and dispute tags.

There can be significant consequences. For example, right here, as Philip Morris rolls out its reduced-risk products, this page, a natural go-to for millions of people looking for up-to-date info and a jumping off point for discovery, has been taken out of the game, not only looking discredited and unreliable for no good reason but the edit war, but also not covering the latest developments... We should be solving problems like this in a way truer to the free to access, free to edit core ideal. --Tsavage (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, especially as I heard today about three separate cases where pregnant women who use e-cigs were advised by ob gyns or midwives to go back to cigarettes because "We just don't know what's in them." Wikipedia is most people's go-to resource, and in most cases that's justified because it's usually highly accurate. This article, however, is not reflecting up to date science and is highly POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Its better to get it right, and avoid a fight, than to be fast. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be taking this long to get it right!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fast leads to mistakes. Its better to be accurate even if it takes a little longer. To get input from all the editors. Not just rush things in that get reverted. AlbinoFerret 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's taken months and the article is still, to put it bluntly, a bag of bollocks. We have vast, unreadable sections stuffed with more contradictions than the Book of Genesis. Tsavage is quite right; it's just endless squabbles over a word here or another bloody Grana cite there. The result is we've made virtually zero progress. It's time to come up with a bold solution that we can all get behind. He suggests a table; I suggest condensing the endless "A review said..." into some short, clear statements each cited with the relevant reviews. If ten reviews say "We just don't know" do we really need to say it ten times? Why not once with ten sources cited? Either suggested solution is better than this spooge fest.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no "getting it right" in this case, our trusted scientists are coming up at odds, and there is no long-term data, that is inarguable considering the available information. However, there are numerous reliable sources, academic/scientific and popular media, reporting the various findings, speculations, and disagreements. Presenting this is an editorial format problem, not a matter of editorial agreement: essentially, how to present equal and opposing views. The Pro/Con table solution is the most common approach to solving this sort of problem. Locking down the page is like a scientific journal ceasing publication until there is certainty. --Tsavage (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes can still get through. There just needs to be clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Do you agree that the first priority is making the article readable? At the moment the standard of English is frankly diabolical. Grammar and syntax are, in many cases, worse than I would expect from my cat. Who is German. We need to eliminate all the endless repetitions of inconclusive statements and replace them with coherent sentences backed up by multiple cites.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@FergusM1970: To discuss improving the article sentence by sentence, please start yet another section. In this section, I'm proposing a simple comparison table, leaving the rest of the article to be as concise and in summary style as possible, channeling all the energy and disagreement into one table. --Tsavage (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to try it, because right now we're getting nowhere.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, yes, changes can get through, but are you saying that the article is anywhere near easily updatable in lockdown, or that a typo can be corrected if someone finds an admin to do it? I came here wanting to add some stuff, and I'm locked out because, as far as I can tell, 4-5 editors are busy...quibbling. --Tsavage (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a Pro/Con Table. I think the table should be largely agreed on the talk page before being inserted and this is why I am pro lockdown. So is anyone willing to make a first draft of the pro/con table, knowing full well it will likely be controversial for some time? SPACKlick (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It can't hurt to at least try it, because we're accomplishing nothing here, so;

• Support This could be a way to end the current deadlock, so it deserves a chance.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOS, see WP:USEPROSE. Tables and bullet point lists are discouraged style. Tables and bullet point lists generally introduce a WP:GEVAL problem. Benefits and drawbacks needs to be discussed in the context of a topic, and given appropriate weight in context per the sourcing. Zad68 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, which is why my suggestion was two sections summarizing the arguments. However I reluctantly supported the suggestion simply as a way to break the deadlock and identify the actual issues, so we can then write them up intelligibly. The current article is a disgrace, meandering through a maze of repetitive, contradictory statements. It's unreadable.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying applies in general, but they are broad guidelines, to be interpreted per specific case. "Wikipedia has no firm rules" is a fundamental 5-pillar principle, and each case is different. This one is fairly contentious and may call for some creative approaches. And a table is not against specific guidelines as far as I can see.

WP:USEPROSE simple cautions: "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists ... and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed "articles"). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists." Adding a table to an article is all that is being proposed here (I see that everywhere), not turning the article into a table.

WP:GEVAL, explicily, is mainly concerned with crackpot extremes (""claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history"), where the table proposed here is a fully cited comparison of material from reliable sources, primarly high-quality medical sources. It's not a willy-nilly list, it's a graphic comparison tool: charts, tables, graphs. --Tsavage (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think for the creation of a pro and con table these two commentaries published as a pair in BMC Medicine might help structure it. The con one even has a pro vs con weight graphic. SPACKlick (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Style improvement urgently required

The way the article is written right now is atrocious. Much of it is rambling, meandering, ungrammatical and has appalling syntax. It urgently needs to be made concise and readable. This can be done without losing any useful information. For example this mess:

"They appear to be similar in toxicity to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[11] The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[10] A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using electronic cigarettes. The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapour" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses."[21] A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco.[30] As of 2014, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as harmless.[27] Until additional data is available on the topic, using e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as safe.[36] No long-term studies have shown that e-cigarettes are a "healthier alternative" to traditional cigarettes.[10] A 2014 review found no serious adverse effects reported in trials.[9]"

It could be replaced with this:

"Evidence suggests that e-cigs have similar toxicity to licensed nicotine replacement products, although it is not conclusive.¹²³ No serious adverse effects from use have been reported in trials. ⁴⁵⁶ However several organizations believe that there may be unknown risks and that e-cigs cannot be regarded as safe on current evidence.⁷⁸⁹ Some tobacco control experts claim that these concerns are exaggerated.¹⁰"

It conveys exactly the same information but it's actually readable, and doesn't contradict itself every second sentence. Yes, there is disagreement on content, but we should all be able to agree that right now the style and writing is abysmal.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, much of the article is unreadable, worse than typical label fine print. Your sample summary is clear and accurate, however, if there was a will amongst the handful of arguing editors to be clear and accurate, the article wouldn't be in its current unreadable state, so I'm not sure why you are suggesting this as if it's something new. It seems the article is in the state it's meant to be in. It's hard to assume good faith on anyone's part. :) But, indeed, summarizing everything as you have done, and pouring the detail into a pro/con comparison table, would solve the problem, IF good faith editing prevailed. --Tsavage (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the arguing editors and I'd love to improve the standard of writing! It's certainly something new for this article; the trend has been to keep stuffing in as many repetitive statements as the internet has room for. I want it to reflect the current state of the science, not 2009 tests on a brand of cigalike that's no longer made or a WHO FAQ that exists only in the Wayback Machine, but right now I'd settle for syntax that doesn't make my blood boil.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the improvement, although in the third sentence we would probably need some reference to limited evidence or lack of long term evidence for accuracy. SPACKlick (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Like this?

"However several organizations believe that there may be unknown risks and that e-cigs cannot be regarded as safe while evidence remains limited."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spot On. I Support the proposed replacement paragraph as amended should an edit request be made. SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor John Britton's pro/con comparison table can be found here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up the Safety of electronic cigarettes article. Here's what the Environmental impact section originally looked like:

"There is limited information available on the environmental issues in connection with the production, the usage, and the disposing of e-cigarettes.[13] There have been no studies formally looking at the impact of manufacturing or disposal of any components. [13] As of 2014, it is uncertain if the nicotine in e-liquid is United States Pharmacopeia-grade nicotine, a tobacco extract, or a synthetic nicotine when examining the environmental impact of how its made.[13] The emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled.[13] That there have been no studies looking at the enviromental impact of nicotine manufacturing.[13] Some e-cigarette brands state their products are ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’, even though in the absence of any supporting studies.[13] Some journalists contend that such marketing may raise sales and increase e-cigarette interest, particularly among minors.[13] It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to using one e-cigarette for the average user when looking at the cost of manufacturing them..[13] It is unclear in the manner that energy and materials used for production equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use.[13] No studies on manufacturing impacts of e cigarettes has been done.[13] Even though some brands have began recycling services for their e-cigarette cartridges, the frequency of these services is unknown.[13] Some brands have also began recycling services for their e-cigarette batteries.[13]"

Obviously, a barely readable and repetitive mess. Now it looks like this:

"No studies have been conducted into any environmental issues connected to the production, usage, and disposal of e-cigarettes or the nicotine they contain.[13] Some e-cigarette brands state their products are ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’.[13] It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to one e-cigarette when looking at the cost of manufacturing them.[13] Some brands have began recycling services for their e-cigarette cartridges and batteries but the prevalence of recycling is not known.[13]"

All the actual environmental information is there (sadly, there isn't actually any) but it's been condensed to the four sentences Tsavage suggests. I'm going to remove the third sentence unless someone can explain what it means and why it's important, but even without doing that it's far more readable and doesn't have the Wall Of Text^TM appearance it did before. If we can do something similar for this article I think it would be a huge improvement.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's a massive improvement. I'd leave in the third sentence. It means that we don't have the information to compare the environmental impact of e-cigarettes with the conventional cigarettes they are replacing, because we don't know how many cigarettes each battery, coil, cartridge, tank, ml of e-juice etc. replaces. It's important because the consideration of direct comparison is inevitable. SPACKlick (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can tentatively agree with that. However going by the source the author seems to think that e-cigs have a lifetime of a few weeks. I've been using my Nemesis since last November, so it's replaced something like 16,400 cigarettes already. My weekly waste consists of a pinch of cotton wool and three inches of kanthal wire.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. Some people throw out two disposable carto's and two bottles from e-juice every week and a battery lasts 3 months. On better devices a battery will last years, as will the clearo/tank, kanthal and cotton last a while and in small amounts and bottles are re-used to diy e-juice. Working out the environmental impact of e-cig use is difficult. That fact should be noted. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is finding a source for that, although I agree that more advanced devices have a significantly lower impact. I used to throw out a dozen cigarette packs and a couple of hundred butts every week. No-brainer really.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the statement that assessing the relative environmental impact is difficult is sourced and we can't really say any more. I'm not dealbreakingly tied to the sentec but I await more voices in the discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to do it at the talk page for that article. I'm continuing to clean it up, making it readable without removing any sourced information for now. I'm also finding some deliberately misleading cites, unfortunately. Any help sorting it out would be welcome.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to fix article

This article is not difficult to fix, and could be one of the more timely and truly helpful pages on Wikipedia in the next few weeks and months.

• Agree to reduce each of the current five subsections of health issues to max four-sentence summary, with no direct mentions of specific findings in the text, and multiple citations as required.
• Create a pros/cons / controversy / opposing views section with a comparison table with subsections as required, to present pros and cons in summary/bullet-point form.

By actually doing that, the article WILL hold together, and with a decent example in place, should be easier to maintain/defend as necessary.

