Misplaced Pages

Does anyone else have any ideas for ordering this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the above maintain the challenged notion that these devices are "medical", whereas they are currently regarded legally, by the scientific literature, and by the public as general consumer products. "Contraindications"? Really?

I suggest we stop trying to cram a square peg into a round hole and recognize the reality that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology (, ) that does not fit the definition of either tobacco product or medical product. Let's develop a structure to this article that acknowledges this verifiable fact rather than attempt to shoehorn this distinct category into existing ill-fitting frameworks. Mihaister (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has anything to say that is not a workable proposal then put it somewhere else. All of the above options that I shared are horrible and problematic but at least they exist. This is not a section for discussing theoretical non-existent proposals but for presenting existing ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The above proposals dismiss the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RFC. None above are satisfactory and are all medical listings. The article is not listed as a medical device.

1. Standard order for other cigarettes Consumer product
   • History
   • Construction
   • Health effects
   • Usage
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Related technologies

1. Modified order for other cigarettes Consumer product taking into account support responses
   • History
   • Health effects
   • Construction
   • Usage
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Related technologies

AlbinoFerret 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not? We could probably pull content fitting that outline directly from here. Would save us all the trouble of developing new content. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion isnt about the content, but the order of the content.Taking everything from one source as you suggest isnt good. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret You used the word "Standard order". Where did you get the standard? So far as I know, one does not exist. Did you design this yourself? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the standard order of its type of consumer product, cigarettes, as found on the articles. None start out with Health effects or have the other medical sections. I have modified the title a little. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I have looked for a standard on products and even proposed one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Home_Living#Manual_of_style_-_section_order, but I think none exists. The medical manual of style does not start with health effects either, but rather with uses. I am not seeing the the opposition to the medical proposal a call for greater attention to the history section, and I wondered if you found some standard somewhere which says that history comes first before uses and function. Is it also your personal view that history is more important than usage or mechanism/construction? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at all the cigarette articles, they all start with history, as do all of consumer products I have seen on Misplaced Pages. While a "standard" isnt listed in a guideline, there is a default standard by common use. More than half the responses disagree with a medical listing. Starting from a medical listing is imho the wrong starting point, but I understand the need to start somewhere. I recommend the order set forth in the lede as a starting point. It is also the default order a lot of journal articles set, History, what it consists of, and then the effects. They dont jump to health issues. In fact Grana the most sited source uses this order. I understand the concerns of the supporters about pushing down the Health section, so perhaps we can compromise and place history first. Its a small section and does give a tiny bit on components. Its unlikely to change or expand as other sections and will not continually push the other sections down. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing I didnt answer is the lack of opposition. Over half of the responses were against the medical order and preferred one like a consumer device. They acknowledged a defacto one exists because of common use. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret One defining characteristic of the "health option" is that it starts with a description of what the product is and how it is made. In my view, information on the use of the product is more important and the history of the product is rather low in importance. Yes, I know that many people put history first and I have often opposed it. I could be mistaken but I think you yourself have said that usage was most important, and I do not recall you defending history anywhere. This is not a medical/non-medical issue. Even for products I am wondering if you really believe that the history comes before describing what the product is and how it is used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

During a massive amount of editing late at night I did forget to put history first. But the page as it was didnt last long enough to place history first when I woke up. My opinion is that the order of the lede should be followed, it is the same as the defacto standard of page order of consumer devices. I think we should use the order of other consumer products of its kind if not every other consumer product. Its not "many" people that prefer a defacto standard of a consumer product, its more than half and growing.

But our starting point is wrong, it is placing the opinions in the minority first. Granted the medical questions are important, but the lede places that information at the top as the largest paragraph in the lede. Dont get me wrong, some compromise is needed, but sticking with the medical order and making adjustments from there is the wrong way to go. E-cigarettes are not a medical product, they are not in a medical category. That medical group adopted the article as something they are interested in and placed banners at the top of the talk page does not change those facts.

If the order you are suggesting is

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

We may have the start of a compromise. But please lose the rest of the medical order. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to say anything about medical order because no two people imagine the same thing when talking about that. I support the order that you proposed here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I too support the order proposed by AlbinoFerret immediately above. Mihaister (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that AlbinoFerret's first option is the most appropriate, it matches the typical order in the review articles that we have in the medical section (like for instance in Grana). It makes more sense to explain what it is and how it came about, before going into the effects of it, with the final part being the political and sociological aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen Previously you have said that uses and construction/design/product description come first, like for example when I wanted the same thing by voting to support the medical option. I wondered why you said that because it seemed like we wanted the same thing. Is it really your intent now to say that history comes before uses and design? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

During the discussion of sections and page order Quack has been busy adding "medical" section to the page without consensus. Toxicology and Adverse effects were added. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Do you feel strongly that this is a problem which conflicts with the outline proposal? QuackGuru posted some low-level headings. This outline is for top-level headings. I do not have any opinion on low level headings at this time, other than I think that some will probably be allowed. I do not want to dismiss your concern but I was hoping that for now the discussion could focus on top level heading until the article could be rearranged a bit. Would it change your mind about these section orders of the health section had lower level toxicology and adverse effect sections during a rearrange? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry The issues I see with the low level headings is that they are the names of medical sections listed in the WP:MEDMOS and that its not written in stone that low level sections will stay low level sections. Its easily remidied by using a non medical section header for the name. Adverse Effects can become Complaints as an example. But Quack has a habit of becoming fixed on a specific wording, in fact I deleted the sections, he added them back, I edited the names, he added them back. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New section proposal - Controversy on health topics

Many of the MEDRS sources cited in the Health section refer to the public health debate or controversy with respect to e-cigarettes. Yet, this is not mentioned at all in the article. This failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics creates an inaccurate and non-neutral portrayal of the subject.

Evidence:

• Hajek 2014 review: "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition."
• Polosa et al. 2013 review: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate."

Proposal

• The Health section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial;
• This subsection should caution the reader that positions of both sides are based on thin evidence and likely to change as research develops;
• We should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when.

Your thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Outline of proposed section

• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarette use are likely small compared to smoking tobacco.
• A heated debate on the topic of e-cigarettes is ongoing between tobacco controllers and harm reduction advocates.
• The controversy is centered on whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a net positive or negative public health impact. However, most sources recognize that there isn't sufficient data to draw broad conclusions about long-term population-level risk at this time. Positions of various advocacy groups and public health bodies span the range between "enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition."
• Positions, both based on thin or equivocal evidence for any hypothetical population-level effects:
  • Likely positive impact: even though there is insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, the evidence that currently exists supports conclusions that e-cigarettes are having a positive impact on the individual health (when compared with smoking combustible tobacco) and there is no evidence of negative effects at the population level. E-cigarettes may be a valuable tool in the efforts to reduce smoking harms.
  • Likely negative impact: Even though the evidence that exists suggests smokers switching to vaping likely reduce their individual risks, a "precautionary" approach is needed because vaping looks like smoking and may "re-normalize" smoking or otherwise undermine tobacco control efforts. Other population-level concerns include possible initiation of nicotine use by youth, a "gateway effect" leading consumers from e-cigarettes to combustible tobacco, and delaying of quitting by current smokers.
• Significance: there are currently ~1.24 billion smokers worldwide. The WHO estimates that smoking may cause over 1 billion deaths this century. If e-cigarettes provide an attractive, low-risk alternative for current smokers, they should be thoughtfully considered as a part of tobacco control efforts going forward.

  -- Mihaister (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

alternative outline of proposed section

• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarette use are likely small compared to smoking tobacco.
• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarettes use (compared to not using them at all) are not well known, especially because e-liquids and devices to vaporize them are so variable
• Most agree that we should regulate them so that e-liquid contents are safe enough and are known, and we should regulate e-liquid packaging to prevent accidents, and we should regulate devices so that we understand what users are being exposed to
• Most agree that more study is needed
• The controversy is centered on whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a net positive or negative public health impact. However, most sources recognize that there isn't sufficient data to draw broad conclusions about long-term population-level risk at this time.
• Positions, both based on thin or equivocal evidence for any hypothetical population-level effects:
  • Likely positive impact: Cigarette smoking is terribly harmful, and based on what we know of e-cigarettes, they are very likely to be far less harmful to users and bystanders. If people turn to e-cigarettes instead of smoking, literally millions of lives and billions of dollars could be saved. Smokers like e-cigarettes because the behavior and feel is the same as smoking; people are already choosing them. This is a great tool to add to the harm reduction arsenal. We should regulate e-liquids and devices just enough so they are regularized and accidents don't happen, but we should do nothing to prevent their use and proliferation and doctors should discuss them with patients who cannot quit smoking. And we should keep studying their effects to make sure this was a good decision.
  • Likely negative impact: The risks of using e-cigs are not known and the lack of regulation means that consumers are might already being put in danger. At minimum we should regulate e-liquids and devices -- and we should even consider requiring drug-like safety testing before we allow any specific product to be marketed. A "precautionary" approach is needed because we don't understand the effects of vaping, and users and bystanders might be getting harmed right now in ways that will only emerge later, when it is too late. It is just irresponsible to stand by and allow that to happen - think about what happened with asbestos. On top of that, vaping looks like smoking and may "re-normalize" smoking; it may also initiate nicotine use by youth and delay quitting by current smokers. Public-health-wise, we should treat e-cigarettes like cigarettes until we understand them better. We should study them more.

some key differences from Mihaister's version:

• the prior version doesn't discuss the absolute risk of e-cigs (in other words, the risk of using them at all, which is a different question from the risk compared to smoking). it is the "absolute risk" that has been a key point of concern for "nay-sayers"
• there are areas of strong agreement among experts and regulators.
• the "likely negative impact" perspective was not accurately described and contained arguments from the "positive impact" side

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC) (removing two lines that were not supportable; the actual debate among experts is far less heated than this talk page!! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC))

Discussions of safety occur at two levels: the individual and the population. At the individual level if e-cigs replace regular cigs most agree that e-cigs are safer. If e-cigs however maintain smoking regular cigs they are likely harmful. At the population level safety is unclear. If e-cigs increase use of regular cigs within a population harm will result. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Your alternative seems fair and balanced. I made a minor edit to keep the tone of the 2 positions equivalent in acknowledging that statements about risks or benefits are hypothetical or based on thin and equivocal evidence. Mihaister (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - Count me in. At minimum it would accurately show that the health effects are hypothetical and controversial, which has to be a huge improvement on the current version. Right now it looks like a crude attempt to smear vaping with every imaginary risk that can be dragged up. Some balance would be great.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is poor evidence. This article should not turn into a hodgepodge of what supporters or opponents think. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? At the moment it's just a hodgepodge of what opponents are concerned about. There are no known health effects of vaping, apart from the whole not smoking any more thing, but the article is dominated by fearmongering rubbish.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

CheesyAppleFlake, you touched on one of the reasons e-cigarettes hold so much promise and controversy. There are those who no matter what you tell them will continue to find some way of getting nicotine, they wont quit. Assessing the quit rates of these people is insane. Scare them away from e-cigarettes and you scare them right back to tobacco ones. Each person scared away is one person doomed to bad health and a fast death. Its like Chemo, the drugs are not perfect, but they are better than the outcome of letting things go on. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support the controversy on the harm reduction aspect is underdeveloped and in that context, this paper might be interesting:

  Hajek, Peter; Foulds, Jonathan; Le Houezec, Jacques; Sweanor, David; Yach, Derek (2013). "Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?". The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 1 (6): 429–431. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70124-3. PMID 24429230.

