Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 21 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Health and fitness This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Lead too detailed

I absolutely agree that the lead of this article is to heavy. Some authors seems more interested in describing the negative effects of the e CIG rather than describing the actual device. The bulk of the intro should be transferred into the health section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.161 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2014

Consensus for adding this

Not seeing the consensus for adding "The WHO position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts as having made "important errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the studies reviewed" and that it uses "alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence."" Interesting that one of the authors is funded by an e-cig company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO's position has not been criticized but the WHOs recently commissioned report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase the "object" of the criticism as you see fit, but censoring the MEDRS-compliant McNeill study is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise wrt to implied COI, travel reimbursements do not constitute "funding" and a "manufacturer of e-liquids" is not the e-cig industry. Also, recall the discussion above on this talk page, where a Federal Judge passed ruling that pharma funding does represent a COI with respect to tobacco topics. If you qualify publications in the article based on association with e-cig industry, in the interest of NPOV, associations with the pharmaceutical industry must also be disclosed. Mihaister (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We could summarize it as "this report has been criticized" but quoting large amount is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

May I propose you summarize this publication with what you think is due weight, and we'll take it from there. Mihaister (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what WHO decides based on this report they commissioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. WHO already wrote their report and recommendations for FCTC. Irrespective of the outcome from FCTC COP6 (which, BTW is a political rather than scientific forum), the McNeill study stands on its own as a peer-reviewed secondary source, presenting a critical evaluation of the WHO-commissioned report, as well as a review of the existing literature. Mihaister (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the criticism is needed to point out the problems with the WHO report. Simply because the WHO report carries weight and simply saying someone disagrees with it gives lesser weight to the peer reviewed secondary report. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text to summarize McNeill critique

In the interest of making progress on this topic, here's a proposition for some text to summarize this critique in light of the discussions above.

The WHO-commissioned report forming the basis for its position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts for selectively reviewing the available evidence and misrepresenting study findings.

Please modify the text above in preparation for insertion in the article. Please note that the WHO position is discussed extensively in the article, thus given far more weight than the short sentence proposed above for the McNeill publication, reflecting the due weight discussion above. Mihaister (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"forming the basis for its position" What position? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The report, when issued by the WHO forms a position that is recognized]. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, AlbinoFerret. The report linked above and cited in the main article clearly states on the front page: "Report by WHO", therefore accurately being recognized as the position of WHO on this issue. The commissioned report published by Grana et al. is a distinct document and is cited throughout the position statement prepared by WHO. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a review and thus hold less weight. Do not feel it should be mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Critique is synonymous with review. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Feelings should not play into wiki editors' choices of which evidence to discuss. See WP:NPOV. The fact is, McNeill et al. is a peer-reviewed secondary source published in a mainstream journal, thus meets all the criteria in WP:MEDRS. If no objective discussion takes place here I'm taking this arbitrary censorship to mediation. Mihaister (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Will request further opinions for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest reading this page WP:CAN AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it has a list of good places to ask for opinions and its possible you may be unaware of them all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose including this, the referenced item is a press release. Zad68 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A press-release with a DOI number?? Sorry, but you are wrong. The press-release is about the paper - the paper is not the press-release. You might have taken the time to read the press-release which makes this clear by sentences such as "The article by McNeill and colleagues takes nine key statements ...." --Kim D. Petersen 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Zad68, that is incorrect. The referenced item is a peer-reviewed article. The link posted by User:Zad68 is indeed a press release, but that's not what's cited here. Mihaister (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The paper itself isn't listed in PubMed as a review article, as claimed above. A "critique" isn't the same thing as a review article. They are not in the same category of weight, especially when the the review article it's critiquing is by the WHO. Zad68 18:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply to a paper will/can never be a review. So what you are saying is that the normal scientific process of papers is invalidated by WP:MEDRS? Even further the paper that we are originally talking about, is also not a review listed in PubMed - so how do we go forward? --Kim D. Petersen 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you're drawing is purely semantic. The article clearly does not present new or original experimental results, but rather tries to "identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence and arguments relevant" to the topic at hand, which is a direct quote from Literature review. If that does not make it a review article, I don't know what would. That being said, even if there's disagreement as to the "label" of this publication, the fact remains it is a secondary source listed in PubMed and should be discussed in the article, even if it is being given less weight. Censoring this high-quality source just because it disagrees with WHO is inappropriate, unscientific, and unencyclopedic. Mihaister (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, take PubMed's. There is a meaningful difference, per WP:MEDRS, in how an article is categorized by PubMed. Based on your interpretation a letter to the editor written by an "independent researcher" (i.e. unaffiliated layperson) could equally qualify as a "review". There is a lot of garbage in PubMed that meets the bar of "secondary source listed in PubMed" so that qualifier holds no weight. PubMed makes a much stronger distinction, and maintains a distinct category for "Review article". Zad68 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The publication in question is not a letter to the editor, but rather a peer-reviewed article, so that comparison is misleading. Whereas I might agree with you that the qualifier "secondary source listed in PubMed" holds no weight, "peer-reviewed secondary source listed in PubMed" does, whether or not it's tagged as "Review" in the PubMed database. Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The goalposts are detailed in WP:MEDRS they haven't moved. Zad68 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are moving the goalposts - since WP:MEDRS doesn't say that we can only use reviews. It says we can only use secondary sources - and this is a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. This is not, and cannot be a primary source per WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether press release or critique it doesn't hold to WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not hearing objective or relevant arguments as to why this publication should not be mentioned in the article. The discussion above seems to be a combination of appeal to authority and moving the goalposts. I would like to open this discussion to a wider contributor base with an RfC in the sci topic area. Any objections? Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're being told the correct stuff, it's up to you to hear it... Please notify WT:MED if you're going to post something related at WP:RSN. Zad68 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is it not a WP:RS? It is peer-reviewed, it is a secondary source, it is PubMed indexed (PMID:25196419), and finally it is published in a MEDLINE catalogued journal. Are we redefining WP:RS and WP:MEDRS here? --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is not WP:RS because it criticizes WHO, which is obviously unassailable because it is WHO. My head is still spinning at the circularity of the argument. Again, the discussion above is devoid of objective, verifiable argument for censoring of this source. Mihaister (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a government, it's a privately-run website, and so the accusation of "censorship" is off-base. "Peer-reviewed secondary source" isn't the bar. If you'd like to open this up to a wider discussion audience, please notify WT:MED where you've started the discussion. Zad68 02:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting position from an admin... I was rather under the impression Misplaced Pages is not censored. Mihaister (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this content discussion? Read WP:NOTCENSORED, it has nothing to do with this. Zad68 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:COMPREHENSIVE is more directly on point: it says Misplaced Pages "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information" Mihaister (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me it also speaks against sound scientific reasoning. Placing one source as infallible, that cant be questioned and cant have its errors pointed out is a prescription for disaster. Its kind of like religion where a holy text cant be subjected to questions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the most important scientific advancements have come by those that spoke against the prevailing point of the day, often opposed by the so called experts or groups that were said to know the truth. That is a true scientific method, to question everything, regardless of who says or publishes it. While it may not be the case here that an important discovery may be made it may influence peoples lives. Silencing criticisms of opposing points of view based on who said it is just so wrong I dont have time here to cover all that is wrong with it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we please cut out the emotional hyperbole ("censorship", "religion", "holy text", "truth!"), it's disruptive and interferes with the content discussion we should be having.

While WP:COMPREHENSIVE is surely a well-meaning user essay, the actual controlling Misplaced Pages content policy here is WP:WEIGHT. In the cases where it's a user essay vs. a Misplaced Pages content policy, the policy always wins. There are lots of policies like this that direct us to omit otherwise perfectly verfiable content sourced even to peer-reviewed secondary sources. The issue with the proposed use of McNeill et al. is basically WP:GEVAL. The WHO is an extremely influential authority and a report from them gets a lot of weight. It's a mistake to line up commentary on it from authors with competing interests as if it were in the same ballpark. Zad68 13:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not hyperbole to point out the problems with your reasoning. Its unscientific to silence problems with a scientific paper. Your argument sounds like one a religious zealot would make with criticisms of the Bible. Just replace WHO with Bible. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that the McNiel paper is somehow dishonest because the authors who found problems with the report the WHO funded and issued have different interests? Exactly who is going to look into problems with a report? People who agree or disagree with the WHOs stance and reasoning? Especially as we see here there few are willing to question the WHO. This is all starting to look like a prime example of groupthink AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame you're choosing to continue using such hyperbole. Regardless, nope, not what I said. I'll be happy to respond to on-topic points. Zad68 15:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, dismissing the reasoning on the infallibility of a source until the argument is framed as they want it is something a religious zealot would do. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68 please explain in detail how the source isn't a WP:MEDRS. Specifically explain to us how a peer-reviewed secondary source (per MEDRS), fails to be a WP:RS. Do notice that claiming that it has to be a review is not an argument, since WP:MEDRS doesn't require secondary sources to be reviews - it simply states that reviews are the best (but not only) sources. You've used a lot of time to shoot the messenger, by pointing out how other editors go over the top - but you haven't so far argued against the source. (combine this with the fact that the WHO sponsored report isn't a position statement, or other official material, but simply a conference paper (see MEDRS for this - which states that such has less weight than actual published papers in peer-reviewed journals)) --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found this discussion quite constructive, so thank you for participating. It turns out, the problem User:Zad68 was having is not one of WP:RS at all, but rather one of WP:WEIGHT, in the sense that Zad68 and others above feel strongly that the WHO position carries so much weight that any critique cannot possibly be mentioned without creating a WP:GEVAL situation. So I have another proposal that may lead to consensus here, which I'll open up in a new section for clarity. Please feel free to continue this discussion as well. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New approach to present McNeill article

The McNeill publication directly addresses claims made by the Grana publication, which has gained huge weight in the current version of the Wiki article. It almost looks like the current version of the Wiki article is little more than a repetitive annotated conspectus of the Grana study. Therefore, the McNeill article ought to be used to provide balance to this article in accurately representing the current state of science. In the interest of moving forward, I'm willing to acquiesce that McNeill does not have enough weight to challenge the WHO position, provided we present their review of the claims put forward by Grana.

For example, the lede references Grana in stating:

E-cigarette brands have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing campaigns similar to those used to popularize cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s

To provide balance to this statement, McNeill stated that such a statement "seems intended to create an emotional response" and proposed a more accurate way to put this information in perspective:

"There is as yet no evidence as to the importance of different marketing strategies to optimise the benefits to public health"

Other claims made by Grana also appear to be one-sided reviews of the existing evidence and McNeill presents alternative statements which take into account evidence from both sides of the scientific debate over ecigs. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister I'm glad you're finding this discussion constructive, truly!

The thing you're still missing is WP:WEIGHT. WP:BALANCE redirects to WP:NPOV, and one of the key messages of that policy page is WP:WEIGHT: viewpoints are represented in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources. It is a common mistake to say that because an article carries viewpoint X, it also must carry the viewpoint of opposite-of-X, or (even worse) that if an article has a paragraph of a certain size about viewpoint X, it must also devote about equal space to viewpoint opposite-of-X, to satisfy "balance."

The way it needs to work is that if the published reliable sources are dominated by viewpoint X, so must our article be. Grana et al. is a recent review article published in Circulation, which has the #1 top impact factor rating among all journals in its subject area, and further is associated with the AHA, one of the most prominent and influential medical associations. Therefore per WP:NPOV it deserves huge weight in our article. If another large influential organization like the WHO agrees with the view, even more so. Once again, commentary from authors with competing interests are not in the same ballpark. Zad68 02:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my optimism was premature. Here I was thinking we were making progress, when you circle right back to appeal to authority, moving the goalposts, and misrepresenting the weight of evidence in this field with a ridiculous straw man. It is a common mistake to base an entire worldview on a single publication by conflicted authors in a conflicted journal sponsored by a conflicted trade association. In case you weren't aware, AHA is making a habit out of stepping into COIs: see here, here, and here for recent examples. I'm very disconcerted by the fact that your comments continue to show an immutable bias. You sanctify the Grana publication, while disparaging the otherwise comparable McNeill publication as "commentary"; you mention perceived competing interests for some coauthors of McNeill, but fail to mention the glaring and judicially-defined conflicts pervading the Grana et al. publication and the venue they chose (hint: pharma funding).