If anyone here is actually on the job, and the goal is to muddy the waters, well, you're doing great! :) --Tsavage (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. If we can get agreement on this it will vastly improve the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see what this would look like before agreeing to it. I would also like to know what would stop someone from filling it up with whats there now two weeks after its done?AlbinoFerret 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see it being an issue. The main argument on the anti side is "We don't know", which will fill exactly one box. It will be easier to spot duplication in this format so we can weed it out. I'm finding on the Safety article that the same stuff is being repeated over and over, often in consecutive sentences. By switching to the table format we may be able to get a clear idea of what the actual points are without endless bloat, then when it settles down get it into a couple of properly structured and readable sections.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agree that this article needs to be fixed and doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to rewrite. I suggest that a good first step is for somebody to gather all of the sources available, list them here, then we can individually examine which ones do and do not conform to WP:MEDRS. Once we have examined the sources themselves, rewriting an article from them should be a relatively simple matter of coming up with a structure, proposing wordings for them, and discussing them until we come up with something that works. If we can agree to that, i'll reduce the protection to semi. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Assembling the sources here for vetting sounds good, that is also the first step to roughing up a quick pro/con comparison table to see if that can work. What format, copy the rendered references section or cut-paste the reference markup? --Tsavage (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; that sounds like a positive step. If we can copy the markup that might be easier to navigate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Harm reduction rewrite

Here's a rough draft of one of the health sections, Harm reduction, redux. It does not have citations, it is simply a straightforward summary for consideration that all key points are covered simply, non-technically and neutrally. Citations can be piled in, and much of the content of the current (practically unreadable) Harm reduction section can be moved to the proposed Pro/Con comparison table, or even to footnotes.

The value of e-cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction, lessening the risks related to tobacco use, is still being debated. Current scientific consensus is that e-cigs, compared side-by-side with combusted cigarettes, pose less risk, however, the long-term effects of e-cig inhalation and of any second-hand exposure are as of yet unknown. Proponents of tobacco harm reduction, including much of the public health community, generally endorse e-cigs as one of the less risky alternatives to smoking. Meanwhile, opponents of tobacco harm reduction hold that only total cessation of all forms of smoking will solve the tobacco health problem, and reject the promotion of reduced-risk alternatives. are against anything that may support smoking, which includes potential reduced-risk alternatives like e-cigs. Other current considerations in the harm reduction argument include dual use (using both e-cigs and combusted tobacco), renormalization of smoking by providing a more acceptable alternative, and e-cigs as a gateway to conventional smoking - investigation of these areas is so far inconclusive. Government regulation, of minimum age of access, use in public spaces, product testing and standards, and so on, is also a major factor in risk analysis, and still largely being developed. The involvement of the major transnational tobacco companies, with a dual interest in in promoting and smoke-free nicotine products, is considered a potential threat to the harm reduction value of e-cigs and other cigalikes.

Please literally compare by actual reading with what is in the article now. --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with "total cessation of all forms of smoking". I've ceased all forms of smoking; I vape. Maybe change it to "all forms of nicotine use except eating vegetables"? I'd also say that the current evidence on the gateway argument is pretty strong (ASH, STS etc.); it's not happening. Apart from that it looks pretty good.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha I'm the last one to start quibbling here, just want to clarify your point because I am not sure myself: are zero tolerance folks anti-nicotine, or anti-smoking and therefore against anything that may support smoking (which e-cigs, while not "smoking" obviously can do). Otherwise, yeah "all forms of nicotine" if that is an accurate description of Their position. :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be "against all forms of nicotine not manufactured by J&J or GSK". I know that seems flippant but it appears to be true; the ANTZ line is that nicotine is addictive, causes heart attacks and kills babies, except when it's in licensed NRT. Also flavoured e-cigs are targeted at children, while flavoured nicotine gum is great. My honest belief is that they are opposed to the recreational use of any drug that they don't use themselves. I know they're not all teetotalers, because I'm one of the people John Ashton called an onanist in the middle of a drunken rant a few months ago and Cathi Carrol likes to get pie-eyed and shriek "Vaping sounds like raping!" Dunno really. Sorry it's not more helpful.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Also dual use of NRT and cigarettes is licensed and seen as a positive step, if not as positive as smoking cessation. Dual use of e-cigs and cigarettes is bad and must be opposed. It doesn't make much sense. Maybe it's just a bad case of Not Invented Here?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did some quick checking, newspaper/magazine coverage, and it seems clear that the platform is basically "anti-smoking" and not particularly anti-nicotine. In any case, I amended the rough draft to something more inclusive. --Tsavage (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Erm no. If it was simply anti-smoking it wouldn't be hostile to e-cigs, would it? Note how quickly the rhetoric has switched from "ending smoking" to "ending nicotine addiction" since e-cigs appeared. I don't agree with your conclusion at all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just read this. Your argument against the wording is in my opinion a biased and obscure interpretation of the simple statement: "zero tolerance anti-smokers are against anything that supports smoking." What is difficult to understand there? Zero tolerance people against smoking are not against nicotine gum and so forth, they are against tarry, smoky, we-surely-believe carcinogenic smoking. E-cigs, unlike gum, patches, or whatnot, emulate the act of smoking. Clearly, as in the unfortunate Blu ads, e-cigs can be seen as "just like smoking, but safe." Obviously, that may have an effect on the stigmatization, the demonization, the banning of smoking. So, if you're trying to wipe out smoking, obviously, you want to stop e-cigs as well. Since they are smokeless, some anti-smoking anti-e-ciggers are unsurprisingly going to end up somewhere in the anti-nicotine camp. Perhaps a small word-change would help: "zero tolerance anti-smokers are against anything that may encourage smoking, which now includes e-cigs." Also, please remember that my draft here is just a discussion rough to establish meaning, changing wording to make the same meaning clearer is what one does in rewrites, it can be restyled as citations are added. --Tsavage (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand why you or anyone else would think that e-cigs might support smoking. Do laptops support typewriter use? Sorry, but it's just a ridiculous idea. Technologically superior alternatives do not support older products; they make them obsolete and wipe them out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied to this below, but to help you understand, and in deference to the apparent group spirit of adding more words to this page if at all possible, here's the "can you honestly say" gambit: Can you honestly say that puffing on a first gen, cigalike e-cig, complete with plumes of aerosol/mist/vapor, and with a nicotine hit to boot, is completely unlike, not at all comparable to, smoking a cigrette? To claim that is absurd. And considering that at least some e-cig models do a pretty fair emulation of cigarette smoking, and are advertised as a smoking alternative, people against smoking might kinda naturally be against e-cigs as well, for at least two reasons: that it may improve the overall impression of smoking (there's an OK way to...smoke, not just ingest nicotine, but to...smoke), and that it may lead to first-time smoking ("I started with safe e-cigs, and I'm out of...e-juice, but buddy here has a cig, and I know smoking is bad, but I do want my nic fix, soooo, just this once."). It's just how things are. --Tsavage (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't even see the relevance to be honest. And if someone is against smoking, and also against a safer alternative to smoking, then they have some serious cognitive dissonance, to the point where they should probably be a patient rather than a health care professional. And, again, no: E-cig use is not smoking. if someone ran out of e-liquid why would they take a cigarette? Why not just buy more liquid? And one last point: If someone who had only vaped tried a cigarette I can assure you they'd never try another one. I had three puffs on a cigarette back in June, and it revolted me; I'll never touch one again. I smoked 40 a day for 25 years.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am against any reduction in information to Harm Reduction by removal of sourced information. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no intention to remove material, only to summarize it. In its current state, Harm reduction is difficult to read, a poorly connected series of single sentence statements, individually sourced, at times contradictory. This is not only difficult to synthesize while reading, it is creates both the impression of bias, and actual, even if unintentional, bias: each statement from a particular source should then be balanced by statements addressing exactly the same point if available in all other cited sources in the section. Otherwise, it is a form of cherrypicking. Finally, if you carefully parse through the current 650+ words in Harm reduction, do you come to any different or more refined conclusion than you do from the summarized version? No, you can't, because none of it claims to be conclusive. This sort of detail can more accessibly included in a table and in footnotes. --Tsavage (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no bias, it is based on what the medical sources say. Each refrenced claim has probably been fact checked by a dozen editors already. If you have something from a MEDRS secondary source that says otherwise, propose its inclusion. But to rewrite to eliminate sourced claims is against NPOV. The sources say whats in the article. AlbinoFerret 01:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not the sole editor, controversial edits that redo the whole page or a section have to be discussed and consensus reached. All I see s far is removal of sourced claims for unsourced words. Its in a medical section and each claim will need to be soured to a MEDRS secondary source. AlbinoFerret 01:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret You are taking this off-point again, and seem to be trying to make it personal ("you are not the sole editor"). You've already said you don't support this edit. Duly noted (by me, at least). You stated your reason. I replied. You are now not addressing my reply, that no material or sources are being removed, only summarized, and that detail can better be placed in a table or footnotes. Several editors above have agreed that a rewrite is needed, and even with this specific proposal. Yet you are arguing that the One Way is the Way It Is Now. Just because a "dozen" editors vet a source doesn't mean that the material used or the way it was used, is, like, untouchable. You are calling the rough draft unsourced, which apparently means you didn't read the first two sentences of this section, which explain that this is a rough for consideration, citations to be added. If you have a specific problem with the rough draft here, information that is excluded, points that are missed, summaries that are misleading or inaccurate, please specify. --Tsavage (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2 editors above have agreed with you, there are dozens who edit this article regularly. I think you may have some good ideas, but this article is just starting to come to discussions. Bold editing like you are doing has lead to the edit wars that got the page protected. I suggest you add all the references into your draft. I also sugest you stop with the bold wording, because its not polite. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion is why not start at the top, say with Positions, its on a breakout page thats not protected, lets see what you can do. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! Do you have a specific problem with the rough draft here, information that is omitted, points that are missed, summaries that are misleading or inaccurate, compared to the existing Harm reduction. --Tsavage (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears there are no statements from MEDRS in the small paragraph you wrote. I would like to see where the WP:MEDRS secondary sources are that your using for each of the claims in that paragraph. AlbinoFerret 02:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This one in particular, anything based on "A 2014 review found no long-term evidence on the safety or efficacy of e-cigarettes, including whether they reduce harm for tobacco related disease or will improve the health of the population as a whole. Therefore, promotion of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction product is premature" because there are problems with that sentence as the source isnt talking about harm reduction and its likely OR link. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After some thought I agree with AF that the proposed version seems to omit the fact that many major organisations, including PHE, AAPHP, the BMA and the CDC recognise the fact that e-cigs have a role to play in harm reduction. I'm all for the principle of streamlining the current atrocious style, but not by removing all the pro-THR information. The proposed version only mentions anti-THR arguments such as the "gateway" and "renormalization" claims, both of which are now utterly discredited anyway. I also don't agree with the wording "anything which may support smoking"; that's just "renormalization" rubbish again. I'd say at a bare minimum we need to say that e-cigs as a THR tool have a lot of support and there's a consensus that they are much less dangerous than smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys here are too nitpicky for me. The whole point of heavily summarizing rather than individually citing reviews is that it's almost impossible not to misrepresent right now for this topic. For example, I just read your first mention above, Public Health England's Electronic Cigarettes review, and really, while the article summary is accurate in saying it finds "there is large potential for health benefits when switching from tobacco use to other nicotine delivery devices such as electronic cigarettes, but realizing their full potential requires regulation and monitoring to minimize possible risks," that really kinda minimizes and sweeps under the rug the strongest warning in the whole report: "all of the four transnational tobacco companies ... no doubt eager to exploit opportunities for advertising and promotion that might increase either electronic or tobacco cigarette use ... Given the ethical record of tobacco industry activity in promoting and defending smoked tobacco, this is an obvious and significant potential threat." How effective is a harm reducer if it is being used as a harm increaser by a crafty, hugely resourced, highly profit motivated, unethical agency? And what is the THR information that you don't want to see removed? --Tsavage (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The tobacco companies don't matter right now. They'll only become important in the e-cig market if regulation imposes a financial bar to entry that they can pay but the independents can't. Note that the tobacco companies are enthusiastic supporters of tight regulations on e-cigs; RJ Reynolds have called for a complete ban on all Gen 2 and 3 devices. The THR information that needs to stay is the fact that a lot of PH/TC people are fully behind e-cigs as a THR tool. Your proposed version only presents anti-THR arguments, at least two of which have been demolished by evidence (gateway & renormalization). THR advocates are overwhelmingly behind e-cigs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a few words. I also added a tobacco company sentence. I don't see how the tobacco companies don't matter right now, they seem well-motivated, investing billions over the last few years, rolling out e-cigs and other smokeless new products, and legislation is already hitting, once legislation is in place, the cost of lobbying kicks in, and surely that's a barrier to entry... Anyhow, considering the Talk archives I've read, I don't expect this to go anywhere, but it's an interesting look-see into what at least one hotbutton topic on WP is like these days. I'll try and do the citations for this one just to wrap it up. --Tsavage (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They're not rolling out anything; they're just buying up five-year-old technology and trying to use legislation to stifle the dominant products, which are Gen 2 and 3. As for legislation, you nailed it; the idiots in tobacco control and public health who want strict legislation are on the tobacco industry's side here. They are protecting cigarette sales by trying to take modern e-cigs off the market and restrict it to obsolete ones. At the moment, however, the tobacco industry is not important. They have less than half of one market sector - Gen 1 cigalikes - and that's declining fast. Their presence in the Gen 2 and 3 market is nil.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I can't agree with it at all in its current form. How is providing alternatives to smoking "renormalizing" smoking? That's like saying the invention of cars renormalized horses. Saying that e-cigs may support smoking is also something I can't accept, because it's just a hypothetical that has been demolished by the evidence. And the tobacco companies will only reduce the THR potential of e-cigs if the regulation being demanded by the tobacco control industry allows them to. The people who warn that the tobacco industry will take over the e-cig market are the exact same people who are trying to make that happen.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this?