  --Kim D. Petersen 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support in spirit My support would be hinged on an agreement to stay on the controversial aspect, and not get into yet another section that is a hodgepodge of claims trying to prove it isnt controversial. So many of the sources we use have "unknown", "uncertin", or "concerns" language added to them it is a given that enough material exists to make quite a healthy section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not yet - before we make a controversy section, how about representing both sides of the controversy with the statements that the MEDRSs reviews already included in the article use first? The fact that the widest-ranging MEDRSs in the article are summarized as if they don't make statements diametrically opposed to the unreviewed WHO conference proceedings is an abhorrent violation of WP:NPOV and an affront to the principles of building an accurate encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to propose some text illustrating what you had in mind? Mihaister (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done so at . EllenCT (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) and agree that the "Controversy" section should not be another expansive one-upmanship exercise resulting in a jumbled mess of claims, counter-claims, caveats, attributions, and loaded language. I'm envisioning a concise, neutral exposition of the controversy and relevant positions. that might be even as simple as the Hajek quote from above: position 1="enthusiastic support", position 2="vigorous opposition." No details, no health claims... Mihaister (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to suggest a small, few lines example that most can agree on to this section. Id say all but thats near impossible on this article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose an invitation to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  How exactly would describing the controversy be unbalanced? Are you saying that it cannot be described neutrally? (by WP:NPOV not false balance?) --Kim D. Petersen 00:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The goal of this article is to describe Electronic Cigarettes neutrally. The means to that end is best evidence. Points of view are not evidence. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, lets remove any claim that is about "concerns" because those are points of view without facts. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another effort to ghettoize the health concerns that form the bulk of what is discussed in most lay and scholarly treatments of the subject. The fact is that 90% of what is out there discusses potential health effects. Attempts to turn this article into a "gee whiz, aren't these things cool" and "oh by the way, a few fringe voices have expressed health concerns" article is seriously NNPOV. Its like writing an article about the Nixon presidency and moving all discussion of Watergate into a "Controversies" section. Health effects are core to the story. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  There is a difference between health effects and health policy. Basically the controvery is over of two different ways to view this product, where one is focused upon "It might be harmful to the user" and the other on "It is significantly less harmful to the user than cigarettes". And that debate is in fact significant as attested by the number of peer-reviewed papers on that. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The RS's make the health aspect central to this topic, we must follow; hiving this stuff off to one side would violate our requirement to maintain neutrality, which is non-negotiable. Alexbrn 06:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  So the RS's mentioned above are irrelevant - because of ... what? --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "irrelevant". Alexbrn 13:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You state in your oppose that we can't write about what they say, because of ... something. Thus they must be irrelevant for some reason, which you haven't explained. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't put that "we can't write about what they say" either. Ping me if you ever actually engage with what I wrote, it's quite simple. Alexbrn 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well, all we can decipher from your comment then is "i don't like it" then, which is a non-argument and thus should be discarded when considering whether to add content or not. In summary: You don't want to explain, fair enough, but then there is no argument. --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the closer will have basic reading comprehension skills. Alexbrn 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - That's what building an encyclopedia is about. -A1candidate (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any specific "controversy" section or addition of more unsightly templates or tags. Support clear documentation of any disagreements between sources as disagreement between sources, with due weight to their prominence in the literature. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What we dont need are dozens of position statements. Major medical bodies would be just fine. AlbinoFerret 22:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unclear what the question is what is being proposed as controversial, exactly? In my view there are some things for which everybody agrees; and others where there is controversy. In my view everybody agrees that we know little about the absolute health effects of e-cigs (in other words, compared to not smoking) - I think you will no source at all that says that the risks of e-cigs are well understood. Also, everybody agrees that cigarettes are very bad. Also, I think you will no source that would disagree, that e-cigs are likely to be less harmful than cigarettes. Put all that together, and the actual controversy is pretty clear and is a matter of whether you emphasize the absolute unknown risk of e-cigs, or emphasize the ~likely~ benefit in comparison to smoking. Namely a) whether we as a society should allow e-cigs to continue to proliferate when their absolute risks are not well understood; b) whether we should allow and even encourage their use since they are likely better than cigarettes. That is in my view the controversy, at least among academics and other commentators. I have seen no regulator (the parties who are actually responsible for public health) supporting unregulated profileration. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But this article is supposed to be about e-cigarettes, not what the unspecified but presumably omnibenevolent we will condescend to "allow". This is why the antis are hated so intensely by vapers. We managed to quit smoking on our own, without your so-called help, but then you bastards turn up uninvited and start pontificating about what you're going to "allow". Actually this prohibitionist arrogance explains why the article is in such an appalling state. Maybe instead of getting on your high horse about what you feel like "allowing" us - and by the way, thanks to no-cost shipping from China it's already far beyond your ability to control - you should actually try to understand the fucking subject.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, your POV is showing. You talk about comparing e-cigs to not smoking. Duh, e-cig users AREN'T smoking. If you don't even know that maybe you shouldn't be involved here, because it's pretty fundamental.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

off topic - this is WP:NOTFORUM. please comment on content, not contributors. ignoring. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: As the reliable sources cited above point out, the controversy has nothing to do with "allowing" anything. That's the concern of regulators and busy-body "control" lobbies. Scientists are debating whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a positive of negative net public health impact. So far, as you've accurately identified, everybody seems to agree that, on the individual level, switching from smoking to vaping likely results in a substantive reduction in health risk (funny how the article does not make that clear). All of the controversy is created by various opinion (mostly unsupported) as to whether population-level effects would be positive or negative. Some sources make claims based on thin chemical composition evidence that trivial toxicity risk translates to disproportionately large negative population effects, raising politically-correct but purely hypothetical "concerns" about children or expecting mothers. Other sources point out that the evidence is thin and these concerns are unsubstantiated, alarmist, and designed to appeal to emotions rather than to follow evidence (). Moreover, the evidence that does exist supports conclusions that the "concerns" raised, though hypothetically possible, are not actually materializing and that more plausible benefits are being unfairly dismissed (eg the Hajek et al. 2014 review). Therefore the controversy is about the lives of 1.24 billion smokers worldwide who may derive an immediate health benefit by switching from deadly smoking to the far less risky alternative of vaping, but are instead being bamboozled with hypothetical and alarmist concerns (). Mihaister (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

i was making an effort to define the controversy in a neutral manner. please try to define it in a neutral manner. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If this section doesnt work out, Perhaps we could make a "Unclear, Unknown, and Concerns" section and gather them all together in one place. AlbinoFerret 14:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog:So far the only agreement I have seen from regulators, at least here in the US is that they are not going to be banned. While the article is not just about the US other countries like the UK are not planning on banning them either. So the "allow" question is OR as is trying to prove that they shouldnt be allowed by hammering Unknown, Unclear, and Concerns. Some regulation is probably needed to control safety issues like child proof caps on eliquid, and shoddy manufacturing causing unneeded risks. I dont think I have read anything from either side that would be against that. But the allow part can be compared to Cigarettes. We know they are bad for you. But few if any countries have banned them yet. I have read statements from regulators that sound promising, that we shouldnt bann them, The head of the fda said that there would be health benefit on a public health scale if we could get everyone to switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes in testimony before a congressional committee.AlbinoFerret 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

how you would define the topic of controversy, concisely and in a neutral way? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I added an outline for the controversy section at the top. Mihaister (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that about sums it up. AlbinoFerret 21:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

all it I see at the top is there is a "public health controversy". if i missed something, i am sorry. I am trying to define just what the that public health controversy is. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part of the text up here are you having trouble with, Jytdog? Perhaps I can try to rephrase so it comes across in a more unambiguous fashion... Mihaister (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out!! I see it now. (my bad, pretty fucking obvious where it was) That is pretty good! But in my view that could use some tweaking - I'll offer an amended version right below it. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Health effects need to be prominent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What health effects? None are known. Apart from vague, hypothetical "concerns" you got nothing.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly and this unknownness needs to be prominent Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support for many of the reasons give above and suggest/reiterate that the section should focus on public health rather than physical effects on the individual. In public health there is a genuine (if often short-tempered) debate with genuine and credible broad points on both sides, and this doesn't need to be crowded out by a long recital of conflicting detailed physical research results. Barnabypage (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated as an introduction to the Health effects section because it would misrepresent the sourcing by leading the reader to believe there's serious disagreement within the medical literature over what kind of evidence is available and what conclusions can be drawn from it. What the sources provided in this proposal indicate that there is disagreement within public policy proposal from regulatory bodies over how they should be regulated. The full quote from Hajek is The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition. Regulatory bodies around the world are deciding whether to allow EC to compete with cigarettes freely, submit them to a more restrictive regulation than cigarettes, e.g. as medicinal devices, or ban them.; the full quote from Polosa is The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate with authorities wanting to ban it or at least regulate it. (emphasis added). The kind of content proposed should be down in the Society and culture section. Zad68 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I cant wait for the FDA deeming regulations to become enacted so we can see if they are an effort to ban, or just regulate them a little as the proposed ones did. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zad on where it should be located - in the Society and culture section. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions

The edit at replaces statements appearing most prominently in the conclusions as well as in the abstracts of two authoritative WP:MEDRS research reviews which have both been cited in the article for months in support of other statements which the MEDRSs' authors did not state in their summary or conclusions, in favor of statements from other inconclusive sources contradicting the prescriptive conclusions of the more thorough reviews. The conclusive reviews are discussed at and . Should the conclusive statements be restored to the article? EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Could we please stick to 1-2 RfC's at a time? This one is premature imho. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew the Palazzolo et al (2013) RfC as its poster above per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs because the journal had some serious credibility problems of which I had been unaware, and consensus seemed clear enough because of that problem alone. The Polosa et al (2013) and Hajek et al (2014) sources have been discussed thoroughly above. Nobody objects to including milquetoast statements from them or their reliability, but a few editors simply don't want their most prominent conclusions included in the article because they say in plain language that smokers switching to e-cigs are likely to benefit tremendously because they are much less harmful "if at all." EllenCT (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's the central point. There is a group of editors who refuse to let anything into the article unless it's negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. The central point is not allowing in broad statements of health benefits that are substantiated to a lesser extent than those of a typical phase 1 drug that has shown some promising effects in an animal model. This is the EXACT sort of unproven claim that we don't allow for drugs, don't allow for medical devices, don't allow for nutritional supplements and don't want for e-cigarettes, irrespective of whether you choose to call them a medical device or consumer product. Doc James and I have deleted literally hundreds, possibly thousands of unproven health claims from scores of articles over the last several years. This one is no different. You can't say that e cigs are going to help people quit without performing large, randomized trials. It may sound very reasonable, but remember all the population surveys showing that people with high dietary antioxidant content had less cancer, but when randomized trials of supplements were done, antioxidants were shown to increase cancer. You can't jump over the step of doing a large RCT. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs aren't a medical device or nutritional supplement, so your argument is irrelevant. The fact is this: E-cigs are a recreational product with no known health issues, but this article has been medicalized and turned into an endless catalog of hypothetical "concerns" with no real-world evidence. It's POV out the ass.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your opinion reflected in any policy or guideline? WP:MEDRS doesn't say anything like that. It says to trust the peer-reviewed literature reviews when they have been favorably well-cited. That's what we have here. Multiple MEDRSs which agree because they summarize sufficient RCTs to satisfy their peer reviewers, in turn because it is obvious what is going on here. You are taking an addictive drug that is dangerous because it is traditionally delivered with smoke from burning vegetable matter, which everyone agrees is what causes the vast majority if not the entirety of the physiological damage, and delivering it without any smoke or even pyrolites. Are there any alternative hypothesis? No! But you persist in trying to make up new rules from whole cloth ... because why? EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for reliable sources to pronounce any need for any type of study. There's currently no verifiable evidence that "large RCTs" (or any other type of pharmaceutical study) are even applicable to understanding the current use of these devices. The RCT "requirement" opined above is nothing more than another attempt to "medicalize" the topic. Mihaister (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Decisions/statements like that really have to be made on a source by source basis; just because you don't have any in mind doesn't mean they can't be found by a diligent editor. I have a feeling of original research about a statement like that. To make an OR counter-argument (no, I'm not saying to add this to the article unless you find a ref) my main concern is whether N-Nitrosonornicotine can be produced by the degradation of hot nicotine solution by a poorly designed E-cigarette. I looked this up a while back and found there was only a minor amount in the refill liquid but I didn't find data for the level in urine or in exhaled smoke. Probably should have looked harder because there must be something somewhere. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any exhaled smoke, so what are you talking about?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt A flipside to that is that in a fast evolving industry like e-cigarettes, where the first temperature regulating board was just released. I wonder how many of these journal articles are on poorly designed and obsolete hardware and crappy juice from china? AlbinoFerret 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a major problem. Researchers want consistency, so they prefer cigalikes with prefilled cartos because these have the "consistent dose" they think is important. They're self-selecting for shitty equipment and shitty results. This whole stupid debate is over vape gear that nobody in the real world has used since 2012.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Lorillard alone will have sold >$150m worth of cigalikes in the U.S. alone this year. It's a little ridiculous to say nobody is using them. The market may be moving in the direction of later-generation kit, VTMs or whatever you want to call them, but cigalikes clearly sell and presumably are used. They wouldn't be in retailers and coming off production lines in the quantity that they are if this wasn't the case. I'm not arguing they are better - but they do exist as a substantial part of the market. Barnabypage (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, sorry - I meant mist, aerosol, "vapor", whatever, not smoke. As for no one in the real world using the 'cigalikes', you should provide references. In terms of visible advertising presence - TV ads, posters on convenience storefronts and so forth - the "blu" brand still seems to be more visible than the others. Also you should provide some background on what you mean by "shitty" equipment/results. To the uninitiated, it would seem like either you inhale nicotine or not. What effect does the better gear or the fancy customizable features have? Wnt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that someone in the world uses ciaglikes. They are usually a stepping stone to better equipment because of their poor performance. I dont have a MEDRS source that says that, but it may show up in components as its not a health claim but a performance claim. In the UK ciaglike manufacturers are moving to ego type devices because of this as is V2 in the US. I see ego's just as often in stores as ciaglikes now in the US. But from what I have read, most of the studies used early forms of cigalikes, and dont mention the source of the e-juice which from the dates is probably from China. China is notorious for poor quality control in manufacturing. Your comment of finding information based on "a poorly designed E-cigarette" only reinforces the question of if others tested poorly designed e-cigarettes that dont reflect the majority of devices then or today.