On the more quantitative aspect of this discussion, whereas Circulation might rank higher than Addiction for the topic of Peripheral Vascular Disease, it ranks lower on the topics of Tobacco Control and nicotine addiction. So, if we were to follow WP:NPOV and give due weight to these two publications it would have to be the exact opposite of what is currently done in the article. Mihaister (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As you might expect I disagree with your characterization of my arguments but I'm not going to worry about that right now.

Let me try to summarize your argument: You believe Grana and McNeill are comparable. You accept that the authors McNeill have some competing interests (at least you don't argue against) but you're saying Grana isn't any better. In particular you feel the AHA equally has competing interests, and point to articles discussing that idea (but the articles do not discuss electronic cigarettes) and a lawsuit brought by the tobacco company Lorillard against the US FDA and which mentions Benowitz, one of the authors with Grana (although that lawsuit does not discuss electronic cigarettes). You're not giving any weight to how PubMed classifies the two articles, and consider both to be "reviews" equally. You don't think the status of the journal or its association with the AHA are marks in its favor.

Do I have that right? Zad68 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I support Zad here, there are clear differences in weight in these articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty close, Zad68. Let me clarify a few points, though:

• The extensive discussion on this very page regarding funding sources arrived at the consensus that apparent COIs are only relevant for determining weight if there is a reliable source that makes this issue a problem. In that respect, there is no RS that defines travel reimbursements by a minor e-liquid company as a relevant or potentially problematic funding source. However, the federal court judgement (i.e. RS) found that Benowitz's relationship with Pharma was a conflict with respect to tobacco-related topics, i.e. relevant and problematic in this specific field. Most of AHA's funding is also Pharma, and the articles discuss the fact that such funding constitutes competing interest in AHA's routine activity, though the articles are not specifically about e-cigarettes.
• I recognize the status and impact factor of the journal Circulation (and AHA) with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, I do not think they are a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes. The discussion of domain-specific prominence applies to AHA as well. The weight given by a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight.
• PubMed classification is irrelevant in this case. I respectfully disagree with your contention that only publications labeled "Review" on PubMed can be considered MEDRS, and instead submit that peer-reviewed secondary sources in respectable journals fit that criterion. Moreover, I think you might be conflating the notion of systematic review with literature review. Both Grana and McNeill fit the definition of the latter, and neither fit the definition of the former.
• Attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in the the field as well as the weight of evidence gauged by these RS. Currently, there are few secondary sources for e-cigarette topics and most of these do not agree with the extreme view put forward by Grana: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Chapman (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011).

tl;dr - Based on current evidence, Grana and McNeill are both MEDRS, and part of a small set of available secondary literature reviews on the topic. They both warrant weight in this article, however the weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than acclaim by various organizations. Mihaister (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above very well written and well thought out commentary. The arguments so far for dismissing McNeill seem to be in the "i don't like it" line of argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen 14:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We give more weight to reviews published in high quality sources than non reviews published in lesser quality sources. Circulation is one of the most well respected journals and thus it should not be the least bit surprising that it is used extensively here. This is not a WP:IDL argument but a WP:MEDRS argument.

This critique of WHO is just that a critique. It is listed as a "journal club" on the journals page and is not a review by pubmed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your commentary here is somewhat fallacious. Yes we give more weight to full reviews. Correct. Circulation worth more than Addiction? Not really - it depends on the what the paper is about, both journals are highly regarded within their respective fields. That argument, is like saying, that a paper in Nature will always trump a paper in Geophysical Research Journal which is utter nonsense. User:Mihaister is entirely correct in his assessment in his second bullet-point - Addiction is actually the more to-the-point specialist journal for this kind of material. As for it being in the "journal club" section - what does that even mean? Are you saying it is non-peer-reviewed? That would be incorrect. That is a classic example of WP:IDL and grasping for straws.

Finally with regards to the WHO report. It is not as highly regarded as a full peer-reviewed paper in a journal per WP:MEDRS, since the report is not a position statement, nor an "official" report (it is supplemental material to a conference). And high-quality WP:MEDRS critiques of such material must be taken into consideration per WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nb. No responses to papers in the scientific literature are marked as "reviews" in PubMed, since they aren't reviews in that sense of the word. So that was another WP:IDL argument. RS and MEDRS goes by secondary sources - not by what pubmed classifies things as. --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Once there are actual review articles available there's no reason to lower the sourcing standards to include critique or commentary. Maybe you missed it but WP:MEDRS does indeed make specific mention of PubMed sources tagged with publication type (ptyp) of "Review". McNeill simply isn't a review. Zad68 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! Could you explain to me how WP:NPOV allows for you to ignore notable critique? --Kim D. Petersen 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is McNeill a WP:MEDRS source?

Since there have been a lot of claims that McNeill et al. isn't a WP:MEDRS, so lets check:

• Is it peer-reviewed. Yes.
• Is it a secondary source per MEDRS. Yes.
• Is it published in a respected journal. Yes (MEDLINE subset index medicus).
• Is it pubmed indexed. Yes. (PMID:25196419)
• Is it on-topic for the journal. Yes.
• Is it by respected authors. Yes.

Conclusion: It is a WP:MEDRS

We can discuss WP:WEIGHT, but unless there are some arguments on the table that demonstrates that it isn't a MEDRS, then the usability of this paper is not in question. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence it is MEDRS compliant. Lots of sources are peer-reviewed in a respected journal and pubmed indexed. You have not made a good case. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a curious non-argument User:QuackGuru, you've reversed the burden of evidence. Let me be more specific: What part of WP:MEDRS does this source not follow? --Kim D. Petersen 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did make an excellent argument and this was already explained to editors before. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on this source should be pretty obvious by now, but, in case anyone missed it, I agree it is MEDRS. I also agree with Kim D. Petersen that logical fallacies such as the appeal to ignorance and reverse burden of proof are not constructive in this discussion.

@User:QuackGuru - In spite of your claim to ignorance that "there is no evidence", the evidence for McNeill being MEDRS is actually displayed right above your post. Please provide verifiable evidence for your position of non-compliance, or withdraw your objection. Mihaister (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but where was your specific rebuttal to this argument? QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullet #3 in my post above. Mihaister (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The treshold for WP:MEDRS is not whether it is or isn't a review article, so once more a non-argument. That would be a potential WP:WEIGHT argument, but not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively to my above comment User:Jmh649, i would suggest that you cite the exact point in WP:MEDRS where it states that secondary sources cannot be used, unless they are review articles. Reviews are the most useful for medical information, which btw. this isn't about, but they are by no means the only reliable sources by MEDRS. Another alternative, would be if you could demonstrate either that the paper isn't peer-reviewed, the journal isn't reliable, or that the source is a primary or tertiary source per the guidelines stuck out in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Once we have the RS issue out of the way, we can continue a constructive debate on the WP:WEIGHT of the paper, and how (or if) we should use it in the article. But i'm getting a bit tired of the "it is not a MEDRS source", when that clearly isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

McNeill can't be considered "MEDRS" for the purpose of supporting unattributed content (in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice) in the article. The entirety of the article is in response to the WHO's report, it is not its own independent piece. All it could be used for might be to say, "Researchers from King's College criticized ...". The only argument is about whether this piece of commentary has received sufficient notice and demonstrated sufficient influence as to warrant a mention. So far not enough evidence has been supplied to indicate it has. Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations. Again, McNeill isn't in the ballpark. Zad68 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And once more you are talking about WP:WEIGHT and usage, rather than whether or not it is a WP:MEDRS. As for your statement: "Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations" - that is one hell of a misstatement.. since there is no such thing as a "policy statement by the WHO" on e-cigarettes at the moment. --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion tedious, and as I risk only repeating everything already mentioned I will only say we have a very clear situation where one article is being pushed to give far more weight than it ought to, in addition to not passing WP:MEDRS. Please, let it be, you're wasting time here. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You may find it tedious, and i can tell you that i find it likewise. Especially the blatant disregard for WP:PILLARS that is presented here. You do it yourself here: You are confusing how much weight that can be put on a source, with whether the source is or isn't reliable. What you are all trying to say is: "I find McNeill to be a MEDRS, but i do not think that the content is useful (or has enough WEIGHT) to be used in the article". --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is a piece of commentary and so shouldn't be used to WP:ASSERT anything. At most it might briefly be used to relay the opinions it airs (attributed of course). On a point of detail, the article has not been finally edited/corrected and published yet, so is not yet usable here in any case. Alexbrn 13:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a "commentary" (commentary is generally not peer-reviewed). It is a peer-reviewed response article in a highly respected journal. What you are basically saying here, is that the whole methodology of scientific publishing is to be put out of effect, by MEDRS, since we here (apparently) can safely ignore published peer-reviewed replies to papers. That is impressive. I cannot recall any other scientific field in which this would be the case. Considering that the authors of this reply are responsible for quite a large percentage of the cited studies in the report/paper that they are responding to - then it is most certainly also pertinent. --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That the orignal authors are responding to errors in how their work was used should make it usable. I am beginning understand that my above comparison of those opposed to McNiel to religious zealots is more accurate as the days go by. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@KimDabelsteinPetersen: O it's commentary alright (or, as the authors style it, a "critique"). I – and I don't think anybody – is saying we have to "ignore" it, but when it's published any neutral treatment of it would give is its due, light, weight. Alexbrn 14:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply in the scientific press, is generally not considered a commentary. But i am glad that you now are in agreement that it is a WP:MEDRS, and that it is WP:WEIGHT we should now focus on, now that this issue is out of the way. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling me what I said, when I didn't. I think the phrase "a MEDRS" here is unhelpfully binary, since MEDRS outlines a more nuanced view of sources. It's not though "a MEDRS" for asserting biomedical content, especially in the face of stronger sources. It may be due to use it briefly for an attributed statement of its authors' view. Alexbrn 15:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is reliable is a binary process on Misplaced Pages. The later process of figuring out whether such a reliable source is useful, relevant and carries enough substance to merit inclusion (WEIGHT), is not a binary one though. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like consensus here might be heading in the direction of a brief “attributed” statement as proposed in the previous subsection, as suggested here, here, here, and here.