The value of e-cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction - lessening the risks related to tobacco use - is still being debated. Current scientific consensus is that e-cigs, compared side-by-side with cigarettes, pose less risk. Proponents of tobacco harm reduction generally endorse e-cigs as one of the less risky alternatives to smoking. Meanwhile, opponents of tobacco harm reduction hold that only total cessation of all forms of nicotine use will solve the tobacco health problem, and reject the use of reduced-risk alternatives. Anti-harm reduction arguments include claimed risks from dual use of e-cigarettes and lit tobacco, renormalization of smoking and the possibility of e-cigs acting as a gateway to smoking. Current evidence has not found any of these effects but harm reduction opponents believe they may appear in the future. Government regulation (of minimum age of access, use in public spaces, product testing and standards etc.) is also a major factor in risk analysis, and is still largely being developed. The involvement of the major transnational tobacco companies, with an interest in promoting both smoking and smoke-free nicotine products, is considered a potential threat to the harm reduction value of e-cigarettes. Harm reduction advocates argue that inappropriate legislation will exacerbate, rather than avoid, this threat.

I can't support anything that states or implies that vaping is a form of smoking, because it just isn't. I've also removed "and other cigalikes"; "cigalike" is a (mildly derogatory) name for a Gen 1 e-cig, so "e-cigs and other cigalikes" looks kind of odd.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool. IMO, generally well cleaned up - nice punctuation! - the "inappropriate legislation exacerbates" stuff adds to the useful overview THR, sweet...with a couple of glaring exceptions:

1. Meanwhile, opponents of tobacco harm reduction hold that only total cessation of all forms of nicotine use will solve the tobacco health problem, and reject the use of reduced-risk alternatives. That seems almost right, but is it (true and) verifiable that ALL anti-THRers are anti-nicotine, that seems more like a position some have turned to as one avenue of opposition to e-cigs? The plain fact is that, unlike gum and patches, for example, e-cig use can be a fair emulation of smoking that is portrayed as the "safer alternative": there is "smoke," you puff on a cig or cigar or pipe-like device, a kid pretending to smoke would have a much finer time with an e-cig than a candy cigarette and no fun at all with a square of gum. Unfortunately, as safe as they may be, we haven't gotten away from that appearance just yet, so naturally e-cigs can be seen as quite possibly encouraging/rehabilitating smoking.

Perhaps instead: Meanwhile, opponents of tobacco harm reduction hold that only total cessation of smoking will solve the tobacco health problem, and reject the use of reduced-risk alternatives. seems more accurate. A section on anti-tobacco vs anti-smoking vs anti-nicotine would definitely be interesting, somewhere.

2. Current evidence has not found any of these effects but harm reduction opponents believe they may appear in the future. - first off, not correct, in that at least some current evidence has found some of these effects, individual studies are coming out left and right, aren't they. For example, Risk Factors for Exclusive E-Cigarette Use and Dual E-Cigarette Use and Tobacco Use in Adolescents, accepted Oct/2014 in peer-reviewed Pediatrics, and specifically addressing renormalizaiton, concludes: "The fact that e-cigarette only users were intermediate in risk status between nonusers and dual users raises the possibility that e-cigarettes are recruiting medium-risk adolescents, who otherwise would be less susceptible to tobacco product use."

How about a more even-handed: Anti-harm reduction arguments cite the potential risks of dual use of e-cigarettes and lit tobacco, renormalization of smoking and the e-cigs acting as a gateway to smoking, while evidence of these effects is still inconclusive.? --Tsavage (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My biggest issue is that you're still using "total cessation of smoking". I totally ceased smoking last February. Switching to exclusively vaping is total cessation of smoking and I cannot support any wording that implies vaping is a form of smoking. Secondly, no, there is no evidence for "renormalization" or the "gateway effect". In fact as e-cig use grows smoking is falling at an accelerating rate, which is exactly the opposite to what we would see if these concerns were valid. There are only three developed nations where smoking prevalence has started to rise again: Australia, Singapore and Sweden. All have e-cig bans.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as an aside. Smoking prevalence has also been on the up in France and in New York City, both of which have only moved to strongly regulate e-cigarettes very recently, and in South Africa, where the prohibition on e-cigs is barely enforced, as well as a number of other countries. That neither proves nor disproves the role of e-cigs in cessation or the existence of the renormalisation/gateway effects but it does demonstrate that there are other factors in smoking prevalence besides the availability of e-cigarettes! Barnabypage (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Risk Factors for Exclusive E-Cigarette Use and Dual E-Cigarette Use and Tobacco Use in Adolescents is a primary medical source and cant be used in this article by long standing agreement all medical sources need to be secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting paper. The actual figures for current e-cig use are pretty small - 91% of teens had used an e-cig four times or less, only 4% use weekly or more - but what really hit me was that the figures for smoking are tiny. Less than 2% weekly or daily use. That's either a serious methodological flaw - asking kids in front of their parents or something - or a fairly steady level of teen smoking has suddenly collapsed to about a third of what it was. According to the CDC somewhere over 5% of 13-17 year olds in Hawaii initiated smoking in 2011, so where have all the teen smokers gone and what's changed in the last three years?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is arguing like a court case. Secondary sources are definitely a better bet for some sort of balanced view when sections like the current Health Effects are pieced together directly from reports, however, a "this evidence is not admissable on technical grounds" approach in general seems ridiculous. First of all, this is not an article on a surgical procedure, it's on a device that the FDA, I believe, failed to even have classified as a medical device, and the overall subject is in large part as much sociological and political as it is medical/scientific, particularly in harm reduction. And, there is a difference between quoting or summarizing material directly from a single study, and using, for example, two or three studies, perhaps briefly explained in a citation footnote, to support something like "evidence of these effects is inconclusive" rather than saying, well, since there is no specific peer-reviewed review of the existing literature we can find, even though there are peer-reviewed studies, we can say there is no evidence of the topic. Or am I missing something? --Tsavage (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I feel your pain. Unfortunately a group of editors insist on applying MEDRS. I disagree, but I'm not part of the MED elite. You'll have to take it up with them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are missing the long standing agreement on secondary sources by the editors. If you want to try and get it changed discuss it and get consensus that it should be changed. But I think you will have an uphill battle on that. Thats because its WP guideline that secondary sources should be used per WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 19:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I get that, WP:MEDRS: "...it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." However, much of this article is not strictly "biomedical," like THR in particular, it's about social, cultural, political/policy issues as well. As for primary vs secondary sources, the WP:MEDRS strongly encourages the use of secondary sources only, but on full reading, recognizes that the use of primary sources is at times necessary. One of the more obvious examples: "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors." So for example, that Pediatric report concludes "raises the possibility that e-cigarettes are recruiting medium-risk adolescents" (my emphasis) which, I think fairly supports (especially with more similar primary sources) saying that the "evidence is inconclusive" not that there is no evidence, without giving that statement undue weight.

in WP:MEDRS, there are several references that recognize primary source use, while being kinda vaguely worded no doubt so as not to encourage it (a lot of policy interpretation I think goes too far from the original intent of WP guidelines, which was/is to prevent obvious stuff, like crackpot theories cited to crackpot pseudoscience presented on personal blogs). I don't expect to win any arguments, here, but some of the wikilawyering of various sorts deserves at least to be pointed out. --Tsavage (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's another problem here; several editors have, without justification, gold-plated MEDRS and decided that primary sources can't be used at all (unless they're anti-THR, of course). There are a lot of issues here. To be honest we should blank the page and start again, from the firm position that it's not a medical article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Wikilawyering has negative connotations, I think that someone informing an editor who is new to the page, who has no history of the past, is important. I suggest you become positive, and work with the editors who are already here, and who are pointing out problems you will need to address with what your proposing. Consensus building is the only way additions are going to be added for a little bit. When people just edit on this page it leads to edit wars, if you dont believe me, look at the articles history for today. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I am positive! Review the amount of civil discussion I've added to this page. Does any of it seem sub-intelligent, POV, intentionally disruptive, anything less than editorial...discussion? I've argued points, proposed solutions, contributed rewritten text, all positive. My comment about wikilawyering was not aimed at anyone in particular (were you thinking I was referring to you?), it was a comment addressing what I've encountered in my last few weeks of increased time on WP, here and elsewhere, a detailed, dogmatic approach to interpreting editorial guidelines and invoking "consensus" to various specific ends, a game that when encountered, every editor is forced to play to stay involved. It was always like this to a degree, except the "precedents" - previous consensus - grow more numerous over time, as do issues considered "will never be resolved." That's what I meant. I said, "some of the wikilawyering of various sorts" in reference to what I just explained. Likely, this is just the way things are. In any case, I'm not personalizing anything and I am not...negative. :) --Tsavage (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyering in general is a negative accusation, regardless of who you say is doing it, or who you think may be doing it. Id recommend not bringing it up in general. AlbinoFerret 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you insist on...lecturing me? I am using wikilawyering exactly as it is defined, specifically referring to two of the four examples a the beginning of WP:WL:

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
• Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express

A lot of edit warring is based on this type of behavior, citing policies and guidelines while tenaciously hanging on to favored positions. I'm pretty clear on what I mean. --Tsavage (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

is it (true and) verifiable that ALL anti-THRers are anti-nicotine - definitely not. Depends how you define an "anti-THRer", I guess, because not many would define themselves that way, but there are plenty who are anti-e-cig but at least tolerate NRT. Barnabypage (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well...exactly. --Tsavage (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Taxes/International Affairs

Taxes on E-Cigarettes

Taxes on e-cigarettes are relatively under-developed as the products are still young. Minnesota and North Carolina have actually levied a tax on e-cigarette tobacco vapor products such as “juice”; Minnesota is at 95% of the wholesale value . and republican Governor Pat McCrory in North Carolina has levied a similar, yet much more modest, tax of $0.05 per milliliter. Though the taxes have some opposition, both democrats and republicans have generally accepted them. New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) headlined a significant sin tax on electronic cigarettes in May 2014. Also, Philadelphia is considering a $2.00 tax on e-cigarettes where revenue would go to a general fund predominately used for schools.