At least from my comments above, and CheesyAppleFlake's when you are testing old "shitty" equipment and juice from a country with notoriously bad quality control you are going to find problems. I would really like to see a study use a kanger or aspire tank (that dont use any solder) on any battery and use one of the popular ejuices made in the UK or US that use strict quality control and only use pharmaceutical grade components except for flavours for comparison. AlbinoFerret 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still have no idea what "poor performance" really means. Do you get less nicotine, or have they been shown to produce contaminants or bad taste or something, or does liquid come out where it shouldn't, or... ? I just don't have an idea and the article doesn't really give me one. Politically (a goal we should facilitate, but not follow) there would seem to be a relationship between the potential for regulation and the nature of the problems people experience. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because, no offense, you have no idea about the subject in general. Nicorette inhalators deliver more nicotine than most e-cigs, but users don't like them at all. OTOH, a lot of very keen hobbyist vapers are using low-nicotine juice despite having been very heavily addicted smokers. You insist on approaching it from a medical point of view where it's all about dose. That's wrong. There are all sorts of ways the newer devices beat cigalikes, none of which have anything to do with nicotine. Cigalikes give a low volume of vapor. They come in a restricted range of flavors, which are usually not very good flavors anyway. They don't let you adjust power output. They're expensive because you have to buy proprietary cartos or entire new disposable devices. Tobacco companies like them because they fit their existing business model and distributor networks but their sales are falling sharply, both overall and in market share. But tobacco controllers still obsess over them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor performance is the amount of vapor. That does affect the way they are viewed by the user and may lead to reduced levels of nicotine than advertised. That could be why we see so many people stop using them as a way of quitting or for duel use, that hasnt made its way into a review, yet. There are concerns (about nicotine delivery) in a journal article or review, not sure which off the top of my head, but is already being pointed out. The main point I made before is that the old saying of garbage in garbage holds true. Garbage hardware = metals in the vapor, already in a review. Garbage liquid can equal all sorts of things that were never intended to be put in them by using impure non pharmaceutical components. the Juice comparison isnt in a journal article yet to my knowledge, I hope we see something on it soon. One of the big names of cigalikes is even starting a new juice line from the better e-juice makers hopefully that gets it in a study soon. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the common complaints is that the perceived nicotine "hit" from a cigalike e-cigarette is less than from a supposedly comparable tobacco cigarette. Testing has also found very wide variations in the actual nicotine content of e-liquids at supposedly the same concentrations. I don't have a view on whether either of these points is valid or not, but they are among the widely-made criticisms. Barnabypage (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I welcome any such data you can cite, but the ref I cited above actually said the bottles were generally accurate, so you have some convincing to do. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This, for example: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/26/ntr.ntu080.abstract but I'm really not interested in doing any convincing here. My point is that this is one of the aspects of "poor performance" that people talk about - whether or not their talk is grounded in reality, it still influences opinions, in the market and in policy-making. Indeed this relates to how, on a broader level, the whole article needs to recognise that views can be influential and important even if they are are not grounded in established scientific fact. (Not that they are important merely because they are widely-held - but if they are held by people in positions of power or influence they can be.) Barnabypage (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is persuasive; since as I've said I think contradictions are good it may be worth having a sentence or two with both sources. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 That sounds eerily like statements from the pharmaceutical industry. I know I havent added any quitting claims, and I cant remember one in the article, but we have dozens of unclear, unproven, and more studies needed claims on quitting. Its over doing it. AlbinoFerret 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What is eery about it? There is nothing out of line with Misplaced Pages medical sourcing guidelines, high-quality evidence must be summarized by an authoritative, independence source before an article like this one can make a health claim based on it. Zad68 04:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just the way its phrased, it reminds me of something I read, cant quite remember where. It will come to me if I stop thinking about it. As I said, I dont think anyone regularly editing the article is placing those claims. I would remove them if I did see an unreferenced one, and would be very sceptical if one was referenced. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• RFC Comment - This RFC's statement does not meet the guidelines for RFCs because it is not a neutral statement about the dispute. The idea that a conclusive source should be used in preference to an inconclusive one is mistaken. In the general sense, if the inconclusive source is a better quality source than than the inconclusive one, that's because the conclusive one is making conclusions it shouldn't be drawing. Zad68 04:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for this yet you keep adding it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus among those who choose to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, but not among those who allow their personal opinions to interfere with following that pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just like there is no consensus on adding more from Grana to the article, but the number continues to rise? AlbinoFerret

What would you consider to be a neutral statement of the dispute? What evidence is there that the two conclusive sources, which have been included to support other statements in the article for months, "shouldn't be drawing" their most prominent conclusions, with which they both actually conclude? If you have an issue with authoritative MEDRS sources, then you should seek a position as a reviewer for the journals that published them. As Misplaced Pages editors, we follow the MEDRS policy which does not allow us to second guess the decisions of those peer reviewers. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Responses

• Support reverting to replace the summaries of the conclusive sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support AlbinoFerret 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No, we do not place in Misplaced Pages's voice material that is contradicted by other MEDRS source, we do not replace material in text just because it is "uncertain" (uncertainty is a part of science), and we certainly do not value more reviews that come to a "certain" conclusion when the vast majority of sources do not do so. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Which sources do you suggest contradict the MEDRS reviews? Both of them are from journals with above-median impact factors, and both of them are reviews of many more primary sources than the uncertain reviews on the same topics. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mass WP:ASSERT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Would you please elaborate? EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We are entering Split size

At present the article has grown from 40kb to 50kb of readable text in a week. 50kb says splitting is possible, but not always necessaryWP:SIZESPLIT. When we get to 60kb and 70kb it will increasingly become necessary. AlbinoFerret 22:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the current stats Document statistics:

• File size: 324 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 80 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 18 k*B
• Wiki text: 96 k*B
• Prose size (text only): 52 kB (8256 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1084 B

AlbinoFerret 23:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Before a split is necessary, some good ol' fashioned copyediting, especially in the section of primary importance per the sourcing--the medical section--could help quite a bit. Those large quotes could use quite a bit of curating and summarizing. Zad68 04:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure some space can be saved, I dont think a split quite necessary yet, at present its at 53kb of readable text. But it is inevitable at some point down the road at the rate the article seems to grow. Another section large like Statements and it might push it over the split point. AlbinoFerret 04:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather than split the article, how about we cut the health section down to just proven health effects and get rid of all the hypothetical nonsense?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We report what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources conclude there isn't enough evidence to know, we say that. Zad68 13:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If the RS say there isn't enough evidence why is the article full of dire warnings? Why are hypothetical health risks OK but hypothetical gains not OK?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Case in point diff1 the source is a WP:MEDRS already used in the article. Its referenced, but its removed. The reason? No consensus. But there is no consensus for allowing all the "they may" "unclear" "unknown" "possible" or "concerns" negative statements. The entry didnt say they should, but they may. But we have dozens of "they may" "unclear" "unknown" "possible" or "concerns" negative statements throughout. Can someone explain this double standard to me in a way that explains why it isnt one and why its allowed to exist if it is other than one POV has more editors? (forgot to sign the original comment on 11/7 edited slightly on 11/9 and signed) AlbinoFerret 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The article now stands at 55kb or readable text. AlbinoFerret 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol the second hand exposure section

Almost the complete first paragraph of Aerosol is made up of first hand exposure when the source is looked at. The section deals with second hand exposure. Therefore the first paragraph is mostly Original Research. 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The word aerosol by definition is aerosol or possibly secondhand exposure emitted into the air. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic of the section is second hand use. You are leading from definitions of first hand into problems with second hand. That is WP:SYN or Original Research through Synthesis. AlbinoFerret 12:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The aerosol is emitted aerosol into the air. All the text in the section is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be all sourced, but when you start with definitions pertaining to First hand, where the source is speaking about First hand and then switch to talking about the problems with Second hand in the same section you are engaging in Original Research through Synthesis. This is not allowed per WP:SYN you might want to read the guideline to better understand the problem. At one time I moved them out of that section to Safety, which talks about First hand to fix the issue, but you moved them all back. Either find definitions where the source talks about second hand with the definitions or place them in another section. AlbinoFerret 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a tag on the section. AlbinoFerret 13:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE should summarise both the Smoking cessation and Harm reduction sections

Sourced text in the lede was deleted without any logical reason. There is consensus to summarise the body and the text does summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add that to the lede. AlbinoFerret 12:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You never gave a reason it should be deleted. Text should summarize the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede should be concise, easy to read and understand. It is to mention the major controversies. Adding more and more claims defeats the purpose of the lede. AlbinoFerret 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree the WP:LEDE should be concise. At the same time, the LEDE should summarise both the Electronic cigarette#Smoking cessation and Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction sections. What is the reason to avoid summarising Smoking cessation and Harm reduction in the LEDE when theses are notable sections? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a limit to the number of paragraphs allowed depending on the size of the article. But perhaps something can be added. AlbinoFerret 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about adding one sentence to the LEDE to summarise two notable topics in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities RFC

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

Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article? AlbinoFerret 12:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This RFC is based on the Misplaced Pages policy WP:CBALL. Please answer Yes or No to keep it easy to understand. AlbinoFerret 12:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments please start your response with Yes or No

Yes

• Opposed to proposal Cannot answer Yes or No as question is inappropriately worded

The proposal is far too broadly worded. If an article showed up tomorrow showing that an unusual number of vapers were turning up with a rare form of lung cancer, that information would represent "Unknown, unclear, uncertain and possibilities" until the data was overwhelming that there was a cause-and-effect relationship. But of course we would add it.

The wording of the proposal is biased. How about "Should information about important potential health risks continue to be added to the article"? One version emphasises only the reasons not to add info, the other emphasises reasons to do so. Neither is really fair. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The words are all synonyms, or put a different way, used to bring in speculative information, so , no its not to broad. "If an article showed up tomorrow showing that an unusual number of vapers were turning up with a rare form of lung cancer" the fact could be added as "An unusual number of vapers are turning up with a rare form of lung cancer" It is not biased, it applies to all comments of the speculative kind. Feel free to make a Yes or No comment. AlbinoFerret

• Yes when sources state this. Oppose broad proposal to delete sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am not sure what this proposal means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what this proposal means. When relevant high quality sources say that something is unknown, or that they're concerned about thus and such, it would be inaccurate to say they said anything else. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cloudjpk, this proposal seems like an attempt to prevent future edits when a source says the evidence is unknown, unclear, or uncertain. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It does. Cloudjpk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes when sources state this. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Unhelpful RFC—let's decide whether someone should stop beating his wife first. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• The wording the the RFC is unclear and seems ill advised to pre-determine future additions from high quality sources. But my view is that more content based on high quality references should be added that reflect the best current understanding of the topic. This would include high quality references that focus on the unknown and concerns. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why focus on unknowns? The whole point about them is we don't know anything, so they are not informative. Let's focus on what we do know, instead of all this hypothetical BS.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No

• No The article already has enough of these types of statements and they lead to a ever increasing negative bias when little is known. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• No because the reviews of a larger number of primary sources reach definitive and prescriptive conclusions. The uncertain conclusions in reviews of a smaller number of primary sources should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Just because there are a lot of papers saying "we found nothing but can't rule out that we missed it" doesn't mean the article should be filled with a list of things we aren't certain we didn't miss. The article needs a lot of pruning to make established facts clear and potential facts separated off as the (as yet) unfounded concerns that they are. SPACKlick (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC goes against policy

• This RFC goes against policy. It appears to suggest eliminating the possibility of using potentially high-quality, authoritative sources that may be published in the future, but only if they have a particular conclusion; presumably, other sources that get published but don't have that particular conclusion would be OK to use. If this RFC were "successful" it would lock in a WP:NPOV problem for future edits. Zad68 04:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, this would be a WP:LOCALCON to overturn policy. For neutrality, the article shall fairly mirror the content of reliable sources, and that is not negotiable. This RfC is disruptive and should be closed. I am also concerned that as it is running some editors appear to have taken it as giving them authority to remove well-sourced content. Alexbrn 04:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree, Here is the policy it follows WP:CBALL. It does not talk about the position of such statements that is the opinions of some responders, but it is not set forth in the RFC. It is neutral. For those that may wonder which policy it follows I have added that to the top section. I understand that it is hard to remember all the Misplaced Pages policies that exist.