If you don’t agree with the proposed text, can we work together and come up with this “brief attributed statement” that we can all live with? Thanks. Mihaister (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Until it's published in final form, it's off the table. Then, something like "Some European researchers have criticized the review for its tone and what they say are 'errors' in interpretation" might have a home in the body. But I'm not sure even that isn't too much attention to give to this comparatively minor piece. Alexbrn 16:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The online version is just as WP:V as the final paper form. Other than that, the phrasing by Alexbrn above looks reasonable to me. Mihaister (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a notable critique and it is not a review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as notability, your wrong, McNiel has an AM score of 276 the third highest score for a Addiction article. Click on the AM score box on the page for McNiel. Looking at who has linked to or mentioned it on the AM score page includes Time, FoxNews, sciencenewsline.com, medicalxpress.com, Reuters, and the Huffington Post included in the 23 news sites that are listed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular press is irrelevant. The article is not notable among MEDRS compliant reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The press may not come into play on Medical Reliability, but may on Notability, your previous post was about Notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'tis a nice assertion that the article is "..not notable among MEDRS compliant reviews", because A) it is a strawman (not a review - not claiming to be) B) there is no evidence to back up the claim. Now can you back up the assertion that it isn't notable? --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you define the term "notable critique" please? Just so that we can all follow what it is that you are asserting. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The paper is in its final form - it is only typographically that changes can happen. And it is already published, since the online version is as verifiable and final as the later paper version. What are we here, in the 20th century still? --Kim D. Petersen 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so. The paper "has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record". Personally I'm not fussed but have observed a general practice here of waiting for the VoR to appear. There's no rush after all, is there. Alexbrn 05:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are if you'll notice all typographical changes. The content is fixed. What i was referring to is that online published papers are as reliable and verifiable as paper ones, since it is the amount of editorial control that determines that. (which is why some journals are inherently more reliable than others). --Kim D. Petersen 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation

1. ^ McNeill, Ann; Etter, JF. "A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes". Addiction. online. doi:10.1111/add.12730. Retrieved 15 September 2014. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading

Article Classification

Since the Electronic cigarette is not listed as a device with which to stop smoking and has been denied as such by the FDA and the the position of the WHO is they dont work as such. Is it correct to list this article in the medical and Pharmacology sections? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

UK legislation allows, but does not compel, manufacturers to apply for pharma status (I forget the exact terminology). This is not the American Misplaced Pages. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are e-cigarettes considered a medical device or product in the UK? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's EU-wide, & not quite in force yet, see here: "...This will all change in 2016, when new EU rules will come into force that will improve e-cigarette safety and quality. E-cigarettes that manufacturers want to continue to sell as consumer products will be regulated under the new Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). This means they’ll come with warnings about the addictiveness of nicotine, restrictions on product design, nicotine content, and manufacturers won’t be allowed to advertise them on TV, radio and in print media. But if manufacturers want to make claims that their products can help people quit smoking, their e-cigarettes will be regulated as a medicine (in the same way as nicotine gum and patches). They will have to seek a medicines license from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). And if they’re granted a license, they won’t face the same restrictions on strength, design and advertising as those regulated as consumer products, and will still be widely available as over-the-counter medicines, and potentially available on the NHS." This is easy to source well, and not covered adequately in the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So at present they are not medical devices or products, but consumer products? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can't be advertised as medical yet, but applications for 2016 can be made. In person retail is mainly at pharma counters/shops in fact. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable question then is why a consumer product should be classified on Misplaced Pages in the medical category? I could see if, in 2016 some e-cigarette is classified as a medical device or product. But thats about a year and a half away and we have no guarantee that any will apply for or be given that classification in the UK or EU. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasonable answer is that most medical products take years to be approved and WP:MEDMOS says nothing about waiting until they are before covering. Also there has been very extensive coverage of the subject in all general medical journals, though evidence-based trials are lacking. No doubt many are under way. Raise the matter at the medical and pharma projects if you still have concerns. I see that according to Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Austria and Denmark already class them as medical products. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Denmark doesn't classify them as medical products. They classify nicotine as a medical product. E-cigs and e-liquids themselves are not medical products, and can be sold freely - just without nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you might add that to the article, but I think anyone selling e-liquids or e-cig cartridges without nicotine would fall foul of consumer protection/fraud legislation, unless this was made very clear. The normal assumption is surely that they contain nicotine. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. 0mg e-liquid is a regular sell in e-cig shops. There are quite a large number of people who have cut down their nicotine intake, but who still want to enjoy the feeling of vaping. You can find 0mg e-liquids in all shops, both online, and in brick and mortar, for that reason. --Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is a guide on how to write content in a specific style, not a list of what content should or should not be included in a category. Both countries you mention have declared that e-cigarettes that contain nicotine are medical devices. The reference for Austria only talks about one device and excludes another. While there has been a lot published in medical journals, I wonder if this page would not be best served by splitting it into a device and a health effects page like traditional cigarettes are. One listed as medical, one not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If it got a lot bigger there are various ways it might be split, but at the moment it seems a reasonable length, and ok as it is, imo. I must say I don't think cigarette is a great model - the "Health effects" section is remarkably short and remarkably low down. There the other article is actually Health effects of tobacco, as there are the other forms. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

cigarette imho is a perfect example of how to split an article. The health effects was split off and a small section that sums up the new page took its place with a link to the other article. The ecigarette is a consumer product that imho is being taken over by a medical agenda. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I'm starting to agree with you, in light of the expansive discussion we're having above, nitpicking the intricacies of WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT over the McNeill study. Perhaps this article should be split into a "Consumer product" page talking about the devices, history, construction, etc. (not medical), and a link to a separate and more detailed discussion of "health effects" which would fall under the medical agenda. Just like splitting off the legal status discussion greatly improved workflow with this article, I'm inclined to believe moving the "health" section into a new article would also be beneficial. Mihaister (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking into splitting the page and the Misplaced Pages guidelines surrounding splitting. Looking at WP:SIZERULE and taking into account that the ecigarette article is at 68kb in size according to the history tab, and has grown 10kb in size in 4 months it is a very good idea to split this article. WP:SIZERULE says it should probably be split. Since the Health effects section is large and continues to grow it would make sense to split that section off. The main page would be about the device, its construction, history, etc with a small summery of the Health section and a link to the new page, the ecigarette page would be about a consumer device and not in the medical category. The Health effects section would be in the medical category. WP:SIZE has a list of reasons doe splitting at the top of the page, including "editor issues, such as talkpage tension, arguments over trivial contributions, debates on how to split up a large article, etc." AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done even more checking, and only the visible text size should be used. Thats is currently 35kb, so there isnt that great a need to split on size right now. But other factors like editing problems and long posts and lots of activity in heated talk page sections can and will play a role in its splitting. Its probably going to be needed within the next 6 months as I think a lot of new information is just on the horizon. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Exact copying from sources

We need to make sure that the information we are taking from published sources do not violate copyright . In the last few days I have found a few exact copys in the article and have changed them. This is especially important when a largely used source like Grana is used. The combined copying is sure to be a copyright violation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrase adverse effects is not used in Grana. Adverse effects is a synonym for adverse events. The part serious "problems" is ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence from Grana is "Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting." changing events to effects will not adequately solve the copyright issue. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The part serious "problems" is vague and possibly original research. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect as to OR, problems and adverse effects are close, and the problems are listed. We could also use complaints instead of problems, but the sentence needs more work if thats done. You can also suggest replacements for more than one word to see if we can come to consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We must put what we read in our own words. We can never copy and paste and must work hard to avoid close paraphrasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I just found another long sentence that was almost an exact duplicate from Grana, and contained original research so I changed it. Your right, we need to be real careful. The problem is compounded when a large portion of the article is from one source. A stray sentence from one report may not be as big a problem as 10 or 20 from a single source. Your correct that even close is a problem, changing one or two words doesnt solve it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the word problems. There should also be a wikilink to the adverse effect article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history, some of the sentences in the article from Grana that that have copyright problems are your edits. I suggest less copying, and changing one or two words, and more on learning on how to correctly paraphrase.

Secondly, according to WP:MOSMED we should use plain English if possible, adding words that have to be linked to to explain what they are is something to be avoided. Misplaced Pages is written for the general reader. Since your having a problem with the word "problems" I fond something better "side effect". That is in common usage and average people should understand it without the need for a link. I have already changed the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was wikilinked to the adverse effect article for a long time and it is common on Misplaced Pages to wikilink the term. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your missing the point that the sentence as it stood had copyright issues. It still is questionable because of the list of effects still in the sentence. We have to paraphrase the sentence, that is put it in our own words. If you have a suggestion of how the wording could be changed to be totally different than ""Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting." please suggest it. We cant go back to the wording you like, that has been in the article, it goes against WP:COPYOTHERS.

Look

What was in the article Article "Less serious adverse events of e-cigarette use included throat and mouth inflammation, cough, nausea, and vomiting

What was in Grana "Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting"

Adding a few words does not fix the copyright issue. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I just removed your Original Research tags, Paraphrasing is not Original Research. Per the side effects page "In medicine, a side effect is an effect, whether therapeutic or adverse, that is secondary to the one intended; although the term is predominantly employed to describe adverse effects". AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. You were not paraphrasing. You could not provide verification for the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Some is referring to the list of side effects. Grana says that the events "include" but does not say "all" of the effects are in that list. So it is supported by the statement in Grana. Is English your native language? AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:WEASEL it is an unsupported claim. You are not allowed to conduct your own review of the source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL says no such thing. Copy the section here if you think it says the word "some" cant be used to describe a subset. I proved to you that it was supported. Is English your native language? AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't provided verification for "some". See WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I did prove that Grana used the word "include" the word "include" means "to have (someone or something) as part of a group or total : to contain (someone or something) in a group or as a part of something". The list of effects are part of a group. It dosent say "all" in Grana. So taking out "include" and put in "some" as describing the subset of "side effects" changes nothing in its meaning. It isnt ambiguous or unspecific because the supset of side effects is listed in the same sentence. Is English your native Language? AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No thats what Websters Dictionary says "include" means. Websters also tells us Paraphrasing is interpreting while reading, and then placing the meaning in your own words.

We must follow the Misplaced Pages Policy in WP:COPYOTHERS

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Misplaced Pages. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Misplaced Pages without trouble.

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Misplaced Pages, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)

Never is in bold on the Misplaced Pages Policy page in the WP:COPYOTHERS section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

QuakcGuru created an edit today after all that has been said in this section.

Sentence from the Misplaced Pages article added by QuackGuru "Two infant deaths were the result of choking on the e-cigarettes cartridge and facial burns were attributed to an e-cigarette exploding."

Sentence from Hajek "The two were infant death caused by choking on an EC cartridge and facial burns caused by EC exploding"

Not only did he leave it almost the same, he got the meaning wrong. There were not two children killed but two accidents, one was death, and one burns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Close but no cigar, the newest edit "Adverse effects resulted in one infant death from choking on the e-cigarette cartridge, and another resulted in facial burns from an e-cigarette exploding." you need to rewrite it, not just change a few words. AlbinoFerret (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref says "Between 2008 and the first quarter of 2012, the CTP received 47 reports of AEs related to EC, eight of which were deemed serious. With the exception of two, no causality was attributed to the EC. The two were infant death caused by choking on an EC cartridge and facial burns caused by EC exploding"

Have summarized as "Two severe outcomes in the United States included, a deaths when an infant chocked on the cartridges and burns when one blew up" These two had causality. Thus what we had before was wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, but unless you want to change almost every edit he has made, and in the future unless he stops doing it, we are going to have issues. Better yet he needs to do it himself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The bit I looked at was somewhat paraphrased. It was borderline and would be good to paraphrase a little more I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink to wrong page

The link is incorrect. The source uses the term "adverse events" Adverse events redirects to adverse effect. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The words used are "side effects" linking to a page that isnt about side effects will confuse the common reader. Since Misplaced Pages has a Side Effects page, the words should link to it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The words used in the source is "adverse events". I did explain it redirects to adverse effect. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again I point out to you that the words have been paraphrased. The words used in the article are "Side Effects" if there was not a "side effects" page you might be able to link to another, but wikilinks should point to pages of the same name. By the way, thats an awful interesting user page you have. The view full log link on it is also interesting. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I clearly showed you that the source says "adverse events". We should not ignore what the source actually says. Therefore, we should wikuilink to adverse effect to fix the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But the article uses other words. What you want will confuse the general reader. Misplaced Pages is not a medical site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SPECIFICLINK wikilinks should go to the page that is named in the link, other pages can only be used if the page does not exist.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "adverse effects" to fix the problem. The wording is also better without the original research "some". QuackGuru (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So you recreated a copyright problem from above? Why? Fix it now. Also fix your other copyright violation in the edit afterwards.AlbinoFerret (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your current edit "Less serious adverse effects of e-cigarette use included complaints of throat and mouth inflammation, cough, nausea, and vomiting.