But not all states are passing e-cigarette taxes. In 2013, Utah defeated HB372, which was a tax increase on e-cigarettes and nicotine candies and made it illegal to sell to minors less than 19 years old. These taxes are being met with much concern. Opponents say the blossoming industry will be suppressed by the high taxes, and without much evidence of negative health effects, the taxes are seen as unnecessary. Proponents of the tax claim e-cigarette flavors are enticing children to use e-cigarettes, ultimately undoing decades of anti-smoking headway. Many lawmakers imposing these taxes cite youth smoking deterrence and monetary aid in offsetting the public cost of medical care for ill-fated smokers, similar to the big tobacco bonds from the ‘90s. Taxes might shift tobacco sales to online or out of state. When Utah increased its tax on (traditional) tobacco win 2010, data showed smuggling across state lines as a way to dodge the imposed tax. The same phenomenon is happening in the e-cigarette market. If taxes are imposed, brick and mortar vendors will face online competition with lower overhead costs.

Worldwide Acceptance of E-Cigarettes

Throughout the world, electronic cigarettes are impacting local governments. The following chronology exemplifies the tumultuous beginnings of this blossoming industry. The conventional tobacco market, as we know, it is on its heels. For example, in 2009, Brazil issued regulations to prohibit the sale and import of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette advertising restrictions. On March 27th, 2009, Canada banned the sale of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine products. In June 2009, Panama banned the import of electronic cigarettes products. In July 2009, the Israeli Ministry of Health banned the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In January 2010, the Maltese consumer electronic cigarette ban in public places, and to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. In July 2010, Singapore introduced regulations to prohibit the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In May 2011, Argentina enacted regulations that prohibit the import, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes. In November 2011, the Greek electronic banned cigarette sales and consumption.

Currently in the United States, only e-cigarettes that are marketed for therapeutic purposes are currently regulated by the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The rules being considered by the F.D.A. in the United States do not address where e-cigarettes can be smoked.

A 2014 study submitted by the National Institute of Public Health of Japan (AFP) Japanese Health Ministry states that “Electronic cigarettes contain up to 10 times more cancer-causing substances than regular tobacco”.

Convenience stores are accountable for more than half of the sale of e-cigarettes. Smoke shops command 22% of e-cigarette sales, and online e-tailers account for about 20%, and 2% are sold in other channels. Since 2008, electronic cigarette prices began to decline, with sales doubling each year. According to the U.S. “Times” recently reported that sales of electronic cigarettes is less than 1% of the tobacco market. But over the past four years, the growth of electronic cigarettes is very robust, doubling every year. Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog says that, "as technology continues to improve, the electronic cigarette market will exceed real cigarette market in the next 10 years. Sales of e-cigarettes are estimated to surpass one billion dollars by 2017". The future of the electronic cigarette market is expected to reach 30% annual growth rate; and more than half of e-cigarette buyers are repetitive smokers, rather than new users. The biggest attractions of electronic cigarettes are perceived lower health risks, lower prices, and the “freshness” of vapor compared to smoke.

These both appear to be better suited to the Legal Status page. AlbinoFerret 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, is this a proposed addition to the article? If so I agree with AF; it should be under Legal Status.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a health claim about Japan sourced to a news article, it needs to be a MEDRS secondary source for a health claim. AlbinoFerret 01:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that shit about e-cigs containing ten times as much formaldehyde as actual cigarettes. It's not in the study; the highest level actually found was one-sixth of what's in a cigarette. It doesn't belong anywhere on the internet, never mind Wikipedia. AFP are currently being sued for distributing it because it's utter mince.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a few comments here:

- Yeah, the Japanese "ten times" study doesn't seem to have been given a great deal of credence.

- The Canadian situation is fuzzier than an actual "ban". (There is no regulation at federal level and it's only just starting at provincial level, but Health Canada has taken it upon itself to regulate, possibly without authority.)

- Australia is worth mentioning as a major market with a ban on nicotine-containing e-cigs (and, in one or two states, all e-cig equipment).

- Similarly in the Nordic nations.

- But most "bans" are bans on sale not on possession or use.

- The retail pattern (C-stores vs. tobacconists vs. supermarkets vs. vape stores etc.) differs a lot among countries. I can dig out some high-level figures over the Christmas holiday if we want to explore this in detail, though probably a few illustrative ones will suffice. Barnabypage (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not been given much credence because the study doesn't say that. The highest formaldehyde level the study found in an e-cig was one-sixth of that in the cigarette.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it was other research by the same Japanese team that found the "ten times" result, but only in one case, so it was almost certainly an anomaly. In any case it's not been taken seriously by the people worth taking seriously! Barnabypage (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with the Japanese findings is they are not in any peer reviewed journal, not as a primary, not as a review. There is no MEDRS source for a medical claim because of that. All we have are news sites and they cant be used for medical claims. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of POV text

Currently the article describes e-cigarettes, in two places (the first paragraph of Usage and the image beside that section, as being used to "circumvent" smoke-free laws. The OED gives the following definitions for "circumvent":

Find a way around (an obstacle):

‘if you come to an obstruction in a road you can seek to circumvent it’

Overcome (a problem or difficulty) in a clever and surreptitious way:

‘it was always possible to circumvent the regulations’

archaic Deceive; outwit:

‘he’s circumvented her with some of his stories’

In my opinion this is slanted language, implying that e-cig users are somehow violating either the letter or spirit of smoke-free laws. In fact by not smoking e-cig users are complying with smoke-free laws. I'd suggest that either "circumvent" is changed to "comply with" or that these statements are removed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: This appears to be a bad sourcing issue not a wording issue, as the cited source is misrepresented in the article: the "circumvent" findings refer to e-cig advertising, not user response (they're from a study "To describe the main advertising claims made on branded e-cigarette retail websites). Just check the cited source. --Tsavage (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) - Clear POV-pushing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's pretty a pretty blatant breach of WP:IMPARTIAL. However if "comply with" also proves to be controversial, I would recommend that it is simply replaced with something like "use in areas where smoking is prohibited".Levelledout (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What word does the reference use? It uses circumvent. "and as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One source, Grana, uses the word "circumvent", another source puts it in a far more impartial way: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged"[57].Levelledout (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The strong source supports the wording. I also think it is unwise to replace the sourced text with OR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, do you actually know what OR means?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What you proposed to replace it with is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. If your response to a no-smoking law is to not smoke you are not circumventing the law. You are complying with it. That is not OR. It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not discussing not smoking. The source does not say "comply with" the laws by using e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The law says I can't smoke. I am not smoking. Am I complying with the law?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not RS. QuackGuru (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, Quack. OK, let's try another example. The law says don't murder people. I haven't murdered anyone. Have I broken that law, circumvented it or complied with it? The issue here is that "circumvent", whether sourced or not, is slanted language. It is POV. It is inherently loaded with negative connotations. If a law says "don't smoke" and you are not smoking, you are not circumventing the law. You are complying with it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact here's a more exact analogy. There is a law against drinking and driving. If someone goes to the pub, drinks nine pints of beer then gets a taxi home, do we say he is circumventing the drink-driving law? No, we do not. We say he is complying with the law by not drinking and driving. The same goes for someone who vapes in a no-smoking area. He is not circumventing the law; he is complying with the law by not smoking. Is this clear enough?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question for you Quack; do you think that vaping and smoking are the same thing? TheNorlo (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Do you think we should follow the sources or delete text if editors think the source is wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James. "Comply" is simply inaccurate. The policy does not require vaping, it requires not smoking. Cloudjpk (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So if you're not smoking you're complying with the law?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Answer my question please. The law/policy requires not smoking. So if you are not smoking you are complying with it, correct?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So, another analogy. The drink-driving law does not require drinking Coke; it requires not drinking alcohol. If someone drives to the pub, drinks only Coke then drives home is he circumventing the drink-driving law or complying with it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think vaping produces a form of smoke called aerosol? The source says "other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..."[58] QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I Doubt It's Objectively True.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No I do not think that "vaping produces a form of smoke called aerosol" and it is disruptive to assert something as truth without understanding the basic scientific principles involved. For your information smoke is a product of combustion and consists of solid particles. "Mist" (e-cig aerosol) is an entirely different type of aerosol that is the product of condensation and consists of liquid particles. Bottom line: Smoke and mist (from e-cigs) are completely separate types of aerosol. Therefore mist is not a form a smoke. There are plenty of places where you can confirm this information, such as here. Levelledout (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I took Quack to AN/I on the grounds that he is not WP:COMPETENT to edit. This is a perfect example of what I mean.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support the idea but would prefer a different wording. Circumvent may be in the source, but it is unambiguously inaccurate and implies wrongdoing. Comply isn't great wording either, and not entirely accurate. Maybe something neutral that is still supported by the source, like other common explanations for the use of these products are to use nicotine in places that have smoke-free laws.... This is a close paraphrase from the source itself, section called Prevalence, "the most common reasons given for trying e-cigarettes are for use in places where smoking is restricted, to cut down on smoking, and for help with quitting smoking" The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that; it's neutral and accurate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that as well. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Electronic Cigarette - .22circumvent smoke-free laws.22

... let's try to avoid having yet another instance of having the same topic discussed in more than one place at a time. Zad68 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Source does not support article claims. moved my detailed finding to the above NPOV noticeboard discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Removal Per Tsavage's findings on the NPOV noticeboard discussion that the source does not support claim this should be removed. AlbinoFerret 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting."[59] How many times must I explain this? There is also more details in the source about this. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No its not "Well sourced" The source used says nothing of the kind in the body, and then twists it around to users in the end. It make it unreliable. Its a pure twisting of who said what. Anyone who can read and comprehend can tell its not in the source originally. The users never said these things. Since its unreliable it needs to be removed. I am going to do a search for who placed it in the article and twisted it into a POV edit. AlbinoFerret 05:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided a quote from the source showing it is sourced and not ambiguously worded, yet you claim it is "unreliable". QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Find it in the body of the source, not the end that is opinion. You wont be able to. Thats because in the body it is not the users speaking, but advertisers. This is an error in the source. Proving it unreliable. AlbinoFerret 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard that relates to the discussion in this section: Link
Levelledout (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to expand the lede without changing other sentences in the lede

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's leave the lede for now; there are more important problems to sort out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is supposed to be short and easy to read, a summary of the important points. It does not need to be expanded, but made smaller. AlbinoFerret 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We have already established that there is consensus for either a new uses section and are currently working towards consensus on this. This proposal is just a muddying of the waters. I am baffled as to the point in it.Levelledout (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose but not because of the new sentences The lede is heavy enough as it is. I would like to see it shortened. A few sentences about the devices themselves, what you wrote there is fine with me, 1 or 2 sentences about each other points max.... Not this endless medical and legislative rambling that we have right nowTheNorlo (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could just say something as simple as There is considerable debate about the implications of e-cigarettes for personal and public health, and about how to regulate them? That might be preferable to trying to shoehorn even the salient points of some quite complex topics into a sentence or two. Barnabypage (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good, but its a constant battle as one editor continually tries to expand and complicate the lede. Its been cleaned up in a great example of working together before only to have it stuffed full and made harder to read since then. AlbinoFerret 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I really like that, we could almost get rid of 3 paragraphs with this one sentence. Let's keep exploring this please. The present state of the lede sounds like this: One review says this but the other one says that, these guys don't know if but these other guys think that... no one really knows shit but let's keep rambling for another 2 paragraphs about the depth of our ignorance on this topic..... It is very irritating TheNorlo (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To expand on this idea of succinctness, how about something like this: The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain. There is considerable scientific and legislative debate about the implications of e-cigarettes for personal and public health, and about how to regulate them. And BOOM.... Out the window goes the awful 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Let's not mention that they are better or worst than smokes, that they may or may not contain crap, because the moment we do that, a nuclear bomb will expode again leaving in the lede the pathetic remnents of what was clearly a war on the talk page of the article. TheNorlo (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This section only came about because Quack couldn't understand a completely different proposal, but I agree that the lede - and the whole article - needs to be completely rewritten. See my proposal at the bottom of the page.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Third generation PV' and Mechanical Mods.