@Alexbrn Responding to your concern about removing speculative claims, the consensus for adding speculative claims has never existed. They have been removed and and more editors revert them. Thats the purpose of this RFC, to see if consensus exists to add them and perhaps limit content battles a little. AlbinoFerret 12:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, I think this RFC is to designed to unilaterally delete sourced conclusions like this. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentally to delete conclusions you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding speculative statements to the article. There never has been, they have been removed and then replaced by a larger group of editors. But WP is founded on policy and consensus not who the larger group is. This RFC is based on the policy WP:CBALL, the essay WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT does not apply, at least on my part, as I am pointing out a WP policy. As for a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, no, thats why I started this RFC, to see where consensus lies in a civil way. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a speculative statement you deleted and you are trying to achieve WP:LOCALCON to thwart policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a speculative statement but it is a pointless one. The role of e-cigs in THR is "unclear". Well so what? What information is that adding? It's just more negativity.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Any conclusions derived from something that isnt known is speculation. Saying something is unclear says something is not known and the conclusion. AlbinoFerret 06:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The settled community-wide consensus is codified in our neutrality policy: if good sources express caution on the topic of e-cigs we shall reflect that, and this cannot be overridden with some kangaroo WP:LOCALCON to suit certain editors' POVs. If you want to change policy, argue a case on that policy's talk page. Trying to do it by the back door here is disruptive. Alexbrn 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a Crystal Ball WP:CBALL is Misplaced Pages policy its scope is Misplaced Pages wide. It is not local or only applied to this article. Your citing WP:LOCALCON does not apply because the RFC relies on Misplaced Pages wide policy. Unless you can site a reason WP:CBALL does not apply to the speculative comments, and I do not think you can, the RFC will run to its conclusion, whatever that may be.AlbinoFerret 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CBALL: "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." There is no unverifiable speculation. The text are sourced conclusions from recent MEDRS sources. This is a misapplication of WP:CBALL. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot to read it all the way through. Here let me help you. From WP:CBALL "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." (my bold). They may be included, they may not be included thats a choice the editors of the article have to make, by consensus. That last part is also important "editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.". AlbinoFerret 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories from the sourced conclusions that were added. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is english your native language? AlbinoFerret 05:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is for discussion regarding improvements to the article and should not be used to start pointless RFCs or to needle other editors. Discussion regarding WP:CBALL belongs on some other page—it should only be mentioned here in relation to a specific edit. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, they belong on the talk page of the article to improve it. AlbinoFerret 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reply does not engage with the substance of what I wrote. In "they belong", what is "they"? In "improve it", what is "it"? Your comment starts, "I disagree"—but do you disagree with something in the comment you are replying to? What? Why would you want to talk about WP:CBALL on this page unless in relation to a specific edit for this article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Misplaced Pages is not a Crystal Ball "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." There is an overwhelming negative bias already in the article. There are about 42 of these claims already in the article.AlbinoFerret 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The text is sourced. This is a case of you don't like what the sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the question doesnt point out the bias of the statements, be they positive or negative. They could also be added by consensus. The problem is that we have to many, they often duplicate each other, and they are adding to an overall bias in the article. Regardless of which direction they lean it needs to end. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I get the impression you think the sourced text in the article is bias (too many) and that is the reason you want to delete them. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)(Updated comment. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC))

I dont see a word about deleting anything in the article in the RFC wording. AlbinoFerret 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Then I assume this RFC is to delete future edits that are sourced conclusions made by MEDRS compliant sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What happens in the future will depend on the result of the RFC and consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are making a far too broad of a proposal in this RFC to deleted future edits from sourced conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of things are removed from this article every day. AlbinoFerret 23:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sourced text are removed from time to time but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I undid the removal of text an edit or two later. Its still in the article. If you have a comment on the RFC, please go ahead, but this off topic and speculative discussion is going nowhere. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?"

You have not given a reason to delete sourced conclusions. That is irrelevant you think it leads to negative bias. On Misplaced Pages we report what the MEDRS compliant sources say.

You wrote "I don't see a word about deleting anything in the article in the RFC wording." In that regard, there is no point to continuing this discussion for future edits. You should not try to prevent editors from making improvements because you think the sources are bias. You seem to have a disagreement with what the sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually a comment such as "That is irrelevant you think it leads to negative bias. On Misplaced Pages we report what the MEDRS compliant sources say." is about as far from Misplaced Pages's pillars as it could possibly be. You can't just stuff in negatives, even when they are verifiable, without balancing these according to the weight of the literature as a whole. This should be obvious to experienced editors. WP:NPOV is a central pillar of Misplaced Pages. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, the lede says "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain."

Until the evidence changes we should use words like this. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You actually didn't respond to my comment. That there are uncertainties does not mean that these uncertainties are infinite and can just be piled up. That would give a False balance, and does not follow WP:NPOV. You seem to have forgotten that the huge majority of our reviews state that e-cigarettes are less dangerous (probably by orders of magnitude) than cigarettes despite the uncertainties, likely as dangerous as NRT's. --Kim D. Petersen 02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede, for example, does not present a false balance when there is still uncertainty. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Consider two situations: medical sources say Ebola can't be spread by casual contact; medical sources say it's unknown whether Ebola can be spread by casual contact. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear from looking at the lede that there does exist an issue in the presentation of claims

1. The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain
2. Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products.
3. The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.
4. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.
5. They may possibly be as safe as other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.
6. Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke,
7. but there is no evidence of ongoing use among those who have never smoked.
8. They may promote delaying or deterring to quit smoking.
9. Emissions from e-cigarette may contain tiny particles of flavors, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens, heavy metals, and other chemicals. The evidence indicates the levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards.
10. E-cigarette mist has fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke.
11. They are likely to be less harmful to users and bystanders.
12. Less serious complaints from e-cigarette users include throat and mouth inflammation, nausea, vomiting, and coughing.

1 General Statement overarching the below

2,6,9,10,12 Claim sourced to positive evidence.

3,4 Uncertainty of claim referring to lack of evidence

5 Claim with some support in literature made but lack of conclusive evidence highlighted

7 RS Doubt of claim reference to lack of evidence after seeking

8 Claim sourced to speculation in paper.

11 Uncertain claim sourced to positive evidence

Of those only 8 would really come under the scope of this RFC. I would be tempted to argue about 6 because the WHO provide no source for that claim but that's my POV not the scope of the RFC.

For 8, a review author has speculated in discussion that there may be an effect of e-cigarettes. He has not claimed that using evidence it is speculation. Is there any reason for that claim to be highlighted here? If there is how would you feel about similar speculation in the opposite direction being included, I will try and find the source but the quote is something like "Could indicate a quite rate 3 to 4 times higher than traditional NRTs". I ignored it for the article when I read it because even though it's written in a MEDRS it's speculation of the author not a scientific conclusion.

There are many more examples of this throughout the health section of the article, these speculations should be trimmed or seperated from the actual evidence based consensus (such as it is in these early days of the research) on the effects and likely effects of e-cigarettes SPACKlick (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is now a vote to topic ban me, citing this rfc as part of my disruptive acts. Sad indeed, to try and ban someone for trying to find where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 07:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes by IP 80.179.90.190 on Nov 9

"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain." was changed to

"The level of certainty regading the benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are debated."

The former language more accurately conveys the sources, which state (for example): "more formal studies on safety and efficacy should be completed in order to determine whether these products have a role in smoking cessation", "These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking", and "Allowing EC to compete with cigarettes in the market-place might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality

"Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products." was changed to

'Evidence suggests that the hazards of e-cigarette products currently on the market "is likely to be extremely low, and certainly much lower than smoking." '

The quote is taken from one of the cited references, but the other states that "large and carefully conducted prospective randomised controlled trials will be required before a definite answer about the efficacy and safety of electronic-cigarettes can be reached"

"In July 2014, a report developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. This report noted that electronic cigarettes have not been approved, for helping people quit smoking, by any government. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarette may have a role helping people quit that have failed using other methods" was changed to

"In July 2014, a report developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) mentioned studies and expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested that e-cigarettes play a role in helping people quit, but concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine with certainty. However, the report conceded that e-cigarettes are likely to help some people quit. "

What the source says is "Although anecdotal reports indicate that an undetermined proportion of ENDS users have quit smoking using these products their efficacy has not been systematically evaluated yet"

All of these changes are less representative of the sum of the sources cited than the existing language, and so have been reverted. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the editor took the bias point from one extreme to the other. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit:

"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain."

was changed to

"The level of certainty regading the benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are debated."

The edit added a reference to explain the "uncertain" as did another edit of theirs on a different point. The benefits at this time are uncertain because of the debate between sources. It is a controversy because while long term studies have not been done, existing research shows the benefits in harm reduction probably outweigh the risks of continuing to expose those that wont quit to tobacco cigarettes. Though it may be OR combing them this way. This IP's edits should not be auto reverted imho, but perhaps edited by breaking out the added reference to a new sentence. The editor is possibly new to Misplaced Pages. I hope they join and have a talk page so its easier to explain how the claims should have been added. AlbinoFerret 13:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Undone Electronic cigarette edit

Moved from QG's talk page.

Hi QG, can you explain why you undid this edit I made to the ecigarette page? The harm reduction section has way too much of "a review said this" followed by "a review said that". My edit was neutral and did not change the underlying meaning of what was written but varied the sentence structure up for a better written article so I'm confused why you undid this. Was it inadvertent or purposefully done? This is the edit to which I am referring: I see you added a lot of material and that's all well and good, but I do not see a clear explanation for why the edit I made was changed. If you could elaborate, I would be grateful. Thanks TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not an adequate explanation. How did I violate WP:SYN? I did not change any of the conclusions that were already written. If you're saying the information as it was already written in the stable version was violating Syn, that's one thing, but if you're implying I did, that requires further explanation. Please elaborate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This wording is the current text. "A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders. A 2014 review found some evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use."

The word "some" was removing.

"Review articles published in 2014 stated different things. They did not come to the same conclusion. It is close to your change but without stating "Review articles...". I kept most of your change. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, each review concluded something different and that is clear from how I wrote the sentence. It was quite clear that two separate conclusions were being discussed in the same sentence and that each of the two claims was attributed to a specific reference. And I quote: "Review articles published in 2014 found evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." As you can see, this clearly states that the Drummond article supports the evidence of e-cigarette possibly lower tobacco cigarette use statement and the Haj reference is the support for the possibly less harmful than tobacco cigarette use to users and bystanders statements. There is absolutely no reason these statements can not be combined into one sentence for simplicity. This was very clearly written and I do not see a WP:SYN violation. If you disagree, I would be happy to discuss this and obtain additional opinions if you insist. I personally think it was quite unambiguous the way it was written and did not represent a WP:SYN violation. The removal of the word "some" was actually not purposeful, however, it was still not a SYN violation since the version I wrote qualifies the statement with the word "may". Regardless, that does not call for undoing the entire edit. Instead, you can simply reinsert the word some to clarify that there is "some evidence". Is it agreeable to you to put it the way I had it and add back in the word some? Also, I purposefully started it off as review articles to vary the sentence structure. Here's what I would propose: "Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use". That is OR to state "Review articles published in 2014" because it was only one 2014 review that came to that conclusion. There was no Review articles for each individual statement. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be OR to say that, except that's NOT what the sentence says since it does not end there. If you read the rest, it's clear from the entire sentence that it is not saying two review articles reached the same conclusion about lowering tobacco cigarette use. One concluded there's evidence for lowering use while the other found evidence for less harmful effects. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, QG and I are having a bit of debate about the wording I changed yesterday. I personally think it's quite clear that the following statement: ""Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." would be interpreted as "these two reviews (or we can specify two reviews if necessary so people don't think it's more than that) found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarretes may lower tobacco use (this statement is attributed to the Drummond article) and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders (this part of the sentence clearly attributed to the Hajek article). Do others believe this is confusing or have slight modifications that would be better? I'm not opposed to saying something like "Two review articles published in 2014...etc etc). There are concerns that this somehow represents WP:OR or WP:SYN when this is really an attempt at simplicity, terseness, and avoiding the repetitive drone of "a review stated this" and "a 2014 review stated that". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a slight SYN and this is not how to write text for each individual review. Even if two reviews made that exact same statement it would still be SYN to state "Review articles published in 2014..." The first part is SYN and that makes the entire sentence SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That incorrect, if two reviews come to the same conclusion you can write the conclusion and place both citations at the end.AlbinoFerret 06:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case two reviews did not come to the same conclusion. If two reviews come to the same conclusion it would be unnecessary to add "Review articles published in 2014..." QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You did the same thing here Quack. I just fixed it. AlbinoFerret 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, when two reviews DO come to the same conclusion, we place the citations both at the end of the sentence indicating that they reached the same conclusion. However, when we have a sentence on Misplaced Pages and we put one citation in the middle and one at the end of the sentence, it always means that the citation in the middle of the sentence is serving as verification of the information preceding it while the one at the end of the sentence is verifying the remainder. This is pretty common practice across Misplaced Pages. I'm sure I can find numerous examples of this. I also disagree that it would be SYN to say "review articles" if the two reviews had reached identical conclusions. The sentence I wrote clearly indicates that the first part of the sentence refers to the Drummond article and the second half of the sentence refers to the Hajek article. If it was a "slight" SYN, can you propose a slight modification of the sentence without overhauling the whole thing to eliminate the problem? I think that would allow for a mutually agreeable solution since this has become a semantics debate (and it's not really worth spending much time on). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I also have to agree with AlbinoFerret that from the diff he linked it looks like you did the exact same thing QG. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of the e-cigerette article :D AlbinoFerret 06:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of getting sucked into this vortex. I have no desire to participate in the countless spirited/toxic debates I've observed here on this page. QG, here's what I propose in order to keep the varied sentence structure intact (I think that's still needed) but avoid any ambiguity related to OR or SYNTH: "One review article published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use while another suggested e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." Is this clearer? I still maintain nothing was wrong with the original sentence I put in, but I would prefer that we stop focusing on this semantic issue and put our energies where they better serve Misplaced Pages-toward editing and adding actual content. Objections? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"One review article published in 2014" is too wordy and we don't do this for other text to put "while" in the the middle of the sentence. Another editor considers it SYN to put the word "and" in the middle of the sentence.