The original line from Grana "Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting"

They are to close, it needs to be completely rewritten. AlbinoFerret (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "A number of other side effects such as nausea, vomiting, cough and irritation of the throat are less serious." Side effects and adverse effects are synonymous IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When I added that he accused me of original research. I have rewritten them again. The problem is this article is full of copying. When someone changes it to make it conform with WP:COPYOTHERS someone changes it back. I have changed the lines that ap

Disagreed. The source said "adverse events". It is not a copyright violation to change it to "adverse effects". More than one source uses "adverse events" when discussing the safety of e-cigarettes. The term side effects is not used. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru - please refrain from further disruptive editing in defiance of this discussion. This pattern of behavior makes it harder for all of us to believe you're acting in good faith as well as hampering the collaborative framework underlying the Misplaced Pages model. Mihaister (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I explained more than one source uses the term "adverse events". There is no issue with changing it to "adverse effects". QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused. Is there some problem with both presenting and linking to the Misplaced Pages article of the term used in the source document? There are Misplaced Pages articles for side effect and adverse effect. Why not both write and link to the same term? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Other editors beside me have tried rewriting the sentence and changing the words because side effect is a term more understood by a general reader. But here is one instance where QuackGuru, who added the sentence originally is attached to the exact wording and changes it back again and again to adverse effect. Even pointing out in other sections here after this section but before his revert that WP:MEDMOS says to write to the general reader. QuackGuru points to accuracy, when they are both accurate enough and side effect is in general usage in the population. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the revert he changed it to is almost exactly the one he added. That is almost an exact copy of Grana, another problem I am learning QuackGuru has, he wants it to say the exact same thing but change one word. That is a copyright problem when using Grana where a large part of the article is from Grana.if you change it by rephrasing he will say its original research. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another almost exact quote from Grana added by Quack Guru. "E-cigarettes do not smolder like traditional cigarettes, they do not put into the air side-stream smoke." what Grana says "E-cigarettes do not burn or smolder the way conventional cigarettes do, so they do not emit side-stream smoke" more to come AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this not seem weird to you? Both of you are doing something strange. You are using the name of one Misplaced Pages article to link to another. Why not make the name match the link? If I understand correctly, your position is that you wish to link to an article which does not match the source, and Quack wants to link to the article described in the source, but to give it the wrong name. Is this the dispute? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make side effect point to side effect, he changed it to link to another page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked again. I see now. But I think you agree that the sources cited use the term "adverse effect", right? Why not link to the article of the term used by the source?

Because the article is to be written for the general reader, side effect is commonly used, adverse effect is jargon WP:MEDMOS. The link should point to the page of its name if its available per WP:SPECIFICLINK. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Another edit he made in the massive one is reverting to "Complaints of less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use were throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough." But the section above this one, which deals with the same problem (sorry I didnt go up one more) The orignal line from Grana "Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting" what we have are not paraphrases, but works clearly based on Grana and a copyright problem because they would likely be derivative works. QuackGuru in the section above was warned not to do it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The term side effects is a term more understood by a general reader? The term side effects generally has a different meaning: "In medicine, a side effect is an effect, whether therapeutic or adverse, that is secondary to the one intended" Sources that describe the effects use the term "adverse events" or "adverse effects". The term "side" effects is not commonly used for e-cigarettes. I rewrote the text from Grana and AlbinoFerret confirmed the current text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we should write to the general reader in terms commonly understood, not jargon. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another bait and switch. The sources you site for common uses are medical sources, not common usage in the population. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained the common wording is "adverse events" or "adverse effects" used in the MEDRS sources on e-cigarettes. The term side effect is not commonly used. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning goes against WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained the term "side" effects can have a different meaning. When the sources use "adverse events" or "adverse effects" the text is compliant with V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A diffrent meaning to who? Medical sources or the general reader in the general You are writing to the medical community, against the instructions in WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Quackguru It seems like you both agree that the sources being cited use the term "adverse effect". Quackguru, if I understand correctly, you wish to link to the term used in the original source. Albinoferret, if I understand correctly, you feel that the original source is actually describing the concept which is covered in the Misplaced Pages article on side effect, and not the article in adverse effect. Is this correct? Because WikiProject Medicine can sort an issue like that. Is there anything more to say about this issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Close, but not quite, I think the term side effect is better understood by a General Reader as its a term used quite often. Adverse effect is not. They both describe the same things but one is taken from medical journals and not a common way its described. On the WP:MEDMOS page, under Common errors subsection "Writing to the wrong audience" it mentions of writing like a medical journal, and using jargon instead of simple English. Side effect is in Websters Dictionary(a source of common usage words), adverse effect is not. When the choice is a widely understood concept vs a lesser understood one we should use the term that is more widely understood. The words side effect should be used, and no linking is nessasry, but if it is linked it should link to the page with that name. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I did say the term "side" effects may have a different meaning according to the Misplaced Pages article. The word "side" effect is not used in any of the sources I've read that are in the electronic cigarette article. I think it is original research to change it to "side" effects. The source in the lede uses the term "adverse events" and other sources use the term "adverse effects". I recommend the word complaints be changed to adverse effects with the wikilink to adverse effect. The current wording is "complaints". Recommending "complaints" be changed to "adverse effects". QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I cant see how you got that from side effects in fact the first sentence of the page reads "In medicine, a side effect is an effect, whether therapeutic or adverse, that is secondary to the one intended; although the term is predominantly employed to describe adverse effects, it can also apply to beneficial, but unintended, consequences of the use of a drug.". The common term most likely recognized by the General Reader, not a health professional, is side effect. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone else changed it to "complaints" of .... which is even better for readability. But while this discussion was going on QuackGuru linked it to adverse effects. This is against consensus and smacks of war editing. No other wording or link will work for QuackGuru, he insists that it be his way or he will repeatedly change it back. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Vapor

Technically, e-cigarettes do not emit vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Prey tell how the emissions from e-cigarettes technically isn't Vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, we have a liquid that is heated to its gaseous form (vapor), with a visible cloud (aerosol) from droplets condensing from the vapor cooling down in the surrounding atmosphere. I would technically call that vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentance of the article lays it out "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol" A Vaporizer is a device that creates Vapor. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:13, 13 October 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" Cloudjpk (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How may secondary sources (reviews) do you want to have that state that it vaporizes liquid? Short list: Brown et al(2014), Pub.Health England(2014), Caponnetto et al(2012), O'Conner et al(2012), Farsalinos(2014) ... just the first 5 papers that were in my personal folder on E-Cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Nb: To be entirely correct both aerosol and vapor are relevant, since the visible part of the emissions definitively is an aerosol, but the process itself is an evaporation one. You evaporate (to vapor) a liquid, that later condenses in the air to make a visible cloud(aerosol). But what we have to go by here under all circumstances is WP:COMMONNAME, and that gives us vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The gist is basically the same - there is a common way of referring to this: Vaping/Vaporizing/Vapor - most e-cigarette reviews use this particular way to describe it, that a single source exists that claim otherwise, doesn't really change it. It is vaporizing - not creating an aerosol, vapor not aerosol etc.

Or in short: The significant majority of WP:MEDRS sources call it vapor - thus we call it vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very simply: The significant majority of the most reliable sources on this topic call it vapor => We call it vapor. Please see WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" don't you understand? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So demonstrate that the prevalence reliable sources (that means not just one), conclude that it is incorrect. What you are basically saying is that your source is correct, every other very reliable source is incorrect. That is why we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRUTH, to solve that kind of problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly; these are standard terms: Vapor and Aerosol. The source cited merely explains which term is the accurate one here. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the prevalence in reliable sources is what Misplaced Pages goes by. Not by what some editors consider the WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We can go by what the 2014 source says that clarifies the matter and not what some editors think. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the majority of sources are incorrect, and the one source must be correct, because it "clarifies the matter" to your liking? Can you spell WP:POV? --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What other source clarified the matter and explained the issue in detail? QuackGuru (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you even reading these threads? Or are you simply being disruptive? I've cited 5 studies that specify that an e-cigarette vaporizes/turns liquid into vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 08:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Those studies don't clarify the difference. QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

They dont need to clarify the difference, thats the point. Even if they did we are supposed to use the common words for a general audience per WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are mossing is that WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article, not WP:COMMONNAME which is about the articles Title or name. But even looking at WP:COMMONNAME it shows what WP:MEDMOS says that we should use normal general words, not Jargon. Per WP:MEDMOS "Misplaced Pages is written for the general reader" and it says to avoid jargon. The article isnt called ENDS but E-cigarette so plain English is preferred. Vapor is plain English. Aerosol sounds like something coming out of a spray can to most common people. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an opportunity for the article to provide that info! What are commonly used terms, what are accurate terms, etc. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thant would go against the clear wording of WP:MEDMOS of writing to a general audience. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still a problem in the article about the inaccurate name. See WP:COMMONNAME: Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

...and if you'd read the rest of this section in wp:COMMONNAME...
"Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.
My bolding so you don't miss it again.TMCk (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You got sucked into a bait and switch. They are not arguing against the name of the article, but words used in the article and using wikipedia guidelines for the name of the article to prove their point which is wrong. WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I'm following this article & talkpage for quite a while. I was just pointing out QuackGuru's unsurprisingly selective reading.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that explains the wording is obviously inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if its inaccurate its in general usage that the General reader understands. Read WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite there not being a consensus on this, several editors now are inserting this into the article as fact (example ). Please desist unless a consensus has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviews that do not agree with Cheng:

• Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) provide nicotine via a vapour that is drawn into the mouth, upper airways and possibly lungs . (Brown et al 2014)
• Drawing air through the e-cigarette triggers the heater to create vapour which contains nicotine and is inhaled (Public Health England 2014)
• powered by a lithium-ion rechargeable battery that is designed to vaporize nicotine to be inhaled (Caponnetto et al 2012)
• work by vaporizing a solution containing nicotine dissolved with flavorants in a carrier medium (usually propylene glycol (O'Connor 2012)
• They are battery-operated devices, used to vaporise a liquid that may or may not contain nicotine. )(Farsalinos et al. 2014)
• Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems) are battery-operated devices designed to vaporize a liquid solution of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine which also contains water and flavourings and may or may not contain nicotine (Saitta 2014)

I can find loads more. So relying entirely on Cheng is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edditing is even being done without reading the sentence and comprehending what it says. It looks like someone is searching for a word and just changes it. here is a diff with an example. I originally made the edit to say "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper" using a common word to describe someone using a vaporizer. Someone changed it to "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the aerosol". AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references; your second reference agrees with Cheng:

• affects levels of nicotine transferred from a cartridge into aerosol...dose and speed of absorption of nicotine from the aerosol (Public Health England 2014)
• Your other sources hardly contradict Cheng; e.g. Farsilanos never uses "vapor" merely "vaporise"; the liquid is indeed vaporized, that does not mean vapor is what is inhaled. This is clarified by Hajek

Other sources using aerosol:

We need not rely entirely on Cheng. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And what amount of those are reviews? (ie. secondary sources) - i can do an indiscriminate search on Google Scholar as well, especially if i can load the question with what i want to hear. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk WE? Can everyone say Meatpuppet?? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO and Grana. Another is yours: Public Health England 2014. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Once more you are confusing usage of a word (aerosol) with the process, where both vapor and aerosol is produced. To give you an example of a similar situation: Above boiling water, you have both vapor (water vapor), and aerosol (the droplets that condense, and which we see as the white steam), the same is the case here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

By checking each, only 2 of your sources are secondary: Hajek and WHO - and the WHO report uses vapour. (example: "especially where smoking is banned until exhaled vapour is proven to be not harmful to bystanders") So, most are unusable as references. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And since you appear to be hard on understanding: There is both vapor and aerosol. You evaporate the liquid (liquid -> gas), and later it cools down and generates a vapor with aerosol drops, because it condenses. . So, No, they do not agree with you. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another secondary source: "While the word vapor is used to describe what e-cigarettes produce, and vaping is a term used to describe the process of inhaling from an e-cigarette, the emissions out of the mouthpiece are not actually a vapor, which is a gas, but rather they are primarily an aerosol. This aerosol consists of submicron particles of the condensed vapor of glycols containing the nicotine and flavorants." Cloudjpk (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a WP:MEDRS source. As far as i can tell it is (possibly) an engineering journal? Difficult to tell what it really is --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources Cloudjpk (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE describes itself as: "ASHRAE advances the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world. With more than 53,000 members from over 132 nations, ASHRAE is a diverse organization representing building system design and industrial processes professionals around the world." - so Not a source usable here. --Kim D. Petersen 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Cloudjpk (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That you really should know by now. Please see WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources. --Kim D. Petersen 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether "aerosol" or "vapor" is the accurate term here is a question of physics, not health or medicine. WP:MEDRS does not apply. Please see WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It dosent matter if its 100% accurate, the articles are written to a general audience using words in general usage whenever possible. Since this issue is style related WP:MEDMOS controls since ists about the body of the article. You want to start pulling links for general usage? I have thousands, maybe even ten thousand for vapor and none of them will use aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for the article explaining how a common usage is inaccurate. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is this based upon trying to fix the misunderstanding that the emissions from an e-cigarette should be water vapor? Because if so, you are going about this wrong. Any gas can be a vapor. The vapor generated from an e-cigarette, is a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerine, some water vapor, and nicotine, and the visible "smoke-like" emission is the condensing of PG and VG. --Kim D. Petersen 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this below, but its also fitting here, so I am copying it in.