The third generation subsection of the construction section currently includes mechanical mods. This is inaccurate as mechs have been around way before third gen devices. I don't think I'm wrong by saying that they've been around before second gen mods. I think we should erase all mention of them in the third gen section and treat them seperatly in the section that is already there anyways.... Maybe move the mech section out of the power section and place it right under the generations section. TheNorlo (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right that they've been around longer than Gen 2 but most of the vapers I know class them as Gen 3 anyway, because they use standard batteries and you can adjust the power by simply spending nine hours sticking bits of wire into the end of your finger and losing o-rings.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn it's complicated. RHFOS has just pointed out that mechs are Gen 3 if you install a Kick. Thinking about it I'd tend to agree with you; we should break them out of Gen 3 and treat them separately.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

More opinions; RHFOS says they're definitely not Gen 3 without a Kick; Dave Dorn says they're effectively Gen 1 power sources.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense of having them in third gen, regardless of what Atty people use with them... I mean, you can plug a quad clapton coil plumevail RDA on an 650mAh ego and it'll work as long as the resistance is right.... That still doesn't make ego's third gen devices..... I strongly oppose mech being classify as third gen. TheNorlo (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not making it easy by treating them their own section.TheNorlo (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

On a side note Fergus.... You must be extremely happy about the incredible advances made in clearomizer tech if it takes you 9 hours to wrap a coil. TheNorlo (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I may have exaggerated slightly for dramatic effect; I have a handy little coiling jig from SlowTech and can knock up a new Taifun coil in about two minutes. I do tend to stick the end of the wire into my finger though. Anyway I take back what I said about most of the vapers I know thinking mechs are Gen 3; apparently none of them now do. The key feature of Gen 3 is being given as VV/VW. I tend to agree, to be honest. Dave Dorn says Gen 4 is Gen 3 features plus temp control, and he runs Vapour Trails TV so he must be an RS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha.. But I have to agree with that. Gen 4 is gen 3 plus temp control. So... What do you think, get rid of mechs in third gen and treat them as separate devices? They really are when you think about it.TheNorlo (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be as follows:

1 - Unregulated battery (so cigalikes and mechs)

2 - Regulated battery

3 - Adjustable power delivery, either through VV or VW

4 - Adjustable power delivery and temp control.

Obviously if we call mechs Gen 1 it's going to need some major revisions to most of what we've already said, because apart from being unregulated they have nothing in common with cigalikes.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My brain is melting here. I agree; they're a separate class, outside the generation structure.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Lyne Dawkins has written something about it. Trying to get a link now. That would give us an RS for whatever she says.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:41, 20 December 2014 (

Sure, lets see what she says. But regardless, it makes zero sense calling them gen 1. Mechs have had an evolution of their own. Would you really dump something like the 3000$ Otto Carter mods in the same category as Blu?TheNorlo (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. By a narrow definition of battery regulation you could, but there's no comparison in performance terms.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would counter that no cigalike as ever had a battery capable of safely discharging 30 amps like the one commonly used in mechs.... They are clearly a class of their own.TheNorlo (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And then add to that the ability to Kick them. Which cigalike can be kicked again? Class of their own.TheNorlo (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with calling them Gen 1. It fits one definition, but it's not useful.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll clean up the section when I will have access to something else than my phone! TheNorlo (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I missed out on a lot of good discussion while I was sleeping. I would agree that mech's fall somewhere in the second to third generation but I was only able to find citations that placed them in the third. The problem with mechs is we are talking about two different things joined together. The original hand made modified hardware (flashlights as battery compartments) that came to be known as mods and were mostly mechanical (but not always) were in response to the poor performance of ciagalikes and started the second generation. The high end manufactured mech mods are really part of the third generation because of improvements over the hand made devices, they are fully mechanical and designed to go with third generation rebildables in order to fire low ohm coils. AlbinoFerret 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that right now, Mechanicals are a category on their own, apart from the "generation scheme". They evolved, as you said, from the modding community but not in the same way as the other electronic mods. From crappy materials to silver plated copper contacts, from ugly contraption to works of art. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they fit into the generational time line, as all devices should fit some place, but that its hard to source exactly where. I think of the generations section as a time line or a progression. I think mechanicals and the early mods are really two different devices, one rising from the other. I think the best place to separate them is in the Mechanical mods section. Perhaps mentioning that modified hardware is in second generation and higher end mechanicals are in third in the generation section. The problem is we have a source for the third generation, we dont for the second. AlbinoFerret 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a chat with the Redhead Full Of Steam and Dave Dorn from VTTV earlier. They reckon the requirement to be counted as Gen 3 is VV or VW capability, so a mech is only Gen 3 if it's Kicked.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's a presentation from Dr Dawkins. It's not MEDRS but that doesn't matter as it's not being used for health claims. Not a lot of detail in it but I'll look for more later.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To Albino: I think we are saying the same thing. Let's talk about mechs in the mechanical section and let's avoid mentioning them in the "generation 1, 2 or 3" of the article. I think it would be simpler that way since it is not clear where they belong, Gen 1 is usually thought of to be cig a likes and third gen are perceived as vv\vw devices with electronic battery safety features, mechs are none of that. And I do not agree that high end mechs are better or different than consumer grade ones. The 40$ magneto performs just as well as a authentic Chi You... Kinda. TheNorlo (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they should be mentioned in Generations, all devices should fit into at least one generation. Its a section on the progression of the hardware so everything will fit some place. But the subtle differences should be explained in the individual sections on each component. So I would add modified hardware like flashlights as battery compartments to second generation, if we have a source, and manufactured mechanicals to third generation. In the Mechanical mods section we should go into more detail on how one led to the other. Modifieds because of poor first generation hardware are second generation. I think manufactured mechanicals are third generation because they were a result of the need to fire sub ohm third generation atomizers that variables could not at the time. AlbinoFerret 15:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@FergusM1970: here is a better location for that Dawkins info, it fits as a reliable source. link AlbinoFerret

Fergus: Unless I missed it, I see no reference to mechs in there.

Albino: I agree that it should go in the generation section. But what do you think if we do it something like this? TheNorlo (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Mechanicals should stay in the third generation, the example removed them. I think once sourced Modified's should be in second, and the current section on Mechanicals is renamed to Modified's and Mechanicals that explains how one led into the other. Mechanicals should be in one generation section, at present we have a source that places them there. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about something like this.... Let's leave them in the 3rd gen section. But not intertwined in the same paragraph as electronic 3rd gen devices like it was before. Let's have a seperate paragraph, in the 3rd gen section dedicated to mechanicals.... They are, at the end of the day, different than every other types of ecigs. TheNorlo (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, do you want to work up some wording on it? AlbinoFerret 16:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do but not right now. I'm not from, but I am in Australia right now and it is 3h07 am on Sunday morning ;) TheNorlo (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Ill see if I can work something up in the meantime that we can tweak. I organized the section in my sandbox a little link perhaps it will help as a starting point. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about "Mech mods lack third generation features such as battery regulation and VV/VW. However they are generally regarded as belonging to Gen 3 because they allow the user to customize the vape, albeit in different ways." Ways that involve wire, blowtorches and fiendishly complicated calculators instead of pressing the "power up" button.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that price doesn't really make any difference to the vape from a mech. I have a clone Stingray X and it actually has less voltage drop than an original.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is sourcing that line. I want to improve the sourcing of the Components section. Generations is in pretty good shape. If you can source all that I dont have an issue with it. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add temperature control and puff regulation to the Variable section with this reference. Its in the second paragraph. Its foruth generation, and will eventually be in that section when created, but we need more information to start a 4th generation subsubsection.AlbinoFerret 19:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to split the main article on Electronic Cigarettes

I am new editor to this topic (haven't made any changes on the article page) but have observed the talk discussion for several months. I feel strongly that the article is disorganized and the content represents poorly constructed information that in many instances is irrelevant to what an electronic cigarette is. I propose a split that I realize needs consensus and may be challenging to address.

The current main article has (at least) 3 splits occurring which is partially what I am getting at. Yet, I think it ought to be more broad than this. As I see it, there is "what is an electronic cigarette" and then there is "information about vaping" including usage in society, health benefits or risks, legal status, economic issues and vaping culture.

In my review of the talk page, much of the debate seems to be filtered through the competing perspectives on "information about vaping." Putting this on the article page for "what is an electronic cigarette" has lead to a disorganized content article that has noted at the top "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't see that going away anytime soon as long as "information about vaping" is presented on the electronic cigarette main article page.

Every time I read the main article, and in the lede, where it starts in second paragraph with "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain," I feel I am reading an article that is poorly constructed and that Wikipedia editors are forever going to be caught up in endless debate. I think that debate is good to have and at times entertaining. But it is unhelpful to a page about what an electronic cigarette is. So, I am proposing that a split occur that would remove items such as:

• nearly everything in the lede starting with "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain" and after this. Clearly that sentence is about "usage" and really about vaping (nicotine). A lede on this topic ought to be 2 paragraphs at most.
• Health Effects - shortened. What's there now is already on other article page and thus redundant. Clearly there is controversy around health effects of eCigs, and yet that doesn't need to be on page about what an eCig is. I trust that readers interested in that information would click on links to go check out that information and/or controversy.
• Society and Culture - shortened. Consumers of electronic cigarettes exists, but their passions and/or concerns need not be presented on page about what an electronic cigarette is. Again, this is "information about vaping." Same goes with Legal Status which like health effects is deserving of a page split with as concise of information on main article page (for eCigs) as humanly possible.

To be clear, I respect the debate that has been had before I decided to chime in and imagine that debate will continue for many years to come. I see other talk pages being worthy of that discussion that has everything to do with "information about vaping." In the interest of presenting consistent, quality data on "what is an electronic cigarette," I am proposing a split occur that would result in a much shorter page that is clearly written from a NPOV. Gw40nw (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Added: After reviewing WP:SPINOFF this matches what I am proposing. In the lede currently, in second paragraph, is sentence that reads: The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain. This is where the spinoff is warranted, as much of the debate on talk page and as represented in the (disorganized) article is attempting to address that uncertainty with further language of uncertainty. As in: "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies. Another considered the data to be inconclusive." I am certain I could provide numerous examples in this vein. It is this exercise that is challenging the overall neutrality of the article. The benefits and risk are unknown and majority of articles on eCigs will state somewhere that long term data is needed to make more conclusive claims. Yet, Wikipedia article on eCigs is attempting to make 'conclusive claims' by noting just how inconclusive the data is, and then spinning that one way to appease vaping enthusiasts and spinning it another way to detract from that.