A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders.

"A 2014 review found some evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use. However, no long-term studies have been done on e-cigarettes safety; therefore, their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear." Reference is the same source. I think it should be grouped together. I disagree with moving the Drummond2014 source away from the next sentence from the same source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The "therefore" in your wording above is clear SYN.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear." The text and the word is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

QG, just to be clear, by agreeing with AlbinoFerret you're agreeing that you engaged in SYN as well, if you're really interpreting SYN correctly (which I don't think you are). Regardless, I'm not interested in debating this further, it's become tiresome and basically pointless. As I said before, you're debating semantics and that's really not what's important on Misplaced Pages. I do not feel you are working constructively to resolve this issue (you did not even address my question of whether the sentence I proposed was clearer or not and arbitrarily criticized the style as not what you would've chosen) and are simply digging in your heels rather than working collaboratively. It's really not that wordy a proposal and I have yet to see a counter-proposal from you that addresses the issue and avoids the "a review this, a review that" issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting the word while in the middle of a sentence to clarify that the sentence is discussing two separate but related elements or clauses. QG, I'm finding your unwillingness to compromise (on a relatively minor matter) or to work collaboratively/constructively with me by working towards anything resembling a mutually agreeable solution irritating, so I'm going to say I'm done. Have it your way pal, I'm really done. This is precisely why I did not want to work on the e-cigarette article and be involved in such a toxic environment. Again, with all due respect and no offense intended, I think you are significantly contributing to the toxicity of this talk page with your editing style and I think you should reflect on whether you could improve your ability to work in a collaborative manner. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"One review article published in 2014" is too long.

"A 2014 review" is concise.

Each sentence is discussing different issues. QuackGuru (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference WHO Position 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drummond2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haj2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Removal of Variable Wattage Section

While some of the removal may have been necessary, there was no discussion. It also removed things that should not be a point of contention like the shape of the device since pictures of the devices exist in the article.AlbinoFerret 15:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use only high-quality, independent sources. Commercial press releases and manufacturer's websites are unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT. Anonymous enthusiast blog postings are also problematic. Per WP:BURDEN if unsourced content is challenged, for example with a revert, it is up to the editor interested in having the content remain in the article to find acceptable sourcing for it. I will be reviewing the rest of the section to ensure the sourcing complies with standards. Zad68 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, look ll you want. Please discuss it first before removing whole sections. I would like to keep up the notability of the section in case there is a split. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I will follow WP:BRD. Generally if it's been WP:BOLDly added recently but doesn't appear to meet standards I will WP:REVERT remove it. If there's an editor who wishes to see the content in the article they can start a Talk page discussion making their case in support. We will then discuss. Zad68 15:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Only the last two little sections were recently added, and that was at least a week ago, the main section has been here a long time. I have a problem with this removal it is referenced to a site that is not just an enthusiasts "blog". Per its disclosure statement. " We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers" AlbinoFerret 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like the content to stay please find independent reliable sources that both have a reputation for fact-checking and can be used to established WP:WEIGHT. The "ecigadvanced" website's own statements clearly show the website is closely allied with the manufacturers and so the site can be expected to have competing interests. There's nothing to indicate they fact-check or have a responsibility to anything other than their advertisers. At a minimum this site cannot be used to establish WP:WEIGHT. Zad68 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:BIASED financial biased sources may be used by attributing in the text. As for fact checking, there are "teams" of writers. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For this particular section of the article, the level of reliability of the sources seem to be adequate. We need a section on these 3rd gen devices. If you have better suggestions for sources, then feel free to help :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am working in my sandbox to strengthen the references and clean up the area. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The main thing this article should say about customizable e-cigarettes (I see two sections about mods and variable stuff) is how many people use them. If that number is a low percentage, consider giving one sentence about it in a higher level section, linking to a new article you create about all the wonderful ways you can adjust your 'vapor' from day to day. Preferably that article should be larger than the sections here, large enough to accommodate, for example, an explanation of why people do this. There was a suggestion to split the article above and this seems like a natural line of cleavage. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mods are different that Variable devices though they can both sometimes be generically called mods but they differ in construction. Mods in the true sense are pure mechanical devices without wires or boards. They are unregulated giving power strait from the battery kind of like a flashlight. Variables have power regulation through boards and use wires. They also are usually different in shape. Mechanicals are usually a cylinder, Variables are usually a box shape. How many people use them has not been studied, but they are commonly used by anyone who doesnt use a cigalike so use is pretty wide.

If you are planing on moving Construction during a split you may have issues of notability where the section is just moved back in a few days. While it is important to the discussion of the E-cigarette it is harder to prove notability. As Kim said above, the sources it uses to explain parts are usually good enough to prove something exists in an article that already has notability. But proving stand alone notability is another thing. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Coupla points here. (a) We need to explain in quite basic terms what a customisable/non-ready-made e-cigarette is. This is old news to people in the vaping world but it's quite possibly entirely unfamiliar to many non-vaping readers. An analogy could be useful (hi-fi is an obvious one that springs to mind but may not be the best). (b) If we're talking about penetration of customisables we should remember that this varies a *lot* from one country to another. Some are much more cigalike cultures than others. Barnabypage (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact in an article about electronic cigarettes we should dedicate more effort to explaining what e-cigarettes are than to completely hypothetical health risks that are unsupported by, or even conflict with, all the available evidence. More descriptions of mods, less scaremongering.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with this statement. I've been off wiki for a couple of months and the health section has exploded. I still don't think health effects should come before Usage and Construction, the two sections that tell you what one is and what it does. The health section needs some serious pruning. SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ownership Issues

Quack has been busy changing names of sections back to what he used to create things. There is no consensus for adding more medical sections. I removed them, He added them, I changed the name of the sections trying to work with objections raised to me that some organization is needed and pointing out WP:OR issues on one of them. Quack changed them back again to what he added in the first place. This is an ongoing problem. If the words Quack adds are changed, or the order he creates them in are changed, he changes them back. WP:OAS is the controlling policy. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have changed one name to something diffrent but meaning the same thing, and added a WP:OR tag on the "Ultrafine particles" section since its Original Research By Syntheses. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a recurring problem. It has been discussed numerous times in the past month or so , , , . I don't see how any meaningful improvements can be made to this article when constantly faced with such editing tactics. Mihaister (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack just moved a OR tag from the section to Components, pure vandalism done from spite because of ownership issues. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving a tag does not meet the definition of WP:VAND but I agree it was undesirable. However, the correct procedure now would be to explain why an OR tag is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had left a message here last night thanking Albino for his changes to the Construction section, but I don't see it this morning. So I will add again here. This was a helpful and appreciated change from my POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition of "Advertisement" flag to Construction section

I have added an "Advertisement" flag to the Construction section based on the following aspects that I feel render this section unduly promotional.

• Extraordinary detail of design aspects and their "advantages", targeted markets, and experiential aspects that go far beyond Misplaced Pages's normal description of manufactured products
• Consistent use of non-objective language emphasizing product "offerings" and how they meet the needs or particular user groups that is more appropriate in a sales brochure or on an enthusiast website than in an encyclopedia. In particular, the tone set by the widespread use of terms such as "features", "consumer choice", "offerings", "introduced", and descriptions of user experience.

• "New generation electronic cigarettes often called mods, PVs (personal vaporizer) or APVs (advanced personal vaporizer) have an increased nicotine-dispersal performance"
• “Some manufacturers also offer a cigarette pack-shaped portable charging case”
• “This group includes mechanical mods and variable voltage devices and may sport additional features”
• “Some of these devices offer additional features through their menu system..”
• “Evolve was the company that introduced variable wattage to the industry. The technology goes all the way back to the Darwin, the companies first variable wattage device”
• “The DNA 40 is the first control board to monitor and control the temperature of the heating coil. Controlling temperature is important to limit charing of the wicking material and reduce the breakdown of flavoring and base liquid ingredients”
• "Components are also available individually and consumers may choose to modify or boost their flavor, nicotine strength, or concentration with various offerings. Pre-made e-liquids are manufactured with various tobacco, fruit, and other flavors, as well as variable nicotine concentrations"
• "In surveys of regular e-cigarette users the most liked e-liquids had a nicotine content of 18 mg/ml, and largely the favorite flavors were tobacco, mint and fruit"

Formerly 98 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. It's "advertising" to note that some devices have menus with extra features, or come with a charging system? Please don't be so silly.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CheesyAppleFlake, we need more information and facts, not less. The Health section can fill up with speculation, but facts about hardware are a problem? This appears to be an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have just redone the Power section on Variable Wattage with reliable sources, including one for the patent. Citing Firsts, or patents issued in an area where they have not been given is a normal addition, it only mentions how far back and mentions a product not sold in the last two years. As for e-juice, components are food flavourings, they have always been available, and the preferences are sourced to Hajek. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Which product is being advertised? As far as i know most e-cig producers are making 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation equipment, so no specific company is being advantaged. That you are reacting to this this way, is in my view more an indication of ignorance of the product as well as the market, rather than being an objective perspective of the material presented. With regards to your comments on advantages etc. then that information is (iirc) already present in several of the usage sections of the WP:MEDRS material used in the health section. E-cigarettes are consumer products the same way as Vacuum cleaners and just as those, there are different technologies, and products that offer different advantages/disadvantages. May i suggest that you look at Vacuum cleaners and compare the construction section with that article? --Kim D. Petersen 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim, one interesting thing about the Vacuum cleaners article is scarcity of citations in the hardware sections. AlbinoFerret

Interesting comment about Vacuum cleaners, Kim. I agree the "construction" and design considerations are relevant and appropriate for comparison here. However, it's quite striking how little is discussed in that article about "Health effects" even though vacuum cleaners are known to produce "ultrafine particles" which may have similar health effects to environmental pollution. Perhaps WP:MED needs to take a close look at the Vacuum cleaners article and add a "prominent" health section related to the possible effects of second-hand vacuuming to children and expecting mothers. Mihaister (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the vacuum cleaner article is very different and less promotional.

• The word "feature", used to describe an attractive or valuable attribute appears 3 times in this article, and 0 times in the VC article
• The word "offer", again used to describe specifically to describe an attribute as being useful or valuable to a consumer, is used 6 times in this article and 0 times in VC
• The word "sport", used as above, is used 3 times here and 0 times in VC
• Various phrases about consumers having a choice or consumers being able to choose a particular style that meets their preferences or needs, appear 8 times in this article and once in VC

The tone here is clearly promotional and more suitable for an enthusiast website where one would go to pick a particular item for purchase than an encylopedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Having a choice is more widespread in e-cigarettes than vacuums. There are about 5,000 different components and over 3,000 juices currently being produced. I will take a look at those words and how they are used. But when a statement says (insert components category) modern versions offer...... (insert addition). Its not a sales pitch but describing the evolution of the type of component. Please, if you can suggest a word thats more appropriate to describe the features of a component that make it different than others, suggest it.