The problem is that the common term is a vaporizer and an aerosol is only part of the vapor.

Per Merriam Webster (a common source of definitions for use when writing for a general audience)

aero·sol : a substance (such as hair spray or medicine) that is kept in a container under pressure and that is released as a fine spray when a button is pressed

Full Definition of AEROSOL

1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol <stratospheric aerosols>

2: a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

As this shows the inaccurate term for what is coming out of a ecigarette is aerosol, not vapor. Vapor is an aerosol. It is inaccurate to call it by its generic description because it also could mean mist, fog, smoke, etc. Not only that the most common usage is a spray can, thats what the general reader is going to think we are talking about, something under pressure, only ecigarettes dont work that way, they are not emitting a pressurized vapor. As a side note for the rest of the article, in the context of second hand exposure its not pressurized coming from the users mouth.

This whole discussion is based on its accuracy, but as shown above, its aerosol that is the inaccurate term for the general reader, our target audience per WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The only particulate that I've notice in the "vapor" are from the coatings on the heating element or other parts of the hardware (using Aspire DBC) crumbling and having tiny black junk go into my mouth. If there were true particulates then I would be coughing up junk after chain-vaping, as has happened when I used to smoke cigs. This is just my observations, not based on any sources. Perhaps some cheaper disposable types have particulates (I've seen aluminum compounds mentioned) however when using a tank system I'm not sure there's anything but "vape".~Technophant (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

POV problems are more and more sneaking in.... Again!

I've just removed this about there being up to 1/3 of youth that are using e-cigarettes who've never smoked - cited to Grana.. That is a huge breach of WP:NPOV. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_8#Yet_more_POV_problems_.._1.2F3_of_youth_who_use_e-cigarettes_never_touched_a_cigarette... for a more thorough description of why this is inappropriate. It was inserted by User:Jmh649 here, in what i assume was a good faith attempt to "balance" - trouble is that the context and underlying studies do not support the text.

This again opens the discussion on how the Grana review is being cherry-picked for bites that can be used to discredit e-cigarettes, there are several in the article at the moment. If an editor uses a review, then there is a burden on that editor to make sure that the content that is selected from such a review is sufficiently corroborated in other reviews, and is not based on a select viewpoint (POV). --Kim D. Petersen 18:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the text is clearly sourced. Rather than delete it can be tweaked to address any minor issues. What is the issue? Do you think the Grana review is wrong? QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not "clearly sourced", since the source says nothing of the kind. Read the text, understand the context please. --Kim D. Petersen 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So what does the source say? Please improve the wording rather than delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked archived discussion, which goes into rather a lot of detail on how you cannot write this. I'm not required to hold your hand here. --Kim D. Petersen 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen. The archived discussion clearly addresses this particular issue. Mihaister (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The text can be tweaked rather than wholesale deleted. Different sources say different things. Deleting this source is like cherry picking other sources and ignoring this source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This source doesn't even say anything like what was stated. The context here is generic/global usage (not ever-use), so this information has no place in this context. --Kim D. Petersen 08:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDHT for your "pretend ignorance" here. --Kim D. Petersen 08:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does say something. Please try to improve the wording rather than delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I will once more refer to your pretend ignorance - You've read the source, you know i've read the source, and you know that a Utah survey is not globally appliable, and that "ever-use" is not the same as "usage". --Kim D. Petersen 08:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You acknowledged the text is not globally applicable. So it is regionally applicable. Problem solved. QuackGuru (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not unless you wish to push a particular WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you are not trying to help improve the text. Every source has a difference of opinion. It is NPOV when we include the differences. With that said, do you have any suggestions for improving the text. QuackGuru (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The person wanting to keep a claim should make suggestions on how it might be changed to remain, not the person who thinks it should be removed. It feels like we are in the Groundhogs movie. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen. The archicved section makes it clear it needs to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording can be improved if there is a problem. The archived discussion was about a different sentence in the Smoking cessation section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then make your suggestions here on how you want it changed and see if you can get others to come to consensus. I want it removed, suggest a way it can be added to the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

another issue

Here is another that the source does not backup, and is possibly WP:OR "They may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke." isnt backed up by the reference. The closest we get is that its possible for "Nicotine" addiction which could be any use of tobacco not just smoking. Adding that something is "possible" is WP:WEASEL. At best this is an opinion of the author, not of a peer reviewed journal article, but a puff piece or FAQ's that doesnt even link to facts or state who wrote it. Lastly, how does the FAQ's survive WP:WEIGHT if it passes the other problems AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The text only needs some tweaking. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Support QuackGuru here, it's very clear who is cherrypicking by attempting to remove the Grana review. In addition WP:WEASEL does not come into it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the text in Grana that supports that text. As far as i can tell Grana only talks about addiction in collusion with dual-use, and in the "policy recommendation" section - which is, by its very nature, opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation isnt from Grana. So your accusations have no weight. Neither does the source. Repeating Weasel Words is just as bad as adding them yourself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is a FAQ's page on www.drugabuse.gov. It has little to no weight as far as I understand. If it stays at all it might be in the body. But in the lede? I dont think it belongs there at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is used on Misplaced Pages on other topics too. The source is reliable. If needed the text could be tweaked. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem isnt reliability but Weight WP:WEIGHT. The text is the "opinion" of the site on a FAQ's page. The prominent placement in the lead is a problem because of weight. The wording is a problem because it sounds like a finding not opinion. You might want to find another source in a peer reviewed article if you want it to stay at the top of the page and in its present form. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the source but I can tweak the text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may not have a problem, but the words used , their place in the article, and where what kind of reference it is plays intoo weight. I recommend you read WP:WEIGHT to understand the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to find an additional source if you want to keep it in the lede. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way here is the sentence from which the claim in the article is based "There is also the possibility that they could perpetuate the nicotine addiction and thus interfere with quitting." AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It should not be hard to rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then do it, and find another reference if you want it to stay in the lede. Because the opinions on a fact's page should not be given a prominent position unless it can be found elsewhere, and not just a mirror site. If your ok with it just being in the body, rewrite it to reflect the original sentence. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We should summarise the body according to WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT section is part of WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View, one of the five pilliars. A comments cherry picked from a facts's page without any other sources to back it up would skew the neutrality of the lede. It might be included in a short section of the article, but it would have to more accurately express what the sentence says. the opinions on one facts page sayng there is a "possibility" of something "may" happen does not have enough weight to be in the lede , a prominent place. Find more references and prove its not the opinion of just one page. From WP:LEDE "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" so you are cherry picking whats on the page you are using as a reason for it to stay when the page says the opposite. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Read the body: "A number of organizations have concerns that e-cigarettes might increase addiction to and use of nicotine and tobacco products in children."

There was no cherry picking and this has been in the lede for a long time. The text in the lede summarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is completely unrelated to the sentence in the lede being discussed "They may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke." which only has one refrence, to a Fact's page that mentions the "possibility" that something "may" happen, and then its placed in the lead like it may happen instead of the possibility that it may happen. Its not even in the body. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Surprise Surprise QuackGuru added its present form to the page! AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted text

Source says "In 2012, 20.3% of middle school and 7.2% of high school ever e-cigarette users reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.9 Similarly, in 2011 in Korea, 15% of students in grades 7 through 12 who had ever used e-cigarettes had never smoked a cigarette.10 The Utah Department of Health found that 32% of ever e-cigarette users reported that they had never smoked conventional cigarettes.34"

Adjusted wording to "while another review has found that up to a third of young people who have used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes" as agree the previous summary did not accurately reflect the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: so it is a finding in the paper that "a third of young people ... " - really? I thought that we were talking about a specific survey in Utah, that from every indication is a statistical outlier.... Especially considering that large population examinations such as the British tobacco toolkit haven't found even a fraction of this figure. How are you capable of jumping from a local figure to a generic "a third of young people"? The other surveys cited in Grana don't even come close either. --Kim D. Petersen 11:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And exactly how many people did the British survey look at? It was 2,178 by the looks of it. There are a number of surveys and they have found different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With Great Britain having a population of 64.1 million that means only 0.0000339% of the population was looked at. Thats real questionable as to the numbers used to come to conclusions.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is how surveys work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

When your using responders of that small of a percent the results are highly questionable when said to be applicable to the general population. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible source

Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Link doesn't work, but from the title i'd say that it is a primary source. --Kim D. Petersen 08:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And it is. We need review articles to vet this kind of information, and put it into perspective. That is what WP:MEDRS is about. --Kim D. Petersen 08:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary source and it does not appear to be peer-reviewed. Not MEDRS.Mihaister (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of possible sources, this new study (primary source) is one of few longitudinal studies for e-cigarette use and concluded "Daily use of electronic cigarettes for at least one month is strongly associated with quitting smoking at follow up." Another is this one, which also found that "E-cigarettes may contribute to relapse prevention in former smokers and smoking cessation in current smokers." And, finally, this cohort study finding that "The use of NRT bought over the counter was associated with a lower odds of abstinence (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94)." Mihaister (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry Mihaister, but that MMWR item was not a primary source. It was secondary, citing the primary source as its ref 5: Mowry JB, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Bailey JE, Ford M. "2012 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 30th annual report". Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2013;51:949–1229. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Ref 5 noted above is a citation to a data source not a study. The actual MMWR item is the only study performed on those data, i.e. primary source. Mihaister (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a press release. The report is definitely a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref 5 is nothing but data and how well the data center is doing, no conclusions on health issues. You cant review what isnt there. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: PubMed disagrees: MeSH terms include "*statistics & numerical data" and PT is not "Review" --Mihaister (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your own reply points out why it isnt a primary source, ALL it contains is "statistics & numerical data" there are no discussions, conclusions or theories about health issues in it that use the data. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a primary source. A weekly newsletter that merely describes possible aspects of recent research is not in any way or form a secondary source. It doesn't provide "an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies." (WP:MEDRS). --Kim D. Petersen 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Think a bit about what you are saying... basically that would mean that press-releases on Eurekalert for instance would be secondary sources, or the summaries from journals that describe developments in the field. Do you really believe that? --Kim D. Petersen 12:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote the authors guide for the Weekly reports that QG wants to use:

D. Notes from the Field

Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.