So, this proposal is an editor's recommendation that a spinoff occur that takes 'benefits and risks of use' onto another page that allows that to be vetted in whatever way editors of that page see fit, and hopefully adhering to NPOV, while not clouding the otherwise NPOV content that is on the eCig page. Benefits of eCig use and risks of eCig use are not what currently needs to appear on the eCig page. At a time when the data is actually more conclusive, then it would perhaps be time to incorporate that data on the eCig page. Gw40nw (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what it is exactly that you want to do. But it probably will have to wait until the ridiculous war that is raging right above this section is settled. TheNorlo (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in.TheNorlo (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please review the Wikipedia content policy regarding WP:NPOV. Reliable sourcing emphasize health effects very strongly and it would be a violation of that content policy to minimize the emphasis on health effects in this article. Zad68 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  Reliable sources emphazise health effects, because the reliable sources is the medical literature, and the medical literature is primarily about health effects - we just went full circle... sigh. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And something else falls out of that. The media also emphasizes health effects, but why is that? Because they're reporting what's in the medical literature. If safety reporting in the media was confined to what was actually happening, rather than to what someone says might happen based on dripping RY4 onto cells in a petri dish, the only issue would be battery fires. Which as we all know only ever happen to e-cigs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing does not emphasize health effects strongly. If it did, I would not have made suggestion for the split. I am entirely supportive of the health effects being vetted out, but on this page, it is precisely because 'the data is inconclusive' that there is debate about which data to include so as to spin it one way or the other. I'm suggesting none of that needs to be on this page, at least until that health data is truly vetted. And did suggest that the linking page where that is being vetted out could appear in lede of this article. This article appears like one big exercise in violation of NPOV. Gw40nw (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think WP:NPOV is being fundamentally misinterpreted or overinterpreted here (which seems to happen a lot). Due and undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) and Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS) are about protecting articles from being hijacked by minority views, not about prescribing how topics must be covered. Balancing aspects suggests taking into account the "body of reliable sources on the subject ... discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate." This is about not over-emphasizing a particular aspect, instead looking at the big picture. E-cigs are new, the overall body of sources is developing, and currently health and regulation are dominating (or at least half of) the coverage, but they should not be overemphasized just because they're currently popular. E-cigs are mechanical devices, social devices, economic devices, etc - look to the larger body of sources covering these areas to create a balanced article (and a lot of that is by referring to other similar articles, as editors have been trying to do). Read the relevant NPOV sections - NPOV is coming from a place of preventing minority view hijacks, such as, oddly enough, would be the case of forcing a primarily medical view on a general interest topic. --Tsavage (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really tired of the medical community trying to hijack this article.... Some of them are even saying that the part of the article that is actually describing the subject (Construction section) is "to detailed". To detailed!!!! Are you kidding me! This is an encyclopedic article! TheNorlo (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

After the "e-cigs are a drug" nonsense last night I'm wondering if they want the construction section minimized to suppress the very obvious fact that e-cigs are complex electromechanical objects that don't resemble a drug in any way.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about minimizing it. All we're talking about is describing the subject of the article first, so people have some idea what e-cigs actually are before reading about the potential health effects of them. Putting health effects first is appropriate if we're talking about a drug, but e-cigs are not drugs; they are manufactured electromechanical devices.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

lead/leed

Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. Considering that at the end of the paragraph it says: Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine., shouldn't the sentence read: "although they can (or may) use nicotine from tobacco plants." What I'm saying is that not ALL products use nicotine. — Ched :  ?  05:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just remove it altogether. After all the Nicotine patch article doesn't say "Nicotine patches do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants." To me it just looks like a crude attempt to associate e-cigs with smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

IIRC it was actually an attempt to clarify a point that seems to be very confusing to a lot of people (including legislators and regulators who should know better!): that they are (more often than not) nicotine products without being tobacco products. Barnabypage (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see some spirited discussion on this article, and I'm not really interested in getting into any of that. Still, the one sentence implies "all" while a following sentence says "not all" - rather a contradiction imo. I do smoke, but am trying various e-cig solutions, and that is the only reason I even tried to read through the article. I hope all involved can improve it from its current condition. TY for any input, and I'm fine with just removing it as well. — Ched :  ?  06:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding the claim that the nicotine is sourced from tobacco plants in the cited journal article. Does anyone know what the sentence is that is used as the basis for this claim in O'Connor? I read it, and then did a search for plant or plants came up with nothing.AlbinoFerret 17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really fussed. Liquid is made with pharmaceutical nicotine base, and that is indeed sourced from tobacco. No point in wasting time on the bleedin' obvious when the article needs a total rewrite.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it is mentioned in that article. Here's a NY Times reference to do for now, if we need one. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html?_r=0 Barnabypage (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

That the sentence in the lede, "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants." is amended by deleting "although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants." It contributes nothing and isn't applied to other nicotine products that contain nicotine derived from tobacco plants, such as NRT.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How about that plus: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is an electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) using a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking." Still badly written, but only a couple of tiny word changes and de-bolding (or even leave the bolding for now). If you agree, feel free to edit or remove this post. --Tsavage (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support It just seems intended to link e-cigs to smoking. If there's a good reason to keep it, however, it should be changed to "although they may use nicotine from tobacco plants."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support TheNorlo (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment/Oppose I wanted to support to get things moving, but really, this is a futile way to do things. Removing nicotine there makes the whole lead even more muddled, because it is then never clearly stated what the e-cig does, except in one of the alternative names, "electronic nicotine delivery system". That's terrible writing. The first sentence should convey that the e-cig is a smoke- and tobacco-free vaporizer usually used to deliver nicotine. By piecemeal editing like this, we're encouraging not solving the root page lock problem. How can we be fine-tuning stuff that needs an overall clean-up first? (Also, aren't e-cigs just one type of electronic nicotine delivery system?) --Tsavage (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now mine isn't an "electronic nicotine delivery system" at all. It's a stupid name and I dislike it intensely, at least partly due to the oh-so-coincidental acronym that doesn't exactly imply a new, tobacco-free start in life. However I digress. They're not ENDS, they're e-cigs or PVs. Their purpose is to let you inhale vapour, which probably contains nicotine but might not. Yes, the lede is a bag of mince and needs a complete rewrite.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a quick look at a couple of media articles on Marlboro HeatSticks (electronic; heated tobacco) and a WHO ENDS report seems to confirm that properly, e-cigs are one type of electronic nicotine delivery system, making the lead dead wrong in that respect. --Tsavage (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I would advise against trying removing that from the lede as it would be very easy to argue otherwise. This will only fuel the war that is raging right now. This is futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNorlo (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. I keep trying to shut up, but that is also leads nowhere. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems report is kinda ambiguous, it says: "ENDS, of which electronic cigarettes are the most common prototype, deliver an aerosol by heating a solutionthat users inhale" and goes on to describe in detail specifically e-cigs - vaporing liquid and so forth. So HeatSticks don't literally fit. But a US state (CT I think) bill says "'Electronic nicotine delivery system' means an electronic device that may be used to simulate smoking in the delivery of nicotine or other substance to a person inhaling from the device, and includes, but is not limited to, an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe or electronic hookah and any related device and any cartridge or other component of such device;" (I'm just doing quick checks for discussion). I think that ENDS is a generic and parties who needed policy definitions were using e-cigs because they were the only thing really out, until, now, heated tobacco HeatSticks. And I'm only clogging up this simple half-sentence proposal, because with ENDS (which is pretty much wrong) gone (in theory if not practice just yet), the removal of that half sentence leaves no complete mention at all of what an e-cig does, except for nicotine appearing third in an e-liquid ingredient list. OMG. --Tsavage (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier... It's just a name, not a description. It is trivial for now. TheNorlo (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Except, as I kinda wordily described above, it's relevant to this remove-a-half-sentence proposal. :) --Tsavage (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. TheNorlo (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As to the END question, somebody in some agency decided to call them ENDs, so we are kind of stuck with this inaccurate term. But it doesn't add any weight to Doc's arguments... It is just a name, not a description... A little bit like horsepower, there is no actual horses in my car. TheNorlo (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't give a toss what someone in some agency decided. They can buy their own mod and call it whatever they like, but this one is mine and it isn't any damn ENDS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia article Talk pages to air your personal views and experiences, this is original research and not allowed. We summarize the high-quality reliable sources. We don't care what individual editors might think or do. Zad68 14:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. However "ENDS" is a stupid name for e-cigs, because they do not necessarily contain nicotine. I'm vaping 0mg liquid right now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." It's right there in the first paragraph of the policy page. For better or for worse, Talk pages ARE intended for open discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #2 (regarding nicotine)

• How about: "Some electronic cigarette e-liquid preparations contain nicotine, which is derived from tobacco plants." This avoids making the incorrect blanket statement that all e-liquid contains nicotine while maintaining the information about the relationship between (some) e-liquid and tobacco. Zad68 14:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Barnabypage (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or "Some electronic cigarette liquids contain nicotine, which is derived from tobacco plants"?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or more accurately "Most electronic cigarette liquids contain nicotine, which is derived from tobacco plants".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. — Ched :  ?  17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - "Some" is vague, possibly misleading, makes me think, "Oh, so a lot of preparations don't have nicotine?" "Most" or "usually contain" would be more accurate and straightforward (I'm assuming; I don't know the actual nicotine/no-nicotine ratio). --Tsavage (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It varies from country to country and across device generations. Most cloud chasers and a lot of people who use Gen 3 and drippers use 0mg liquid; very few people puffing a disposable cigalike in a 747 toilet do.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to have been surprisingly little research on zero-nicotine use. Just at a quick look, we have figures of 25% for UK, 11% for France and 8% for U.S. I saw a 30% for Denmark somewhere the other day but I’m not sure about that one. Of course, some people may use different strengths (including 0mg/ml) at different times. But in any case, there is clearly variation, as FergusM says. Barnabypage (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I swing wildly between strengths. When I'm chilling out at the weekend it's 0mg mocchachino or something from Liberty Flights temperance range. When I'm struggling to meet a deadline, bring on the 24mg RY4. In a big bucket.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment update: Rereading the lead first paragraph, it seems overall fine as an awkwardly written whole. The first sentence calls e-cigs "electronic nicotine delivery systems" (not, electronic vapor delivery systems), and mentions vaporizer and "tobacco smoking." The next sentence goes on to answer a basic follow-on question: "Nicotine delivery, vaporizer...so is there any actual tobacco?" No, although there is nicotine derived from tobacco (this doesn't preclude no-nic use, it's simply addressing the relationship with tobacco). In the last two sentences, the payload is described in more detail, and the 0mg option is presented with what seems like reasonable weight, "usually" vs "others" seems appropriate. Try rereading the para as if you're just trying to get info. My larger point re this proposal: piecemeal is whack-a-mole. --Tsavage (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It looks doable, but the word "preparations" makes it sound like a medicine and should be removed. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; just call it "liquid". We shouldn't be adding any unnecessary words, because the article is unreadable enough already.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"preparations" also makes the lede harder to read when it should be the simplest and easiest to read. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this for the first paragraph:

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is a battery-powered vaporizer. They are sometimes called "Electronic nicotine delivery systems" (ENDS). Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco.[2] They produce an aerosol[3][4] by using a heating element to atomize a liquid known as e-liquid.[5] E-liquid is a mix of propylene glycol, glycerin, flavorings and, usually, nicotine[3]. Most"

There's no reason to mention twice that most contain nicotine; once is perfectly fine. The source of the nicotine is irrelevant; it would be pretty much the same (just more expensive) if it was obtained from tomatoes. Anyway we can go into that sort of detail later--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Priorities

Instead of wasting energy on stupid squabbles over using an inappropriate layout, can we instead concentrate on making the article readable? Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles that means a general audience. However that is not the case for this article, which as I and others have repeatedly said is a barely readable mess. Take the Harm Reduction section, for example. According to the Gunning Fog Readability Index a reader needs 20.1 years of formal education to understand it. "A general audience" does not mean "People working towards a PhD." On the Flesch Reading Ease scale it scores 16.69 24.82 out of 100; anything scoring below 30 is "best understood by university graduates" The Hemingway app (recommended by Wikipedia to assess readability) is not impressed, giving the section a grade of "60. Bad". Right now the article is currently locked again because someone started edit-warring to impose an order that the last RfC said there are no grounds for imposing. That seems an odd priority when the article is currently, not to put too fine a point on it, illiterate crap.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The much-maligned Construction section, however, only requires 13.75 years of formal education to understand and scores 43.1 for Flesch Reading Ease; it's understandable for most people above the age of 15. It may not be as interesting to Wikiproject Medicine but it's sure as hell a lot better written.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Health Effects section as a whole needs 18.24 years of formal education and has Flesch readability of 30.6. I don't know exactly how it works in the USA but I'm from Scotland, and 18.24 years of formal education means you're in the pub celebrating your MA results with a pint and a vape. This is not written for a general audience and it urgently needs fixed. I propose that in future we aim for a minimum Flesch readability of 40.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with all of the above, I will sadly have little time to write decent sourced prose before the new year but look forward to seeing others ideas. At this point, even without changing the weight or content of the article someone just writing it in coherent english would be a massive improvement. SPACKlick (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of "Usage" section

The Usage section is currently, like most of the article, abysmal. I propose we replace it with this:

"Electronic cigarettes are used to inhale produce a flavoured aerosol which usually contains nicotine; this is then inhaled by the user through a mouthpiece. The most common reasons for using them are to quit smoking or cut down on cigarette consumption; many users believe they are effective for these purposes. They are also popular for use in places where smoking is not permitted. Annual sales in the USA increased from 50,000 in 2008 to 3.5 million in 2012. The vast majority of users are current or former smokers, with only around 0.2% of regular users being never-smokers. Larger numbers of never-smokers have tried them once or twice, especially among younger people. The majority of vapers are dual users of both e-cigarettes and tobacco. Many users believe they are effective for giving up or reducing smoking.

In the United States, as of 2011, one in five adults who smoke have tried electronic cigarettes and 3.3% are currently using them. Among grade 6 to 12 students those who have tried e-cigarettes at least once increased from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012; use in the past 30 days increased from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%.[24] By 2012 up to 10% of high school students had tried them at least once.[15] The number of never-smoker youths who tried them trebled between 2011 and 2013. The majority of teens who have tried e-cigarettes do not intend to smoke in the future.

In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers identified themselves as using electronic cigarettes and 51% stated that they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% are current users.[27] In 2014 10% of under-18s have tried e-cigarettes at least once, including 1% of non-smokers' children. 1.8% of under-18s are regular users; 60% are smokers, most of the rest are ex-smokers and there is no evidence of current use in never-smokers.

A February 2014 French study estimated that 7.7 to 9.2 million individuals have experimented with using electronic cigarettes, with between 1.1 and 1.9 million using them daily. 67% of smokers used electronic cigarettes to reduce or quit smoking. 9% of those who had ever used electronic cigarettes had never smoked tobacco. Of the 1.2% that had recently stopped tobacco smoking at the time of the survey, 84% (or 1% of the population surveyed) credited electronic cigarettes for stopping tobacco use."

All of this can be backed up by the existing sources. I've removed all repetitive content and some stuff that's duplicated in the Addiction section. The image of the no-smoking sign is inappropriate and should be deleted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's what I and I imagine most people would want and expect to read who come to the Google #1 entry for "electronic cigarette," "e-cigarette," and "smokeless cigarettes" for good measure, but if it were this easy to implement - as it is on most other pages - we wouldn't be here, would we?! But it's good to have it here before our eyes!! Perhaps the whole article should be rewritten on a subpage... --Tsavage (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can get agreement and submit edit requests. It seems more people are recognizing just how bad the article currently is, so it should be easy enough to get agreement on clearing out the dross and repetition.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the rewording (I don't think the wording in the statistical paragraphs can really be improved). I do however think the last sentence of the first paragraph reads oddly. Could the concept, if not the sentence be moved to between the first and second para's? SPACKlick (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How does that look? Let's see if we can make some more progress before the next batch of brown stuff hits the windmill.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads great to me. Let's start whacking the relevant refs back in and see if there's any objection to that within 7 days, then formally request protected edit. For the sake of the rules, do you grant me permission to insert refs into your opening comment? SPACKlick (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I need to get some work done so I'll be less visible for a few hours, but go right ahead. This is a collaborative effort, after all!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All the required refs should be in the original version. I tried to avoid changing the actual meaning because that would just bog everything down in the usual shitstorm and nothing would ever get done. Never mind the POV issues for now; the article is completely broken at the level of basic readability. We need to fix that, then we can fine-tune.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I like product articles to begin by saying why a product is used, then what a product materially is. This section currently is about social popularity, marketing penetration, and frequency of use. I support this content being renamed, moved to a different place in the article (probably under "society and culture"), then any of these changes made, but my support right now for this section would be for this "usage" or "uses" section to explain how this product is used. Explaining the concept as if to someone who has never seen the device is a good start. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is why I believe construction should come before useage. Useage as it currently stands is who uses it and what are the patterns of use. It should go into society and culture. Construction (as currently named) is where the what is it and how does it work information should be and that should clearly come first.

If Fergus's above change was put in the society and culture section would you have a problem with the wording and or content? SPACKlick (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

"An electronic cigarette is a hand-held battery-powered vapouriser designed for oral inhalation. It is a recreational device that lets users inhale a flavoured aerosol, which usually contains nicotine, as a substitute or replacement for smoking tobacco. This activity is known as "vaping". Most vapers use electronic cigarettes to replace some or all of their tobacco intake; another common motivation is for use by smokers in areas where smoking is prohibited. E-cigarettes replace smoking by providing a somewhat similar sensation, often with concurrent delivery of nicotine in a more satisfying manner than with nicotine replacement therapy. A final use which has developed fairly recently is cloud chasing, when users attempt to blow the largest and densest possible cloud of vapour."

I can't think of an awful lot more really. It's just a replacement for smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Support both. The "usage" content should go in the society and culture section, and the "uses" content which Fergus just proposed should be at the top. I support these things in intent, but still would like source to back up the obvious like "these are intended for oral use". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, that could be kind of tricky. I mean I've seen plenty that use "inhale", which obviously implies that, but I think "oral use" is one of those things authors just assume people know. I can add it, but I dunno if I can source it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970 Excuse me, you did it correctly. Saying "inhale" is fine. I just meant to source it as you have proposed it. It is great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Oral use" is something díffernt than "Inhale". Example: Snus ist for oral use (put something in your mouth but dont chew or swollow or inhale it).--Merlin 1971 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Call it my parting gift; the Fun Police have got me at last. Happy editing, and if you ever see me anywhere else online say hi.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have wording, now to source it. M., Z.; Siegel, #73 could be used for the inhalation claim. AlbinoFerret 17:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Usage is about how common they are used. Not a descriptor of the practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice to Admins

With respect to implementing any change, there have been a number of concerns regarding a number of editors brought both to the ArbCom mailing list and to ANI. These should be settled before any changes are made. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Really Doc? I'm not going to deny that some editors have clearly posted while frustrated and could probably benefit from walking away and clearing their heads before posting sometimes, however the only complaint you diff'd was of an editor referring to you as a moron for calling a metal tube and electronic circuit a drug and that, from an editor as educated as you appear to be was a pretty stupid mistake. SPACKlick (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes the more significant details are going to ArbCom. It may take some time but will hopefully address a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a stalling technique to keep relevant and agreed on changes to the article from taking place. It also is an attempt to remove editors who disagree from a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 13:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Careful AF, WP:AGF. Doc could be doing this for any number of reasons but I for one choose to believe he's sincere whether I agree with him or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"AGF is not a suicide pact" has been pointed out to me before. I am commenting on a pattern in which 3 editors, including myself, have been attempted to be removed from this article. All of the editors were engaged in heated discussions that neither side is blameless in. The delaying action is clear to me from the words Doc used above suggesting not to make changes based on accusations against other editors whom the other side disagrees with on content. That's why I said it "appears to be". AlbinoFerret 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlbinoFerrer, I know that it may be hard for you to see because you are in the middle of the situation, but it is really obvious that this article is being overwhelmed by tendentious editors. Most people don't have the time to spend debating the same topics over and over again and don't participate for very long. That's a problem since the article content shouldn't be decided by the last ones here who like to argue the most. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@FloNight: I think tendentious editors exist on both sides of the content disputes of this page. I also think that a lot of the problems are caused by editors who only show up to shut things down. They dont edit, but show up mysteriously to "agree" with others. Do discussions go quickly? Yes, because the article is in such bad shape no one knows where to start. As for stopping edits because of accusations, during the time when the accused have been on the page, its been protected for most of it. What edits that may have been done in the few hours it wasnt have been reverted before the next protection. AlbinoFerret 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with FloNight. We aim for a neutral and disinterested point of view here, and its difficult to see how that is achieved if the article content is determined by those with the interest and stamina to debate 6 hours a day for weeks on end. That level of persistence is only likely to be maintained by those who are here mainly to advocate for a particular POV. On other "recreational drug" articles we have afficianados pushing the idea that marijuana is a panacea for every ill, and that MDMA is a completely safe way of expanding your perceptions of the world. In general, I think its possible to be too involved with the subject to be an effective editor. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's hard to stay disinterested when the article is in the state it currently is and the discussion has gone around in circles as long as it has. This is why a while back several of us proposed that all editors who'd recently edited be given topic bans for some period. I think the discussion above that the uncertainties be spun off into their own article may have some merit. You'll note that a lot of the criticism from the pro e-cig side is about the poorly written article, huge repetitiveness not so much that, the article shouldn't say "we don't know how dangerous they are and here are several things which may prove to be problems in the future". Anyway something needs to happen to clear the bad blood and I doubt it will ever happen from one "side" alone. SPACKlick (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 Or disabled people who play online and edit WP because they cant leave the house. Somehow I dont think the But I dont have time to devote to an article reason should fly as a reason to stop working on it or block the editors who are willing to spend the time.