That you dont find the section interesting is clear. But I am sure some readers do, especially device people, those that love to look at tear downs of things. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for the information on components gives a better understanding of the device, what it does and how it does it. The article is about a consumer product documenting the features of consumer items is normal for Misplaced Pages. I have removed advertisements, there is no place for them, I try my best to link to non commercial sites and would rather not use them unless someone challenges the information. Believe me this is not a sales pitch nor do I want one in the article. AlbinoFerret 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I still believe it reads like a Buyer's guide, and that is not our job here. I'd suggest that we replace words like "offers" and "sports" with the more neutrally descriptive verb "has" throughout, and eliminate all references to consumers making choices. Or we can do yet another Rfc I suppose. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with substituting "has", but removing references to consumer choice smells like an attempt to further medicalize what is a consumer product. All these options exist because consumers want a choice.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the words "offer" "feature" and "sport, funny thing, "sport" was only in it once. The other instances were the word "transporters" from medical claims. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done a little work to the e-liquid statement. It wasnt one of my edits as I havent expanded that area but one sentence and thats the Hajeck referenced one. Some description of choice is necessary to describe the reason for the vast number of devices available. But if there is a troubling use point it out and Ill try and reword it. AlbinoFerret 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

When I see words like "sport" "offer" "most liked" etc. my perception is I'm reading promotional material, not an encylopedia article. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect there could be some truth to this perception, perhaps rooted in biology. There is a lot of talk here about "next-gen", someone compared the customized cigarettes to "hi-fi" in the section above, talk of "improved" performance, but so far the definition of what is "better" is left unclear. To editorialize a moment -- pure guess, suspicion, not even OR -- I am getting the feeling that 'improvement' is all about getting more nicotine out of each puff. After all, nicotine positively reinforces whatever is perceived to be the cause, whether it's a Native American religious ritual or the act of tapping a cigarette, or of course smoking it. So if tinkering with a cigarette = more nicotine, that's going to be reinforced as an activity. Now with someone who smokes tobacco, I assume all the various tars and toxins and stink of it tends to self-limit consumption, but is the same true of nicotine solution? I kind of worry that the "seventh-generation e-cigarette" could involve syringe, several times the normal lethal dose of nicotine, and a high tolerance. Anyway, I'll quit editorializing, but that's the smell I'm picking up here, and one way or another, it would be best to defuse the promotionalism by carefully identifying and sourcing what claims are actually being made, without blindly accepting assertions of "better"ness. Wnt (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but you just don't know what you're talking about and this article isn't about any feelings you might get. The mistake you are all making is insisting that e-cigs are just a "drug delivery device" and all users are looking for is nicotine. Both assumptions are just wrong. Your medical claims are 100% destroyed by the fact that a lot of people buy very high end vaping gear and use it with nicotine free juice. I'm doing the AGF thing here, and I'll just suggest that instead of trying to force a medical slant on this article you learn something about the subject first. That's the main cause of this whole damn mess.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting idea Wnt, but incorrect. What is more sought is better flavour/taste extraction and/or more vapor production. And the reason that i can state, with some confidence, that nicotine isn't the factor, is that there is an inverse correlation between how much vapor someone wants to produce (jargon: cloud-chasing) and the nicotine content in the e-liquid (jargon:juice) that they are using. Not to mention that we have actual WP:MEDRS sources that have investigated whether the nicotine content in liquid is correlated to the cotinine levels (it isn't - apparently vapers will puff more/less to fit the cotinine levels that they are used to getting). --Kim D. Petersen 01:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I have gotten also Kim, people who use mods and variables max out at 6mg liquid. With more using 3mg and 0mg than 6. There are a lot of "Flavour Chasers" out there. I have yet to add it to atomizers, but there have been a lot of advancements that add to flavour in the last year like domed top caps. Its the idea of addiction or continuation of addiction that stops Harm Reduction for people already hopelessly addicted and will impact their short lives as they continue puffing tobacco. There are some that wont stop trying to get nicotine. History also shows that when the devices that work are not available, people can modify things to be e-cigs. Like turning a flash light into a "Mod" Thats how the term was coined. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@CheesyAppleFlake:, @KimDabelsteinPetersen: No offence taken! I knew I was going out on a limb there, but understand I had to put on the board that this is something that a nonsmoker reading the article could end up inferring. I also wasn't familiar with the point about cotinine which could be worth pursuing. I do recognize that references about what users want in an e-cigarette are not medical in nature and should not be strangled with MEDRS, and would welcome seeing them put to use. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. It's just getting very frustrating watching an article that's supposed to be about e-cigarettes turn into a litany of what people who don't like e-cigarettes don't know but have hypothetical concerns about. The "Health effects" section doesn't contain any health effects, just speculation about possible health effects. As for non-smokers reading the article, I'll gently point out that I'm a non-smoker too. I haven't smoked since I switched to vaping in 2012.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I have a good feeling your not pushing an agenda. But my greatest fear is the agenda ends up hurting people. There are a ton of stainless steel and brass mods and atomizers out there and things can be modded. They are not going to just go away. Make it hard for people to jet nicotine juice and we are going to see a black market and "bathtub ejuice" made in back rooms with all kinds of impurities. Regulation of juice and hardware is the best way imho. AlbinoFerret 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not nearly to the point of having an opinion about that at this point. First I'd like to know what the mods out there are and do (I suggested you split that off and give yourself more room to pursue this above). Then I want sourced claims of what policies have been proposed and what they're supposed to accomplish. And then? I'm not signed up for a legal approach. After all, the Surgeon General going out and saying that smoking causes cancer was the biggest lifesaver ever to come to nicotine, and at the beginning it was nothing but words. There's no reason to assume legislation/regulation is the only path to a goal, once a person decides on what that goal even is. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why can't we have that information about e-cigarettes here, in the e-cigarette article, then split the medical stuff off if people are really that interested in it? This article is not called "Hypothetical health effects of e-cigarettes" and really I don't care much what the medical literature is concentrating on, because this isn't a medical article. It's about a consumer product, and it should be informative to people like you who'd like to know more about that product. Right now all it really tells people is what a bunch of nervous nellies and vested interests have "concerns" about, which is kind of pathetic.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Np, Wnt. I'm very much aware that this would be a common logical misconception to reach. On that issue, this whole "advertising" issue is rather funny for a whole other reason. The e-cigarette industry is usually steps behind in innovation/production with the hobby/DIY market. Most new innovations are figured out by tinkerers rather than industry. And when we consider the "big evil ones" (the tobacco companies - yep most vapers consider them that as well), they are at least a generation behind with their products... for instance most tobacco corps are still focusing on the cig-a-like, which is in decline (simply because they are bad products - once you've tried a 2nd or 3rd gen device, you aren't going back). --Kim D. Petersen 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent removals of words like "offer" has helped the article a lot. The above suggestion that medical stuff may be moved to another article would not be desirable. Shunting unwanted text to a back corner would not work as a tactic, and would not be compatible with WP:POVFORK or WP:DUE. It is highly unlikely that a general reader would think that e-cigs are only tenuously related to health issues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not be desirable to you, but that's down to your POV. You think this is a health article. It isn't. It's an article about a consumer device that's been hijacked by the MED fraternity. Yes, speculation about hypothetical risks should be covered in a section, but it should absolutely not dominate the article the way it does now. As for WP:DUE, most of the discussion I read about e-cigs is about new equipment, juice and coiling techniques. Health only dominates in medical journals, and this is not a medical article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter what section is split, it will be a POV split based on the comments of this section. AlbinoFerret 03:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Erh? No. POV-splits are duplicates that differ in their POV. A regular split means that you move the content of a section off to a new article, and summarize that article in the section instead. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@@Johnuniq: i agree that with the "strategy" that you outline it very easily could be a POV fork, but i don't agree that it by necessity would be so, or that your "strategy" assessment is correct. From my view, this article should be a summary-article, and thus we should split off both of the two massive sections and summarize them here instead - thus ending up with an article that covers the whole topic area, and two subarticles that can expand and explain the nitty-gritty. And that is 100% within WP policy, and not in anyway incompatible with either DUE or POVFork. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal - A November 11 ceasefire

Tomorrow (today in the EU) is Armistice day. I grew up in a home with a WWI antitank gun in my Dad's office. My great uncle brought it back from the War. (Things were a lot more casual back then). The gun was a wreck and had clearly been fired in anger. So that war has always been very real to me.

The war ended on November 11, 1918 at 11 am Paris time. Eight hours from now is the 96th anniversary of that event. It might be a nice time to take 24 hours off from fighting over this article, complaining about each other on the admin boards, and criticizing each other on this Talk page.

Could we take 24 hours off in honor of the occassion? I propose we do so starting 8 hours from now. Maybe we could all think about why the other side feels so strongly about its position for 24 hours and refrain from editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Go spend the 24 hours learning something about the damn subject. Signed, A 20-Year Army Veteran.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea Formerly 98, but lets agree to revert any edits by current editors after its over. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If we get a reasonable number of people to agree, I will personally agree to use my 3RR limit to delete any "pro-medical" edits occurring during that period. Alternatively, we could hold a vote and ask an uninvolved admin to close the page to edits for 24 hours.Formerly 98 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A noble and symbolic gesture, Formerly 98. I agree with the proposed "ceasefire". Mihaister (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea, this is not an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages article editing capabilities. "Because it's Armistice Day" isn't an valid Misplaced Pages content or policy reason to make a content change to article. Zad68 02:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: I'd say the goal of the exercise is to try to get the editing of this article back on a constructive footing. Maybe its a silly idea, but unless you have a better one it might be worth a try. What isn't going to work is continuing in the vein of the last few weeks. Can you name a single day from among the last 30 that, if that day's edits hadn't occurred, the article would be worse today? Formerly 98 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 don't get me wrong, I agree editing at this article has not great for the past 6 weeks or so, and again I appreciate the sentiment but unfortunately this won't be the path. Zad68 03:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be interesting, here are a few videos by experts whose papers we cite in the article, that might make you understand an alternative:

• Hajek: Experts on Camera
• Polosa: Harmful & potentially harmful constituents in e-cigarettes
• Dr. Michael Siegel on Why Electronic Cigarettes Work

These are all good resources in trying to understand the Harm reduction view. --Kim D. Petersen 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Endless Reshuffling

I have taken the time today to rename the citation tags of the 2014 reviews in Harm Reduction.diff1 diff2diff3 In order to have some order to how they are listed. I dont care much if its ascending or descending by date. But time after time someone mixes them up. Quack has in the last 24 hours, now Johnuniq placing one specific review to the top of the list. Completly out of order, and its staring to look like biased editing. What is consensus on these edits? AlbinoFerret 02:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing they should be listed in chronological order? My concern is this may degenerate into yet another bitter argument, this time over WP:RECENTism. Mihaister (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There has to be some kind of order. This constant bringing of one review from the middle to the forefront is crazy. We have 4 reviews saying basically positive things, and one so so and the so so one if brought to the top. It could be the oldest first, it doesnt have to be the recent one.AlbinoFerret 03:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister After sleeping on it, I have a feeling its already a mistaken WP:RECENTism problem. Without knowing the page you linked to and knowing there is a problem like this its why I added the months to the reference tags. As I said in my last comment, I was ok with the oldest being first, and I have tried that order. The oldest first may actually may help with understanding the progression of thought on the section topic. I even added the months to the readable text. But that was deleted in one of the edits that placed them out of order, or an edit slightly before, not 100% sure which right now without looking at the history. The whole purpose of this talk page section is to get the reasons, whatever they are from the editors that keep mixing them up, and hopefully work out the best order. I even posted a small text on the talk page of Johnuniq with a link to this section asking him to comment, but it was just deleted and no response was posted here. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chronological order is far better and the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top of the section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Translates to "The medical conclusion that I like should be right at the top.."--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:, Which order, ascending or descending? If you believe that chronological order is the best way to go, are you willing to leave them in that order? AlbinoFerret 01:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained that "the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top". See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Lets keep this simple so that no misunderstandings happen. Lets just deal with the order of the reviews first, without diff's. You have said that a chronological order is best. I personally dont care if its ascending or descending. So I will let you set the order. Do you want ascending (starting with 2011) or descending (starting with 2014)? AlbinoFerret 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I won't let him set the order. It's not his article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@CheesyAppleFlake:It really doesnt matter which chronological order its in, let him pick unless you have reason why ascending (starting with 2011) or descending (starting with 2014) is better. The purpose of this section is to come to an agreement and the order is not changed.@QuackGuru: please make a choice. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If it does not matter to you then you will stop discussing this. I did explain the medical conclusion should be at the top (regardless of the date). QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The order doesnt matter, that they are constantly reshuffled does. Please pick an order. After that we can move on to the rest. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Recentism. This is not about a chronological order. This is about a chronological order and some text should be close to the top. Even if some text is older it still may be put at the top. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Misplaced Pages:Recentism is about focusing on recent events to the detriment of older. It is not a directive to avoid a chronological order. If you want to follow Misplaced Pages:Recentism, which isnt a policy but an essay, fine. Should we start with a ascending (starting with 2011) order to not focus on recent things from 2014? You need to make a decision on the order for this to move forward. One step at a time is preferable to discussing things as a whole to make progress. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you have been dragging your feet and avoiding giving an answer I placed Drummand back into chronological order since you said it was best. If you want to work with me more on this section, make a decision. AlbinoFerret 04:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not dragging my feet. You don't like what the source said (you did delete the source from the article before) and now you moved it to the wrong place. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, its in chronological order, which you said was best. Hajek was published in July of 2014, Saitta was published in March of 2014, and Drummand was published in February of 2014, not matter if you start with 2014 or 2011 to avoid Recentism its in the middle of the paragraph. If we start with 2011 its nearer to the bottom. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.