That to me reads almost the very definition of a primary source in WP:MEDRS. If this can be used without caution, then i'm not sure why other sources are being rejected. This really should close the case for MMWR --Kim D. Petersen 21:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing contrary to Talk page consensus

User:QuackGuru continues a pattern of disruptive editing in direct violation of consensus on this page

diff:

Please contribute to the discussion and follow the consensus reached here. Mihaister (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You restored the original research such as "exhaled aerosol primarily consists of glycerol and/or propylene glycol, with small amounts of flavors, aroma transporters, and nicotine." The source says "users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG". You also deleted text from reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, i've reverted it. A) because of the lack in consensus B) ignoring WP:WEIGHT (and thus WP:NPOV) and finally C) for inserting material sourced from a primary non-WP:MEDRS source. --Kim D. Petersen 12:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

More specifically the MMRW and CDC weekly reports are primary sources, and do not qualify as WP:MEDRS. Someone here is really cherry-picking to find as much negative material as possible. --Kim D. Petersen 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru Exactly how is that Original Research, explain it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So, I see the disruptive editing continues (), interspersed by a few ninja edits just for good measure (see , , ). No substantive progress can be made this way. The article is becoming a biased mess, using non-MEDRS sources to support the biased POV, and stonewalling bonified MEDRS sources that expose this bias or disagree with the underlying POV. The biased POV is further bolstered with liberal use of convoluted syntax and loaded language, some of which has already been discussed, but more shows up every day. Can we please go back to discussion and consensus. Mihaister (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766. MEDRS specifically lists Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Medical and scientific organizations. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. Please stop deleting reliable sources and please stop restoring OR. The text was also misplaced. The risk for cardiovascular disease was summarised earlier in the safety section, anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's intentional, but you're clearly misinterpreting the "illustrious organizations" provision in MEDRS. That refers to reviews of literature or policy statements based on evidence (ie secondary sources), not primary research done by staff members affiliated with such orgs. The "notes from the field" piece is in no way, shape, or form reliable for anything. Mihaister (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the OR and misplaced text?

See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..." The source (PMID 24699766) is definitely reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cited source says: "emissions from ECs are incomparable to environmental particulate matter or cigarette smoke microparticles the only clinical study evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping no adverse effects were observed after exposure to passive vaping." Therefore the statement linked above, fully supported by the cited reference, neither OR, nor misplaced as claimed. Anyways, I rephrased the statement under dispute to be closer to the source.

Regarding the 'adverse effects' claims, the same source says "the reported events were not necessarily associated with EC use but may have been related to pre-existing conditions or other causes. No condition was characteristically associated with EC use." Again, not OR. Mihaister (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC weekly reports are still not secondary source. Some CDC material can be secondary - but not everything the CDC puts out is reliable for medical material. Just as some articles in medical journals are reliable (reviews) and others aren't (case reports/direct research etc). --Kim D. Petersen 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are secondary sources and even if they were primary sources from the CDC they are still reliable according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The section of that guideline supports KimDabelsteinPetersen. "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources" and "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals" They may and they may not, they can means its possible, but not always. Its a primary source, which should be rarely used if at all according to the top of that page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You claim it is "rarely used if at all according to the top of that page". That is not true according to the MEDRs section. You think the CDC source is not used on a number of articles on Misplaced Pages? QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at your link, that section is part of WP:MEDRS the top section is about using Secondary sources, from everyone. From that section "In the rare cases when they are used," while the rest of the section deals with not performing original research, the front part says primary sources should rarely be used. The case where a statement is usable is where they do a review of something or pointing out others primary work as correct, in this case they are not reviewing but doing the primary wok of conclusions and theories on data. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"In the rare cases when they are used," is discussing primary sources in general.

Read under the heading Definitions: "Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

Like WHO, the CDC is used on Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. According to your argument the WHO source used in this article should be rarely used. You can check with the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not position statements. Neither the WHO report that we are using here, nor the CDC weekly reports, are in that category. --Kim D. Petersen 08:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold face from the WP:MEDRS head: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. - so No. You should not use primary sources, no matter what. And weekly reports from the field are primary sources. --Kim D. Petersen 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They aren't primary sources, and how would you define a position statement? These are pretty much the most major health organizations you could ever get!-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A position statement is marked as such (like these on the CDC page). You can find these on the webpages of all scientific bodies that i've come across. As for it not being a primary source, as i've said above, the definition that you are using would mean that any article that cites other articles for material by default would be a WP:MEDRS source. That would include press-releases, generic primary research articles (since they usually cite other papers), articles in Nature about what is happening in the research field etc. etc. I'm quite surprised that you'd even attempt to call this a secondary source, since it would open the floodgates for citable material, that i have a feeling that you won't like. --Kim D. Petersen 20:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When any person or group does the original conclusions, theories and ,facts taken from raw data they are doing primary research. That is exactly what happened here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. --Kim D. Petersen 20:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• AlbinoFerret could you help me find in this talk page the discussion about any contentious part of the reversion you made in CFCF's proposed changes? It would be nice if these changes were made piecewise rather than as a set because when so much content is changed I have trouble seeing the problem, but if this is a dispute about the reliability of a source for some bit of information then we ought to be able to reach consensus on that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Bluerasberry Simply scroll up to the start of the "Wikilink to wrong page" section here and read down. QuackGuru makes massive changes all at once dealing with each of the sections under "Wikilink to wrong page" section even though pages like WP:MEDRS WP:MEDMOS and WP:NPOV tell editors not to do them. He refuses to address any of the concerns raised on these pages and continues on with pages that dont address the problems with a bait and switch in most if not all cases. When asked to make suggestions he insists we make the changes to his edits to make them acceptable when most of the editors in these discussions dont think the material should be used based on WP:MEDRS WP:MEDMOS and WP:NPOV. Instead of working and finding a middle ground he changes things, his edit that was reversed to is basically a revert in itself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

One major problem that is common is that QuackGuru gets attached to wording, most of the time from his own edits. When others change them to something different to improve readability or put them in general language so that a general read can easily read them, he changes them back. Thats one of the reasons I want him to suggest changes, because when I have reworded things again, he reverts them.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I am unable to evaluate your statement because of its length and complexity. There is a huge amount of text here and I am not entirely clear on the points of contention. Briefly, can you direct me to the dispute in which you feel you are most in the right and where your opposition is most in the wrong? I will read and comment but I need to check things one at a time. Starting with the point that you feel is easiest to resolve might be a good place to begin.

I read the "Wikilink to wrong page" section. I will comment there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not just that section but every one under it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Bluerasberry:

1) It should be very simple to verify in the Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor that stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that it is Aerosol has no consensus, or generic backing in secondary sources.

2) It should also be very simple to verify that the CDC weekly newsletter "Notes from the field" is not a WP:MEDRS secondary source. This section (and Talk:Electronic cigarette#Possible source)

I'm curious as to why you revert when you haven't verified or checked the talk-page? That doesn't seem to be good WP practice. --Kim D. Petersen 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially given QuakGuru's history. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Electronic_cigarettes. The other discussion shows that there is WP:CON that the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations including the CDC are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you first notifying us now? You posted that query 2 hours ago. As for the WP:MEDRS thread, it doesn't include specifics, and there is certainly no consensus that all CDC pages are reliable for all types of material. --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Only a part of the sentence is duplication

"It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid." The part "vaporize a liquid" is duplication in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the duplication. Seems to be more relevant in the first paragraph than in the second. --Kim D. Petersen 08:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was not duplicate. Only the part "vaporize a liquid" was duplicate. QuackGuru (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede in the first paragraph has been in the article for over a year. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the text to a better spot without the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I undid your edit because the sources and edits you made are under heavy discussion on the talk page, you did not have consensus to do them. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that it gets reverted back again and again - without actually trying to attain consensus. Seems that those that want to editwar/force their edits to the article win by default. Sigh! --Kim D. Petersen 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink

The wikilink for Hon Lik redirects back to the history section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

New paragraph is a Copy of Grana

QuackGuru added a section to Second Hand Exposure. Every line referenced to Grana, almost half the paragraph if not more is a copyright violation. They are not rephrased but a word left out , or one or two changed making them derivative works. Here is a link to the diff. I dont have access to the other article, but if the editing patten repeats with it, they are likely to be a copyright problem also. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC) They are also written to the wrong audience per WP:MEDMOS which states we are to write to the general reader, not the medical community. Copying sentences strait from a medical journal is an indication of who they were written to. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He also knows from previews talk threads that the Grana claim about particles being similar to cigarette particles is contradicted in another secondary review, and that other reviews consider them unlikely to be harmfull - but he's willfully ignoring that. Sigh again. Consensus be damned, and our guides of WP:WEIGHT (and thus NPOV) is just out the window. --Kim D. Petersen 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like we're not getting thru to QG, as he continues to deflect all discussion and evidence submitted here and pursues massive and biased butchery of the article.. Perhaps it's time we considered administrative actions... Mihaister (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree I have spent tons of time going over this with him. Doc James even chimed in and told him not to do it. I have removed the copyright violations per WP:CV and I have placed a tag warning on his user page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Would one of you please check the other entries if you have access to the journals. A simple word search for one of the terms should bring up any matches. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

Marked up the article for POV, see the above several discussions for the reason why. We have primary sources that are used to source medical information, we have a second-hand aerosol section that is completely unbalanced (relying mostly on one secondary source, while disregarding most others), we have the ongoing "aerosol" vs. "vapor" thing that is getting in entirely unbalanced despite secondary review sources not agreeing with each other about it, and the list goes ever on ..... --Kim D. Petersen 00:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In the comments where you placed the tag you mention meatpuppets, it may go farther than that. Here are a few comments from the end of the Vapor section, in order, that have me questioning if something fishy is going on.

That you really should know by now. Please see WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources. --Kim D. Petersen 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether "aerosol" or "vapor" is the accurate term here is a question of physics, not health or medicine. WP:MEDRS does not apply. Please see WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It dosent matter if its 100% accurate, the articles are written to a general audience using words in general usage whenever possible. Since this issue is style related WP:MEDMOS controls since ists about the body of the article. You want to start pulling links for general usage? I have thousands, maybe even ten thousand for vapor and none of them will use aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for the article explaining how a common usage is inaccurate. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly who is Cloudjpk talking to in the last comment? Himself? Talking to himself as though he was another person? He obviously isnt talking to me, I was disagreeing with him. Is it possible he forgot what account he was logged in with? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Amazingly Cloudjpk shows up today to revert edits once QuackGuru has made 2 for the day. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so strange.... Cloudpjk forgets to indent his comments, so they are usually in response to the comment they are just below. The reason you don't see it all the time on talk, is that i fix them, before answering. --Kim D. Petersen 02:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But that sequence makes no sense, why would he answer me that if I made a case against that is opposite of the point in his response? AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Until the issues above are resolved, this article remains a POV mess. Mihaister (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to mention another WP:NPOV problem: The Grana review is now (again) being used WP:UNDUEly. It is now by far the most cited review in the article. We've had this problem before... --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lede, to hard to read for the target audience

According to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MTAU say we are supposed to make technical articles readable by the general reader. The leade should be the easiest to read of the page. WP:MTAU linked to Hemingway, a page that can diagnose reading ability in the top section. If you use it you have to backspace all the reference numbers in brackets or it will show a to many numbers error. The results for the lede are:

• Readability
• Grade 17 Bad
• Paragraphs: 4
• 4 of 21 sentences are hard to read.
• 9 of 21 sentences are very hard to read.
• 7 adverbs. Aim for 1 or fewer.
• 1 words or phrases can be simpler.