As for neutral point of view? You have got to be joking as speculation and uncertainty is piled on in a move to show that the speculation is more than it is. Where journal articles are blocked because they go against the speculation. Where the WHO is beyond having any point of view that disagrees with it added. Where one negative review is used 22 times, and the article that points out its problems is blocked. Where journal articles are misrepresented to say somnething else. Where copyright and plagiarism problems are all over the place. This article on a consumer product, its suffering from a medical point of view that has taken over. As statement after statement that say the same thing are added. Where the results of an RFC are ignored and the actions taken after it are edit warred until the article is protected. Where common terms are blocked by one after another revert. There is no working together on this article. There is no common good, there are two sides. Neither side is pure and right. Those that think so should take another look at the actions of the editors that seem to agree with them, because a few pro ecig editors who have been blocked or who like to edit a topic a lot are not the problem. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Most people don't have the time to spend debating the same topics over and over again and don't participate for very long." True, but that being so, it can also be used to wear down opposition, effectively steering the direction of an article by repeatedly referring to policy, guidelines and previous threads, while participating very little in actual discussion. This is not so difficult because, by design, "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and guidelines are broadly worded, so it's easy to point to a huge variety of WP:MOS shortcuts as support for succinctly stated positions (e.g. "That's against WP:MOS, see WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT") possibly combined with unsupported statements portrayed in Talk as "obvious" (e.g. "Most people do/sources say this or that, therefore..."). Meanwhile, if any opposition sticks around to debate, there's always an "other side" who are going to start arguing back "in agreement," from a firmly set opposing position with no real inclination to change views. "Most people," even rather committed editors, are unlikely to stick around through arguments like this, particularly when they're additionally peppered with procedural interruptions like RfCs, page protections, and complaints against individual editors. So who's left? Content may actually be (unfairly) decided by the last ones here, who are the ones who, by word and edit count, have argued the least. (Background: I work online for many hours every day, with Wikipedia a tab click away; I read fairly quickly, I type quickly, so I can maintain what may seem like an unusually time-consuming presence when in fact it is only minutes on the apparent hour. This can't be that rare of a situation. Also, I don't smoke, have no interest in becoming a vaper, and originally came here as a reader, found the page terrible, and stayed as an editor.) --Tsavage (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig is a controversial topic, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that some editors, including myself, spends a lot of time on this trying to make it right. Am I biased toward e-cig? Of course, they have changed my life and the life of exactly 8 people in my circle. I have however, always tried to be neutral, realising that there are still alot of unknown regarding this product and I have never tried to claim that ecigs are "Harmless water vapor" as some ignorant people has done in the past. I have concentrated the majority of my efforts here to expand the Construction section because I believe that this is what the article is about, i.e. what is an electronic cigarette and I believe that Doc's obsession about focusing to much on health claims steers the reader away from the main subject, especially when we already have a 2 separate, dedicated medical articles about the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes and Safety of electronic cigarettes. The POV accusations should not be targeted only at the pro ecig community here as it is very clear that some members of the medical community pushes a very obvious anti-ecig agenda. Tell me that this version of the leed is not clearly biased towards the anti-ecig side, claiming that there are toxic and cancer causing chemicals like such and such without mentioning in what quantities (trace or substantial amounts? Turns out it's really trace amounts). It is surprising that actual doctors, who should know the inner workings of the scientific method leave this sort of crucial information out. I know that Doc James would love me to go away and that he is pissed that I called him, in a moment of frustration an idiot and a moron, to which I have apologized, but he must admit that he is highly biased against e-cigs and that his edits and request for the same RfC twice shows that. I am not going anywhere. TheNorlo (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "harmless water vapour" is something any vapers actually claim since about 2008. These days it's more a case of something ANTZ claim we claim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. TheNorlo (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Per "The POV accusations should not be targeted only at the pro ecig community here as it is very clear that some members of the medical community pushes a very obvious anti-ecig agenda" it is about using the best available sources of which the World Health Organization is one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But only one, and their position is wildly divergent from that of most experts in the field. You seem very selective in the sources you'll accept. What's wrong with the McNeill review of Grana/Glantz? Go read my last comment at AN/I.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you are forgetting the main point here i.e. this example "Tell me that this version of the leed is not clearly biased towards the anti-ecig side, claiming that there are toxic and cancer causing chemicals like such and such without mentioning in what quantities (trace or substantial amounts? Turns out it's really trace amounts). It is surprising that actual doctors, who should know the inner workings of the scientific method leave this sort of crucial information out." I would like to hear your comment on this. TheNorlo (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's another thing he does a lot: Ignore the question you actually asked. See my chat with him on his talk page the other night. I asked him the same question half a dozen times and he just fudged, swerved and objected to proposals that I hadn't made and wasn't planning to.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This article isnt about the "best sources" there is an obvious POV to the article where repetitive speculative, unknown and uncertain claims are pushed to the point where its not just presenting one side of a conflict. Its appears to be trying to prove what is speculative is not speculative by amassing those statements. There is a controversy, but repeating the same thing over and over makes it look like there is none. It may be clear to a medical professional, but the article should not be written for a medical professional. It reads like a journal article. AlbinoFerret 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. According to every one of the readability analysis applications I ran it through it reads like someone threw a bowl of alphabet soup at the wall and looked to see what had stuck. Repeating the same basic claim three times in one paragraph isn't academic; it's either bloody awful writing or it's deliberately trying to create an impression of consensus, but written in a bloody awful style.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats another problem. I like to describe it as someone wrote claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a bag, and wrote them down in the order they were pulled out. But it isnt written for a general reader, but a collage graduate in the medical field. AlbinoFerret 01:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To an extent, in that you need to be a university graduate just to disentangle the tortured syntax and more than occasional homonym. It's definitely very complex writing that needs a lot of braincells to mentally rearrange into something that can be processed. But what it mostly is, is just bloody awful. Hopefully, as a sort of memorial to me, someone or several someones will continue streamlining it by ruthlessly weeding out repetition and duplication. The current "We don't know X¹. We don't know Y². We don't know Z³." can be boiled down to "We don't know X, Y and Z.¹²³" without losing a single bit of information. Yes, it doesn't look as scary, but it's also not as shit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. When you meet a disagreement you just trot out one of a handful of stock phrases like "it is about using the best available sources of which the World Health Organization is one." You're notorious for it. I've lost count of how many emails I've had along the lines of "OMG, I hate how he just says the same thing over and over." Never mind nominating the WHO as The Truth; what does the scientific consensus say about safety? What does the longitudinal data say about the effect of e-cigs on smoking prevalence? "The WHO says..." is an Argument from authority, meaning it's a logical fallacy, meaning it can be thrown out without a thought. Now, if the WHO's research is in accord with the bulk of the other high quality research it has great weight. If it's a review of all the biggest, highest quality studies it has great weight. But if you're just saying "We're using this because it's from the WHO, and nothing that contradicts it will be allowed!" you might as well change your name to Kent Hovind, because in scientific terms that's where you're standing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Mist

Per the RFC above;

1. Remove (mist) from lede
2. Change all four instances of mist to vapor in Construction: Atomizer
3. Change mist to Vapor in Construction: E-liquid
4. Change mist to Aerosol in Harm Reduction
5. Change mist to Aerosol in Safety
6. Change mist to Vapor in Related Technologies

SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this edit, it is how it was before the "mist" insanity took hold. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Mist" is not a term anyone uses. Academic literature uses "aerosol" or "vapour". Non-academic ANTZ say "smoke", which can obviously be ignored. Everyone else says "vapour". "Mist" just makes Wikipedia look clueless. It's as if we couldn't decide between "alpha particle" and "helium nucleus" and unilaterally decided it's now called "pixie dust".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for other editors note. I used Vapor where it was discussing what was produced at the atomiser and aerosol for the emissions. The specific usage in each instance is less critical, IMHO, than removing Mist, we can discuss the 9 uses of the word vapor and the 4 uses of aerosol in some other place. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "Vapour" and "aerosol" are both fine, but "mist" has to go.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, mist is a childish and vague synonym for aerosol. TheNorlo (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some sources do use mist. read comment by User:S Marshall. "Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". Editors wish to "reduce" does not mean "eliminate". Jimbo Wales has been notified about one of the editors in this discussion. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid editing. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And by the way the fact that Jimbo has been notified about me is irrelevant, so you can stop name-dropping now. He hasn't been notified because I object to you giving WP:UNDUE to "mist", has he?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. "Mist" is not in common use and the vast majority of sources do not use it. So why should Wikipedia?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please respect the conclusion of the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, respect the RFC, it said to use Aerosol and Vapor. This proposed edit brings the page back to the point before you started changing everything to mist without consensus. The finding were "The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist"." So the word mist needs to be reduced. If its used at all it will be by consensus. AlbinoFerret 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per FergusM1970 -A1candidate (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You support paid editing? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This edit protected request should be denied. More editors may be banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing is actually allowed, Quack. Check WP:COI.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And what's all this "More editors may be banned" stuff? Do you and Doc seriously think I control a vast network of paid infiltrators? Because if you do you're off your trolley. I've been a freelance writer for two years, and maybe 1.5% of my work has involved Wikipedia. When I joined Wikipedia I was a Sergeant in the Army. Who do you think I was shilling for then? Big War?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

He supports this proposed edit, not paid editing Quack. Stop misrepresenting things. The edit was proposed by SPACKlick following the closing of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. This proposal goes against the RFC. The RFC did not say totally eliminate mist. And you should know about this. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. It appears editors may have been recruiting to Wikipedia. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ This is getting way out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the bloody conversation, would you? "I'm going to hell." "So am I." "Looks like VMS will be joining us." Reading that, where do you think she would be joining us? You know, based on the two sentences that come before it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack it says the preferred words are Aerosol and Vapor. Stop trying to twist things. This follows the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support the specific editorial changes above (which is not "banning" the use of the word "mist" in this article anywhere, ever). "Vapor" is the popular term in the media and in scientific literature and "aerosol" is the technically accurate term (easily verified by a few quick searches: Google, PubMed, etc). A mist is an aerosol, so calling e-cig emission a mist is correct, but for editorial clarity, vapor and aerosol together are is the logical choice based on common usage. As a good example of usage, Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage uses both aerosol and vapor throughout, aerosol for technical stuff like phase change, vapor as a general reference. --Tsavage (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment We should wait until the meat puppet / paid editing issues are dealt with at ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's dealt with. I'm getting permabanned. And if you expect to find a network of puppets controlled from my secret lair you're going to end up being very frustrated.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James:Oh for god sakes!!! STOP STALLING THE PROGRESS OF THIS ARTICLE!!!! This has nothing to do with it. Ferguss did not start this RfC. At least give us a valid reason for opposing. Oppose because gnagna is not a good reason. TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused about how "meat puppet / paid editing issues" relate to this. I'm a few days new to this page, and it's been locked except for a few hours, and apparently the only way to edit is through consensus and getting an admin to commit the changes piecemeal. It's an excruciatingly inefficient way, still, I'm willing to stick around a bit on that basis. This "mist" issue is one actionable specific, I don't understand how that relates to particular editors? --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems an odd argument. I mean, even if it turns out that Quack and Cloudjpk have secretly been in league with me to sabotage the article all along, "Vapour" and "Aerosol" are still going to be the terms in widespread use and "mist" is still going to be wrong.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you and your secret friends do this? AlbinoFerret 08:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What is wrong with having mist in the lead as a synonym of aerosol? Do not have any strong position about the rest of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving mist in the lead only, as it is worded now if that moves things forward. The reasonable and balanced idea is to convey once that e-cig emission is "commonly called a vapor, which is technically an aerosol or mist," as mist is in use as well. That explains all uses cleanly and quickly, and the rest of the de-misting allows the article to conform to popular and correct usage that readers will be familiar with. (Related note, for future debates: "but inaccurately" is chidingly unnecessary, as if we're trying to school every media organization, vaper, and scientist who uses the word). --Tsavage (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure would be happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Same here TheNorlo (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)