I previously wrote: "This is not about a chronological order. This is about a chronological order and some text should be close to the top. Even if some text is older it still may be put at the top." QuackGuru (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your words "Chronological order is the best". AlbinoFerret 05:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are in Chronological order. You said it was best. We are not going to play the "But the one I want to be out of chronological order should be at the top" game. Because if thats the case I will but Drummond at the bottom of the section. Its called compromise and placing it in a non arbitrary order. AlbinoFerret 05:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth again.

The diff you provided showed I wrote: "Chronological order is far better and the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top of the section."

You placed it in an arbitrary order because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed it, 14 days ago, because if says that the science was unclear, when others said there were facts. Not because I didnt "like it". But its in the article now. In an order that is not up to likes or dislikes. Its in an order you said was best. If you want older references at the top, in a chronological order. That can happen, but I dont think you will want the 2011 review in that place. AlbinoFerret 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying you said "Chronological order is the best" ? AlbinoFerret 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It seemed as if you removed it because you did not like it says the science was unclear. Others don't say it is clear when there is limited evidence. I did not say that order was best. You are ignoring I did said the medical conclusion should be close to the top or at the top. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The conclusions at the top, in chronological order are all from medical journals. You just dont seem to get it. If its left to an arbitrary order of "whoever likes it at the moment is at the top" this article will be very unstable. Because if we do that its going to be in endless flux. AlbinoFerret 06:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry moved the text to the top of the section that is the medical conclusion about harm reduction. User:Bluerasberry,, User:Johnuniq, and I disagree with your view. You don't seem to like the medical conclusion for harm reduction shows the evidence is unclear. You previously said in part: "So I will let you set the order." QuackGuru (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked User:Bluerasberry to pop over since you are bringing up edits they have done. I asked Johnuniq to comment on his talk page, including a link to this section, but he deleted the request, has visited the page since, and has not posted in this section. I still offer to let you pick which chronological order you want. Either acceding (starting at 2011 to avoid Recentism) and working up or descending (working at 2014, as it is now). Chose one. Then we will leave it. I have no problem with Drummond being in the section, but I would prefer the 2011 one at the top to avoid Recentism. But to be fair it can be in the chronological order it is now if you prefer. AlbinoFerret 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I previously explained it is about the medical conclusion such as this edit. Then the other text can go in the chronological order in general. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the reviews are medical conclusions. AlbinoFerret 07:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the key fact method is its subjective to what each editor thinks is the "key Point". The key point of the section for me would best be shown by the 2011 review statement. Someone else may choose another. Whats needed imho is a non subjective method. There is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. The available evidence from a huge majority of the sources is they are less harmful because you have to look at the harm being done with tobacco cigarettes. Ecigs safer and the risk less as said in multiple MEDRS. You cant just compare absolute safety because of this. You are placing a review that is looking at safety as if all the other reviews have not happened. Drummond a lone wolf. Placing it in a position of prominence creates a WP:UNDUE issue. AlbinoFerret 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject my 2 pen'orth. It's not about key points or about chronology. This should be a summary of the harm reduction position. As it stands the section reads really repetetive because everything is saying the same thing. Consider not directly stating the position of each study and give the position given as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That may be a good idea, but a little hard to do at this point, but if time allows... Im not tied to the chronological order, but we need a non subjective method. If someone can find another non subjective order please suggest it, the key method is way to subjective. One thing I noticed is the actual statement in Drummond isnt all about harm reduction, but quitting. I may be moving it.

From Drummond "Although some data demonstrate that electronic cigarettes may be effective in reducing conventional cigarette consumption, there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation. Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear."

This isnt talking about harm reduction as a substitute, its talking about quitting and dependence and the harm done by not quitting. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The actual harm reduction claims in the section as it stands are: E-cigarettes "show great promise in the fight to decrease tobacco related death and disease.", "may lower tobacco cigarette use, however no long-term studies have been done on their safety", "as a substitute for tobacco products, in tobacco harm reduction is unclear.", "may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders.", " may be recommended to smokers who are reluctant to quit by way of other methods as a safer alternative to smoking.", "should be regulated in a fashion similar to dietary supplements or cosmetic products to not limit the potential for harm reduction with them replacing tobacco.", and "appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period.".

To summarise that's 'E-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco and could be useful in tobacco harm reduction. A 2014 review argued that regulations should be similar to those for dietary supplements to avoid limiting this potential. Concerns have been raised, however, that there are no long term studies on their safety and as they deliver a reduced amount of nicotine when compared with tobacco questions are raised as to whether they can substitute it in the long term.

Now what I wrote above wasn't elegant but it presents the claims in a clear and understandable fashion 1) Some people claim x 2) Some people argue y because x 3) Some people caution against x because z. Reordering 1),3),2) would also be viable.SPACKlick (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to copy/paste that suggestion as is. But as someone new to this discussion, would you please comment on my last post on the meaning of the Drummond quote? AlbinoFerret 17:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to comment on? it says e-cigs may be effective on reducing consumption, we don't yet have positive data for cessation, long term safety or long term dependence reduction so the overall effect on tobacco harm reduction isn't yet determined. What about it?

@SPACKlick: Is the statement about harm reduction as a replacement for cigarettes, or harm reduction as a result of quitting? 18:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any difference? I have practiced harm reduction by replacing my cigarettes with vaping. I have replaced all my cigarettes, so I've also quit.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. The doubt about harm reduction is doubt about whether people will use them long term rather than whether they will do less harm long term when used. SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes SPACKlick, because if its the latter, in a place where the source is talking about dependence and quitting, and I think it is, its in the wrong section. The claim about safety in quitting is quite common in other sources. But the way that claim is phrased in the source is strange and I think someone copied this in thinking it was a the same based on the words when in fact its probably a different usage of the term. The point the sentence in the article may be making is true (that no long term safety studies have been done), but the source probably isnt using it in the same way as the topic of the section. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is a mass WP:ASSERT violation. Different sources do say different things and sources often disagree. In-text attribution is required in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, bear in mind the above was not intended as final language, simply as form. The discussed papers say almost identical things and there is broad consensus about the facts stated. WP:Assert applies to opinions. The only opinion in the above is attributed to a 2014 study which should have the body named (I didn't have it open when I wrote it) and obviously all sentences will have the relevant sources. There is no serious dispute in sources about any of the other claims which are 1) e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco. 2) e-cigarettes may help contribute to THR 3) (Concerns have been raised that) there are no long term studies on their health effects 4) they deliver a reduced amount of Nicotine 5) (Questions have been raised) about their effectiveness as a long term cessation aid. Is any of that in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the statements made the only thing that is in dispute, and its a little thing, is that #4 is making a conclusion on first generation devices, and this is not mentioned. We have no MEDRS on the nicotine being provided in second and third generation devices. But this is a common problem in the article. Its also not a topic we have not discussed in this discussion. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

OR template needs moving and/or changing to "section"

The article contains a {{original research}} template at the end of a section. It's already moved back and forth a couple of times, and it's not clear to me where it really belongs, so I won't move it just yet, but:

• If it applies to the entire article, it should be at the top of the article.
• If it applies only to a section, it should be at the top of the section, and should be {{Section OR}}.

Could someone please move, and if appropriate change, the template so that it consistently and accurately reflects its scope. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It applies to the fact that the section is named Ultrafine Particles and then mixes up practicals of different sizes, one after the other, mixing definitions and problems. But I cant move it just now as it would be a revert to remove it, swap it out if you want, I placed the wrong tag in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 03:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved and changed to the template. On the face of it, I would not have thought that "mixes up practicals of different sizes, one after the other, mixing definitions and problems" would constitute OR, but I'll leave the issue for another day or another editor. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking back through this talk page I see you mention synthesis. Possibly the {{Section OR}} should be replaced by {{Synthesis|section}}. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here? I see the comment above by AF that "It applies to the fact that the section is named Ultrafine Particles and then mixes up practicals of different sizes, one after the other, mixing definitions and problems.", and I see that the OR tag followed an attempt to change the title of the section to "particles", but I do not see any such discussion of particles of various sizes in the text. Based on the sources, there is certainly opportunity to add well sourced information about the potential health ramifications of metal and other nanoparticles demonstrated to be present, and this would align the content of the section more closely with the title, but I don't think that was AF's goal. There is, incidently, a robust literature on the toxicity of nickel nanoparticles Formerly 98 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of the ceasefire I have reviewed the sources in connection with the problem I saw. I will not edit the page at all today to avoid problems. I am posting here to try and deflate the situation. I will remove the tag, and change the start of the last sentence from Fine to Ultrafine. The source bears this out and it will remove a seeming OR by synthesis problem. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what can I say? I'm humbled by the gesture of goodwill. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Working through problems on the talk pages with cool heads solves a lot of issues. Probably my fault for not looking closely and just editing that word.

In response to metals being found, well sourced information is always good to add. But I do have hopes that these findings be noted to be from used and corroded first generation devices because that was what was tested in the original study that was reviewed. Here is another point where knowledge of the device components and their evolution comes into play. First generation devices tend to use nickel-chromium wire generally. But there is a switch in coil for the second and third generation atomizers which use Kanthal wire, because it doesn’t contain nickel and they are not soldered together like first generation cartages. This will be in a future expansion of components. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no OR. "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and..." QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yawn, that's just Grana. Who cares? WP:WEIGHT.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This change was a bit inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what part was inaccurate? AlbinoFerret 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of the word you added. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The source bears it out to me, but if you dont think it does it becomes a Original Research by synthesis problem because you would be mixing fine and ultrafine in a section titled Ultrafine particles. AlbinoFerret 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. I think the text can be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I did in the edit you posted a diff to was remove the OR tag and change fine to ultrafine. Im not sure how that can be "improved". AlbinoFerret 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a new section and it can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, ANOTHER new section on entirely hypothetical health effects. Quack, just f**king stop this POV-pushing, would you?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range." But the section does not explain this. Thus, it is inaccurate. We should think broadly on expanding the section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Grana has that statement in a paragraph on Ultrafine particles. But looking at the original study it is linked to in Grana, the original study doesnt talk about e-cigarettes at all, but air pollution. Im not sure it can be in the article in its present form, used to describe the particles in e-cigarettes. You should find another reference that talks directly about e-cigarettes. AlbinoFerret 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The review is directly about e-cigarettes. You are not allowed to question reviews like this. We are citing the review not the other article you mentioned. You should not be conducting your own review of MEDRS compliant sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The review is about e-cigarettes, but the statements it makes about particles are not about e-cigarettes and in fact have nothing at all to do with e-cigarettes. It doesn't matter what effect diesel exhaust particulates have on health because e-cig vapor is entirely different. This sort of crap is why so many people are concerned about the WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues surrounding the Grana paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And yes, Quack, we are allowed to question reviews like this. For example if a review is claiming that particles from e-cigs are a health hazard, but the research that's based on is about truck exhaust smoke, then we can question why such a biased, poor quality review is being cited so Goddammned much.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to see what the application is. The statement in Grana itself does not mention e-cigarettes particles. It appears to be talking about particles in general. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not questioning the review, this is finding out how a sentence is used in a review. Reviews also include general as well as specific language. Looking at the source used in the review can tell us if the language is specifically about the subject, or something in general. That is not deciding if something is correct or not. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are questioning the review again that is about e-cigarettes. You seem to disagree with the review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I disagree with how your using talk about things in general to talk about something specific without any notice to the reader. I have seen this thing from you before, its a reading comprehension skill. Its why I keep asking you if you are a native english speaker, or is english your second language. Its a nuance thing. AlbinoFerret 00:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke."