Its supposed to be the simplest section, its hard. Typical ecigarette users or those that are smoking and want more information are going to get fed up and leave. Thats imho is who this page is aimed at, not doctors and health professionals, they have journals to read. Something needs to be done, but all the edit wars are stalling work on making this page the best it can be. Loading up with more technical medical sources isnt going to solve this issue. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The article should have 4 paragraphs. We discussed this before. I personally don't see any issue with the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the lede has become ridiculous. We've left the previous discussion unfinished, so I'm bringing it back out of archive below. Mihaister (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru This is a different issue. The last discussion was on its size. This one is that its to complex and hard to read. While shortening it may make it easier to read, the goal is diffrent and diffrent things may need to be done.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific Changes Proposed for lede

Bringing back the proposed text for lede replacement. Mihaister (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV), or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol that resembles smoke. It generally uses a heating element within an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings, while others release a flavored vapor without nicotine. Currently marketed e-cigarette devices arose from an invention made in China in 2003. The e-cigarette market has been rapidly expanding.

The benefits and risks of e-cigarette usage are currently uncertain and the matter of some debate among the scientific community. Evidence suggests e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions about long-term use. Emissions from e-cigarettes contain flavors, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, carcinogens, heavy metals, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals. The levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards. E-cigarette aerosol has fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke, and are likely to be less harmful to users and bystanders.

The use of e-cigarettes has become more frequent in both the US and the UK. Approximately 60% of users are current smokers and the majority of the remainder are ex smokers. In the US, 3.4% of adults as of 2011 and up to 10% of high school students as of 2012 have "ever used" e-cigarettes. In the UK, the number of e-cigarette users has increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013.

Electronic cigarette legislation and public health investigations are currently pending and are being debated in many countries. The European Commission adopted a proposal to revise the European Union Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC requiring standardization of liquids and personal vaporizers, disclosure of ingredients, and child- and tamper-proofing of liquid containers; the US Food and Drug Administration published proposed regulations in April 2014 along similar lines.

References

1. Bertholon, JF; et al. (Nov 2013). "Comparison of the aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes with conventional cigarettes and the shisha". Rev Mal Respir. 30 (30(9)): 752–757. doi:10.1016/j.rmr.2013.03.003. PMID 24267765.
2. ^ Saitta, D; Ferro, GA; Polosa, R (Mar 2014). "Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes". Therapeutic advances in chronic disease. 5 (2): 50–61. doi:10.1177/2040622314521271. PMID 24587890.
3. ^ Hajek, P; Etter, JF; Benowitz, N; Eissenberg, T; McRobbie, H (31 July 2014). "Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit". Addiction (Abingdon, England). PMID 25078252.
4. "Who Invented Electronic Cigarettes?". Inventors.about.com. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
5. Herzog, B. "E-Cigarette Sales to Exceed Traditional Cigarettes by 2021". Retrieved 22 September 2014. Tobacco analyst Bonnie Herzog of Wells Fargo reaffirmed her previous prediction that electronic cigarette sales will exceed those for tobacco cigarettes within the next decade
6. ^ WHO. "Electronic nicotine delivery systems" (PDF). Retrieved 28 August 2014.
7. ^ McNeill, Ann; Etter, JF. "A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes". Addiction. online. doi:10.1111/add.12730. Retrieved 15 September 2014. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference Bur2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. "CDC Electronic Cigarette Statistics". CDC Newsroom. 28 February 2013. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
11. ^ "Use of electronic cigarettes in Great Britain" (PDF). ASH. ASH. July 2014. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
12. ASH UK (17 September 2014). "New survey finds regular use of electronic cigarettes by children still rare". Retrieved 22 September 2014. our survey results should reassure the public that electronic cigarettes are not currently widely used by young people, nor are they interested in taking electronic cigarettes up
13. Cite error: The named reference Car2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. Etter, J. F.; Bullen, C.; Flouris, A. D.; Laugesen, M.; Eissenberg, T. (May 2011). "Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a research agenda". Tobacco control. 20 (3): 243–8. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.042168. PMC 3215262. PMID 21415064.
15. "Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive". European Commission. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
16. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm

It is the 1st paragraph that is overly complicated. I have simplified the others a bit. These three paragraphs are overly short so still oppose.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It does have 2 very hard sentences. But the second still has 3 and and 2 hard to read. The bottom one is all very hard to read. Your edits dropped the level to the "OK" range but it would be nice to get it lower if possible. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

With edits by Doc James (Thank You) and me we are at grade level 14, with only 3 hard to read and 5 very hard to read sentences, a nice improvement in readability. This changed the vocabulary and sentence length, but doesn't appear to have removed the points. I would like to get it down to grade lever 12 or 13, about High School level, but it may not be possible with the topic. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the proposed lede with more transcluded text from the current version. Perhaps this will address the size criticism above? Mihaister (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes do not produce side-stream smoke

I just added a sentence about e-cigarettes do not produce side-stream smoke. I think the sentence is non-controversial. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to change it or remove it until you do because of copyright issues From Grana "E-cigarettes do not burn or smolder the way conventional cigarettes do, so they do not emit side-stream smoke" your edit "E-cigarettes do not smolder tobacco, they do not put into the air side-stream smoke." it is a derivative work, you can see one sentence in the other one still. Its not paraphrased, rewrite it in your own words. You are putting Misplaced Pages at risk of a lawsuit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the latest version, much better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes do not produce any kind of smoke (). The statement about "side-stream" is misleading and incomplete, implying that other kinds of smoke may be produced. Mihaister (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The source you provided says: "there is no equivalent to the “side-stream” component of exposure to conventional cigarettes, so all of the exposure to a bystander results from exhalation."

This is what the article says: "Since e-cigarettes do not smolder tobacco, no side-stream smoke is emitted. Only what is exhaled by electronic cigarettes users enters the surrounding air."

Not sure what the issue is when it is clear only what is exhaled is a source of exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning side stream smoke is an issue, it doesn't come from ecigarettes, so why include it? Simply mentioning that the only source is from the user is enough and less confusing. No general reader is going to know what side stream smoke is. The sentence reads like one from a medical journal, one of the pitfalls of addressing the wrong target audience. We are not writing for health professionals but the general reader WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We can just say they do not produce smoke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your on the right track, the top half article is already reads like a medical journal, one of the pitfalls mentioned in WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusing

This is confusing "They; however, produce an aerosol rather than smoke. The aerosol from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor. It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid."

Per our aerosol article smoke is an aerosol. So it is not really a vaporizer but an aerosolizer. And we can use the term "airborne particles" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to simplify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the common term is a vaporizer and an aerosol is only part of the vapor.

Per Merriam Webster (a common source of definitions for use when writing for a general audience)

aero·sol : a substance (such as hair spray or medicine) that is kept in a container under pressure and that is released as a fine spray when a button is pressed

Full Definition of AEROSOL

1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol <stratospheric aerosols>

2: a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

As this shows the inaccurate term for what is coming out of a ecigarette is aerosol, not vapor. Vapor is an aerosol, but its not the only one. It is confusing to call it by its generic description that also applies to fog, mist, and smoke to name a few. Not only that the most common usage is a spray can, thats what the general reader is going to think we are talking about, something under pressure, only ecigarettes dont work that way, they are not emitting a pressurized vapor. As a side note for the rest of the article, in the context of second hand exposure its not pressurized coming from the users mouth. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it helps, but here's what I get: The vapor pressure of propylene glycol (which I assume to be the major component) is about 10 mm (0.013 atmospheres) at 75 degrees C. Applying the ideal gas law PV=nRT and rearranging gives n (the number of moles) = PV/RT. Filling in P = 0.013 atm, assuming an inspired volume of 25 mL, a vaporization temperature of 75 degrees (248 kelvin) and the gas constant R = 0.082 Atm L / mole K, I get 1.1 x 10^-5 moles of gas phase propylene glycol per inspiration, which is 0.9 mg. From various sources I get an average of about 150 puffs of per mL of liquid, so about 6.5 mgs/ puff. So back of the envelop, the propylene glycol that is inhaled is at most 15% in the gas phase with the rest being suspended liquid droplets. This is likely an overestimate as condensation will begin as soon as the mixture leaves the vicinity of the vaporizer.

The other components have roughly similar boiling points and proportion of the dose that is in the gas vs the liquid state should be similar for those as well. (otherwise the composition of the remaining liquid, and thus that of the vapor generated, would change as the liquid was consumed).

Hows that for a little WP:OR??

Not sure its relevant, but to a chemist the definition of a vapor is definitely that of the gaseous phase of a substance that exists predominantly as a liquid at standard temperature and pressure (25 degrees and one atmosphere). Atmospheric scientists use the word aerosol to describe suspended particles of any sort, as here. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

Formerly 98 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It helped me understand it a lot, and shows that it really is a vapor, or droplets in a gas.It helps in its usage in the article in that there is a difference in the mixture coming from the e cigarette and of that exhaled by the user. Since we are mostly talking about second hand exposure in the article, when its in the air, the scientific usage by Atmospheric scientists is also helpful. Calling the exhaled vapor aerosol would be inaccurate. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can easily get to an answer to that, as the mechanics are complicated. In the case of steroid inhalers for asthma, 90% of an administered "puff" is swallowed. (Which is why steroids incorporated into inhalers are designed to have very poor oral bioavailability). There has also been a lot of work on asbestos particles, for which a certain size range is especially carcinogenic, due to the interplay of size effects on how much gets exhaled, how much gets into the lung but gets cleared by macrophages, and how much gets into the lung but doesn't get cleared easily. Overall, its pretty much rocket science stuff (which is why the U.S. still does not have generics for Advair) and my WP:OR perspective would be that we don't even try to sort it out. I don't think its possible to know without doing the experiment, and even the experimental result may be inconsistent across different brands of e cig. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The atmospheric sciences example is particularly relevant. Here they have both smoke and fog being classified as aerosol, but the language they use never makes these notions confusing. In the case of e-cigarettes, we have to explain that the aerosol is like fog rather than smoke. Mihaister (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 I am already on the side of making this article more easy to read and I dont think we could do that and go into what you wrote. But its good information for the editors when making decisions on where to put the information they have and what it should be called. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:48, 18 October 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". This was explained before in another section. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor.

"They; however, produce airborne particles rather than smoke or a vapor." is the c/e.

They cannot produce both vapor and airborne particles at the same time. The sources that clarify this state e-cigarettes produce aerosol/airborne particles. Claiming e-cigarettes produces vapor is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Cheng2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cheng is a primary source, it should not be used. I recommend you find another secondary source before its removed. But Cheng says the description of aerosol as vapor is inaccurate, not that its wrong or false. Vapor is made up of gas and particles, like a fog, They are both aerosols. So describing particles as an aerosol is false because there is also the gas in it. Read the definition I copied in at the top. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Read another source (PMID 24267765) used in the article that explains e-cigarettes produce aerosol. The source (PMID 24732157) is a review. See "To review the available evidence evaluating the chemicals in refill solutions, cartridges, aerosols and environmental emissions of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes)." and see "Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify research related to e-cigarettes and chemistry using 5 reference databases and 11 search terms. The search date range was January 2007 to September 2013. The search yielded 36 articles, of which 29 were deemed relevant for analysis."

The review does say the description of aerosol as a vapor is inaccurate. So the lede can clarify this. I adjusted the wording in the lede. I also added "No smoke is emitted". QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No the lede cant explain this, its a small general section that is supposed to be the easiest to read. Its not the place for primary sources because of WP:WEIGHT. It is not WRONG to call it vapor, but inaccurate. Cheng did not say its false, wrong, or anything but inaccurate. Inaccurate means not exact, but exact for who? The GENERAL READER or a health professional? You are writing like a medical journal. Read WP:MEDMOS if you can understand English. Secondly Cheng is a PRIMARY source and as such is not a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(PMID 24732157) does not use the word vapor. (PMID 24267765) is in French. The abstract dosnt use the word vapor. Neither source says that the term Vapor is wrong. Vapor is the more common term to a General Reader. Next. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think anyone really cares if what e-cigs produce is technically a vapor or an aerosol. I for one am not clear on the difference between the two and I would imagine this is true for most others. Basically IMO this content should NOT be in the lead. We can discuss it in the body of the article but it is a minucia. Giving it nearly half the first paragraph is excessive and WP:UNDUE weight.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think anything that is from Cheng or other primary sources be removed from lede per WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. If anything remains it might go into the health section since its dealing with particulates. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to this as a primary source? It isn't per the methods "Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify research related to e-cigarettes" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I did. But the part QuackGuru is using, about inaccuracy isnt part of a review of something, but opinion. Cheng says its inaccurate, not exact, but doenst say its wrong. Per Websters vapor "a substance that is in the form of a gas or that consists of very small drops or particles mixed with the air". AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Better summary

I think a better wording might be: They produce airborne particles and no smoke is emitted. I will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that less easy to read than "They produce airborne particles rather than smoke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate to say "They produce airborne particles rather than cigarette smoke." Will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the article on smoke and the sources used in this article. I thought it can be deemed original research to just say smoke rather than cigarette smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally i don't like the word particles, while correct, it seems to me to indicate solids rather than droplets. --Kim D. Petersen 09:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not care either way. What do the refs say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources are mostly calling it a vapor, with some calling it an aerosol. Common term (outside medical sources) is vapor. You basically need to cherry-pick to find sources that call it particulates, and those will still call it vapor/aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 10:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets formulate it another way: If i was to describe rain as "Particles falling from the sky", then i would be writing something that most people would consider to be wrong, even if technically correct. And for the same reason i think we shouldn't write it this way in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be a great analogy if raindrops were 50 nm in diameter and stayed suspended in air for hours before reaching the ground. But the properties of 50 nM particles formed from liquids vs solids are more alike than the properties of either are similar to solid or liquid macroparticles/droplets. On the other hand, I see your point that some will think of particles as solids.

Overall, I am not clear that this is an important issue unless there is some discussion of differing physiological effects of aerosols vs nicotine/propylene glycol in the gas phase. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So do the comparison with a tap-water ultrasonic humidifier, that creates a dust of water droplets, calling those particles would confuse most regular people, despite that it is correct. It is also btw. quite comparable to the vapor particle sizes that are generated from an e-cigarette - at least if we go by the Grana (fig 3).. The thing here is that a regular reader will think that we're talking about solids, and not droplets/mist of PG,VG,nicotine and water. --Kim D. Petersen 13:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording suggests they only produce particles, which is incorrect. They produce particles and gas, a vapor. Grana says smoke has particles. What the sentence is doing is original research in that it is comparing some of the contents from the vapor against smoke. If the wording is to be improved the original sentences should be provided so other editors dont have to track them down. How about we use this sentence from Grana "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..." and use vapor because Grana says its commonly called that. Common wording should be used WP:MEDMOS WP:MTAU in the lede which should be the easiest section to read. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

"They produce particles and gas". is incorrect. "They produce particles in a gas". The term aerosol is also frequently used and is easy to understand. I don't think we should introduce known inaccurate wording to the lede or body and I don't think we should add the unnecessary quote. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody would call fog an "environmental aerosol" even though it's technically correct.

The current emphasis on “particles” in this article, supported by non-MEDRS primary sources, is a transparent attempt to manufacture a spurious similarity between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke. As has been shown before , the smallest ultrafine “particles” to which people are routinely exposed are created when boiling water. Common sense is all that’s needed to understand that water vapor particles are not a health hazard. The discussion of particle size for e-cigarette vapor is thus completely irrelevant here and illustrates marked bias on the part of the editors who keep emphasizing this discussion. The NPOV approach would be to focus on describing the chemical makeup of e-cigarette vapor, not particle size distributions, as done by this review . Mihaister (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The only place "aerosol" is common imedical journals. Publications aimed at health professionals, But the article here is aimed at the common reader. The common deffinition of aerosol is a spray can. Using aerosol when writing for the common reader is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a news article (and there are more news articles you can find): What the aerosol spews is not water vapour. We know brands market it as "water vapor". It is not simply vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay so Grana says "Electronic cigarettes are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol..."

ANY liquid can be made into a vapor, not just water. That you found one news article that calls it aerosol is not significant, I could find thousands that call it vapor. Here is a Google news search for ecigarettes and vapor, all 34 pages of links. Wnat to start listing to see which is more common in the general press? Secondly, you are quoting a english version of a news site from India, that does not reflect how the words are used or meant in the English speaking world. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An aerosol is fine liquid droplets or fine solid particles in air. As it sounds like it is liquid in this case we should be able to use "mist". Sounds similar to a fog machine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Mist would be fine by me as its a common term tha t a general reader would understand AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think any general reader would easily understand the term "aerosol mist". QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the common reader will take away from that wording "Spray can mist". AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

Proposal: "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke."

I think we can compromise and include both words in the lede. Will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another proposal: "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol mist (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke." Discussing first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep missing the points or ignoring them. I want you to address all of these.

• 1. WP:MEDMOS says that we are to write to a General reader. The page also says your writing to the wrong audience because you are using terms (jargon) from medical journals.
• 2. The majority (all except 1)of links you have are from medicals journals, written for medical professionals not the general reader. Why should we disregard the clear wording of the WP:MEDMOS a Wikipdia guideline that covers pages in the medical category (see #1)? Especially since the page is about a consumer product?
• 3. Websters Dictionary, a source of common usage for the General reader, says the #1 definition for aerosol is a spray can.
• 4. WP:MTAU says "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible." Do you want the General reader to think the ecigarette produces a spray can (see #3)?
• 5. Other that one news article from a foreign news agency in its english language version there are only Google only has 3 pages of news sites, if we remove www.medscape.com a site for health professionals and the word vapor, that use aerosol. But Google has 34 pages of news results for vapor. Which use is more common and more likely to be understood, the way a a foreign news site or 3 pages describes things or 34 pages of links?

As to your proposal, aerosol should not be in the lede in any of its paragraphs because of the points listed above and others.AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead needs to be kept simple. We need something like "They produce X rather than cigarette smoke". X should be a simple word like mist. This is simpler than aerosol which I guess we could also use per . What it is technically can be hashed out in the body of the article.

This is a too complicated of a sentence "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke"

I guess we could go with "They produce airborne particles (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do like mist, its even easier to read than vapor. But the end sentence is just to complicated. I like your suggestion of so much that we should replace aerosol with mist, back to the particles, like "They produce airborne particles in mist rather than cigarette smoke". But unless the 5 points are addressed I'm likely to remove aerosol completely. {{WP:MEDMOS]] applies to the entire article. Secondly, I will be removing the Aerosol section from the Components section or marking it as original research. Components is a hardware section, its about the physical makeup of the device. The Aerosol section doesn't belong in Components and placing it there is Original Research as no study or site says that aerosol is hardware. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I think the word aerosol is ok if wikilinked. If a user doesn't know the meaning of a word then they can click on the wlink and find out more. However for the purpose of Medmos and using common language in the lead the word "mist" is effective and accurate. The word aerosol is usually used to describe the output of spray cans and negative connotations of being hazardous (as in bug spray or Lysol).~Technophant (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you just pointed out a prime reason it should be removed. The wording is completely negative, including helping to destroy the ozone layer, and goes against WP:NPOV as well as other guidelines. WP:NOTJOURNAL also says we should write without relying on links to give understanding, especially in the lede. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the term wikilinked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If wikilinking the term to aerosol solves the issue then that is fine with me. QuackGuru (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence stays in the "They produce a mist rather than smoke." form its ok by me. The link isnt needed to understand what was written as WP:NOTJOURNAL advises against. As said below the mist page isnt the best one to link to in explaining whats going on as it doesnt deal with this usage so a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold compromise

More than two editors suggest we use the term "mist". I think we can reach a compromise and I went ahead and made the change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not agree that it should be placed alongside aerosol. You still do not have consensus and you have still ignored the points above. You are making edits without consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem with particles, and we now have another problem: Despite being described in the majority of the secondary literature as vapor, and almost exclusively being called vapor in the public... there is no mention of vapor in the lede. --Kim D. Petersen 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You also didnt give enough time for other editors to chime in, giving 4 hours from proposal to edit and jumping at it when you had 2 others said mist. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, 3 editors said mist is okay and you don't want aerosol to dominate the entire article. I tried a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, I replaced the term aerosol with the common term vapor in the lede. Does this help for the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Despite being described in the majority of the secondary literature as vapor" <- do you think yourself that you've addressed my concern? (hint: you addressed the public part, not the secondary source one). And you didn't address particles at all. --Kim D. Petersen 05:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a bit too wordy what I tried to add to the lede. The part about the particles was deleted from the lede. Is there anything you want me to add to the body about the particles? QuackGuru (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "They produce a mist rather than smoke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Its short, easy to read, and the mist page doesnt really talk about it like its used in the sentence so a wikilink to another page isnt bad. Another good point is the link isnt really needed to understand what the sentence says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are we relying on primary sources?

Why are we relying on primary sources? In the lead alone there are several, as well as a key statement attributed to the WHO, which at the present is "on hold" (read: not active/retracted/under consideration/..). It seems as if primary sources are OK, when they are presented by editors on one side of the argument, while they are unusable when presented by editors on the other.

So what is the actual consensus on sources? Are we going with WP:MEDRS secondary sources or are the floodgates suddenly open?

I for one suggest that we stick to the old consensus version where sources have to be WP:MEDRS secondary sources, but i'll leave the floor open. --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If primary sources are in the lede of all places they should be removed. At most they might be used as "Someone said...." links in very rare situations in the body of the article. If the WHO is reconsidering a statement, it should be removed until it has been either fixed or ok'd. Medical references should be secondary sources. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

While reading the article space, I had same one. But I guess they can be will be removed once you have gathered secondary ones. VandVictory (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources in the lead are primary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter which? The question is rather generic for the entire article. Do we, or do we not, adhere to the previous consensus of solely relying on WP:MEDRS secondary source? (but in case you are wondering: the Cheng paper is primary, as is the Chapman&Wu paper the first two i fell over. But again: This is not about the sources, but the question of secondary only or not). --Kim D. Petersen 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I made the comment "especially in the lede" I will clarify it for others. Its bad that they are in the article at all, and should be removed in any location in the article. That they are in the lede is especially worrisome in that it does not go into depth (and should not) and if someone only reads the lede (a very common practice) they may come away with information that is possibly inaccurate and incomplete. I only mentioned it as that would be a good starting point to remove them. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Agree. Primary sources should rarely be used. I am; however, fine with using the ASH surveys as this is the best available data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, now there is one more: Bertholon(2013). Keeps piling up. --Kim D. Petersen 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Chapman&Wu(2014) is cited no less than 7 times by now... Cheng(2014) is cited 3 times, Bertholon et al(2013) cited 2 times, CDC "Notes from the Field" (2 different ones) cited 6 times.

All of these are primary sources, and none of these sources were used a couple of weeks ago.... --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They are mostly if not all being added by QuackGuru. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bertholon primary source, removed
• Chapman is a review article "we searched Google Scholar and Pubmed in July of 2013 using keywords"
• Cheng also a review article per "Systematic literature searches were conducted"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, i was a bit quick there. I checked the PubMed record for "review" which is missing for both. But you missed the CDC "Notes from the Field" - which is definitively a primary source. --Kim D. Petersen 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the "Notes from the Field" sort of fall between the position of a nationally recognized organization (the CDC) and a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is to technical, it reads like a Journal

I just placed a tag. The article is to complicated and goes against WP:NOTJOURNAL WP:MEDMOS and WP:MTAU. The lede is ok, but the Health effects down to Components is hard to read. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. --Kim D. Petersen 06:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to the section below which their are concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Health and fitness articles
• Unknown-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• C-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• Unassessed Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Old requests for peer review