The "uncertainties" are what? The previous sentence are the uncertainties. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read the paragraph in the article. You go from describing what e-liquid components are in the droplets in the sentence before, to a sentence that in its original context suggests its talking in general talking about how they are complex and we cant tell what harms are in general, not talking about eliquid components. It is joined to a sentence thats septate in the original that says we dont know if they will be harmful. That's Original Research by synthesis. Taking 2 or 3 statements that dont go together in a source and by proximity add up to "We dont know if the eliquid ingredients are toxic." AlbinoFerret 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is about particles not e-liquids. They are separate sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They're separate things, Quack. The ultrafine particles Glantz/Grana are talking about are burnt hydrocarbons in vehicle exhaust gas, and tobacco smoke. Both are completely irrelevant to e-cigs, because e-cigs don't burn anything.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would you expect ultrafine droplets of PG and nicotine to have the same health effects as ultrafine particles of burnt tobacco or diesel? That's pretty dumb. Stop all this WP:UNDUE nonsense with the biased Grana/Glantz paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Each sentence is different but sourced. I did explain the "uncertainties" is referring to the previous sentence.

The ultrafine droplets and ultrafine particles are the same thing. I can expand the section and tweak the text if you still think it is confusing. If you find more information from theses or other sources let me know. I want to expand the section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack, previously you linked the phrase "ultrafine particles" to the Wiki article on atmospheric pollution - exhaust fumes. That was inexcusable. You want to expand the section because you are pushing a POV, but you have no consensus to do so. If you try to pursue this obsession with particles, a "risk" mentioned by only one notable paper, I am going to start deleting your excesses.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack said "The ultrafine droplets and ultrafine particles are the same thing." Thats the problem, and you had the sentences right next to each other. I have just worked on the section, split the sentences to make two paragraphs, and I rewrote the sentences that were almost exact copies of Grana to avoid copyright issues. AlbinoFerret 04:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine is repetitive. You are saying it twice in a row. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the first sentence says the e-cigarette delivers nicotine, the second says its in the vapor. AlbinoFerret

After the discussion was over and found that there was no OR in the section, there is another discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ultrafine_Particles.2C_the_name_of_the_section_is_inaccurate. I previously explained, "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles." QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

After this discussion was over I changed fine to ultrafine in the section to fix a seeming OR problem. Looking at the source that the comment was taken from it is indeed talking about fine, not ultrafine. Quack changed Ultrafine back to fine, which is ok. So now the section talks about Fine, Ultrafine, and larger particles added in a recent edit. This discussion ended prematurely. I added another section to deal with the naming of the section that now contains 3 sizes of particles. Ultrafine is inaccurate and is a problem. Discussion and consensous should move this issue to a resolution by renaming the section somehow to be more accurate. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence from the source did not use the word ultrafine in that context. But in another sentence it did use the word ultrafine. I clarified the text.

"In summary, the particle size distribution and number of particles delivered by e-cigarettes are similar to those of conventional cigarettes, with most particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm)." QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This section is on an older situation and does not follow the present facts. Please comment in the new section. Anyone wanting background information on this discussion can follow your link in the new one. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors did discuss the section is about the particles being in the nanometer size range. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor Poll

Formerly 98 and I have had a nice talk today on my talk page. A poll was suggested to help other editors to understand the concerns of others. This poll is non binding and "is not intended to make a judgement on whether this is a "medical" article, but merely reflects that the medical parts of the article have generated most of the controversy". I also agree with him that "nuance counts and credibility is decreased by too many extreme answers". No one is required to take this poll, it is not on any specific edit, it will change nothing in the articles content now or in advance change anything because of the responses. It is not on any WP policy or guideline. Your participation is completely voluntary.

On a five point scale, to what extent does your reading of Reliable Sources (MEDRS where it applies) indicate the following (0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree, X = The information avaialable from reliable sources does not allow us to make even a guess):

1. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is less healthy than abstinence
2. It is more likely than not that regular cigarette smokers can improve their health by switching completely to E-cigarettes
3. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes is less harmful than second hand cigarette smoke
4. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least some measurable health hazard
5. It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes are a better aid to smoking cessation that nicotine patches or other aids that are now widely used.
6. It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes prevent or delay smoking cessation
7. Widespread availability of electronic cigarettes, in the absence of strict regulation, is more likely than not to increase the societal burden of tobacco related health problems.
8. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is at least a moderate health risk.
9. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least a moderate risk as a health hazard.

I have changed nothing from the questions. I will not submit an answer to the poll until a few others do to eliminate any question of guiding the answers. AlbinoFerret 20:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit:I have added 2 questions to gauge risk. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment The idea behind this survey was to just try to collect some data to help formulate some proposed compromises. What people feel strongly about, where there might be unexpected agreement, where there might be room for compromise. In my humble opinion, its not really helpful to add arguments to the answers (we've heard them all before), to get too caught up in the exact definition of "some" (though I admit the questions were initially too vague), or to go through and assign a "0" or "4" answer to each question. The goal is to find points of agreement and points at which there is room for compromise. Staking out a position and explaining how the opposition is simply completely and totally wrong doesn't really take us any place we have not already spent many weeks. And I don't think most of us like where we have been. No disrespect intended. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Submissions

A. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is significantly ("significantly" added after Kim's answer) less healthy than abstinence

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3 (question is malformed though, "less healthy" is too broad. Almost everything is less healthy than not doing it). --Kim D. Petersen 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 barring new evidence, no significant health risks are documented, or very likely. --Kim D. Petersen 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 No reason to think so. Vapor contains harmful levels of... what?-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 There is no clear evidence of absolute risk from vaping. We have to be careful here though. because "statistically significant" doesn't necessarily mean biologically meaningful. My answer here reflects the latter interpretation rather than the former. Mihaister (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1/3 The only problem is that abstinence is not always possible so 1. In a perfect world, one we are not living in, there wouldnt be people hopelessly addicted to nicotine. If we are talking about people who have never smoked, it would be a 3 for first generation e-cigarettes because because of metals in MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 05:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 for Gen 1 e-cigs and less than 1 for later gen e-cigs in that MEDRS show some contents of concern within 1st gen vapor but not quantities which meet a more likely than not, 'significant' threshold. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 "Long-term health effects of use are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders ." Hajek et al (2014) EllenCT (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

B. It is more likely than not that regular cigarette smokers can signficantly (Again, "significantly" added after Kim's response to improve question) improve their health by switching completely to E-cigarettes

• 4 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 (again not very useful - improve is everything from having 1 less sickday per decade to not dying) Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 I don't think anyone is seriously arguing this point anyway. Even the ANTZ are just talking about "population" effects.-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 Even the head of the FDA on tobacco control said before congress that if we could get everyone to switch we would see significant health gains even in populations. On a personal level I have witnessed it. This should be a major focus to the article IMHO. AlbinoFerret 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 All MEDR sources appear to agree on this one. Mihaister (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 As above, e-cigs, of all generations, appear not to contain the chemicals that MEDRS show are responsible for most of the damage from Tobacco Smoke and do not appear to contain similarly damaging chemicals in anything like the quantities. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 "it is likely that smokers who switch to E-cigs will achieve large health gains." Polosa et al (2013) EllenCT (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

C. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes is less harmful than second hand cigarette smoke

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 Kim D. Petersen 21:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 5 Again, is anyone credible denying this? No comparison.-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 All MEDR sources appear to agree on this one. Mihaister (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 I havent read one MEDRS that says its even in the ballpark. AlbinoFerret 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 The best studies I've seen show that e-cigarette vapor compares closest to outdoor city air rather than smoke. As there is little to no sidestream vapour (which is responsible for the lions share of 2HS damage) and very little in the mainstream vapour of concern. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 People who inhale smoke from a burning fire get sick. People who work around ethylene glycol fog machines do not. EllenCT (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

D. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least some measurable health hazard

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• X (completely useless - wearing deoderant is more likely than not to pose at least some measurable health hazard. Define level of harm. Kim D. Petersen 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• X Agree with Kim. We can measure pretty damn small, but does anyone really care about a 0.000000001% increase in risk?-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3 That may well be the case, however, "measurable" does not mean biologically meaningful. Mihaister (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 Yes it will produce some measurable health hazard. But all the evidence I have seen in MEDRS is that the risk low to close to non existent. There is risk in everything. AlbinoFerret 04:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• X So far studies of passive vapour have been concerned with identifying its components. There is little to no study of the effect of low level long term exposure to these components. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

E.It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes are a better aid to smoking cessation that nicotine patches or other aids that are now widely used.

• X Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 from experience here, rather than evidence. It is indicated in our data but not shown. --Kim D. Petersen 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 5 From my experience and that of many ex-smoker friends, no doubt at all. Nothing else comes close.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 2 The answer cant be found in 'Reliable Sources' because to date all studies I know about have been done with first generation devices have had limited success. More study is needed with second generation or perhaps newer first generation for to prove by 'Reliable sources' they can help. From personal experience second generation devices help people quit, first generation devices are but a stepping stone to better devices. AlbinoFerret 22:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 There are multiple primary sources documenting the evidence. A Cochrane Review on this topic will be introduced at a conference this week, so we'll have to wait and see. Mihaister (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The latest Polosa study using Ego/CE4 devices with 9mg liquid found a 36% cessation rate - among smokers who didn't want to quit.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• 2.5 The MEDRS seem to be split on this one. There's limited data, some poor studies, some really spurious statistics on both sides, I believe that evidence exists and the overall result is no consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

F. It is likely that for some a signficant number of people (again, added "significantly" in response to Kim's answer), E-cigarettes prevent or delay smoking cessation

• X Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

* X Useless - "some" is to broad a category to take a stance about. Is there a statistically significant figure? I doubt it, but i don't know. --Kim D. Petersen 21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• 1 No data indicates that cessation efforts are dampened, the concern here is that smokers will "cheat" cessation efforts because they can vape where they can't smoke - but this indicates that the smoker really doesn't want to stop, and those people are significantly less likely to stop in any case. That was the data - now the opinion: There is a larger chance that they actually will like the e-cig and cease smoking even if they didn't have that purpose originally in mind. Here again it is experience rather than data though. I am myself a "victim" of e-cigs being a gateway out of smoking. I just wanted to save money, i had given up cessation efforts because they didn't work on me. --Kim D. Petersen 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 I can't even think why this might happen.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0/3This is really two questions. prevent or delay, so I have answered both. 0 for prevent, vaping is not smoking. If the smoker stops using tobacco cigarettes they have quit smoking, if they are still using tobacco cigarettes the e-cigarette didn’t stop them quitting. 3 for delay, because e-cigarettes let people slowly decrease their nicotine levels over timef instead of cold turkey even i they occasionally duel use. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 This statement is made by some MEDR sources under the implicit (and inaccurate) assumption that vaping==smoking. Sources that do not conflate vaping with smoking do not support this conclusion. Mihaister (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0/3 To answer two different questions. There is no evidence I have seen that e-cigs delay or prevent tobacco smoke cessation. I have seen some evidence to suggest that it may delay or prevent nicotine cessation, which is often conflated within papers. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

G. Widespread availability of electronic cigarettes, in the absence of strict regulation, is more likely than not to increase the societal burden of tobacco related health problems.

• 2 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 only one case where it could end up that way - and that is if e-cigs turn out to be a direct gateway to smoking. And no data indicates this. As long as the number that stop smoking is higher than the number that start - the societal burden falls. Key fail in this question is "tobacco related" since the health hazard vectors in e-cigs aren't tobacco related, except for nicotine, and here data indicates that the burden is close to caffeine and other stimulants. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Ridiculous. The "gateway to tobacco" idea is dead, and that's the only way this could happen.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 All available evidence shows the health risks are less even now without any regulation. A little regulation is needed imho. Child safe packaging, checking for and eliminating impurities in liquids and defective hardware design could lower the burden more. But increase? I have seen no evidence that it will. AlbinoFerret 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 First, currently available evidence suggests the risks of vaping are "trivial". Second, there is no evidence strict regulation has made any tobacco product safer. Mihaister (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Nothing to add to the above. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 "health-care professionals should support smokers unable or unwilling to stop tobacco use who wish to switch to EC to reduce harm from smoking" Hajek et al (2014) EllenCT (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

H. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is at least a moderate health risk.

• 2/X We don't know. 2 vectors here: PG/VG long-term massive usage may carry a risk that we haven't seen before. Even when we have had inhalators using PG/VG, the amounts were significantly lower and thus exposure also much lower. Flavoring is the other risk vector, and at least some flavourings can carry a moderate risk (diacetyl for instance - while lower than cigs, it is much higher than none). The particulate issue is one that only Grana really focuses on, and that in itself is problematic as this type of risk is generically uncertain, even in areas where it is an active research field. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1/X Define "moderate". If drinking coffee is a "moderate" health risk then yes. Otherwise, no.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3/X According to studies from MEDRS there is moderate risk to the user based on studies of First Generation e-cigs showing the presence of metals in the vapor. The risks are lower than tobacco cigarettes but need to be lowered more. More study is needed on Second and Third generation devices because they dont use solder and have changed the metal the coil is made of, kanthal wire is used which dose not include nickel. Flavourings need a lot of study done as does thermal breakdown of components when variable power devices are used. The community is already aware of the dangers and the industry has already tried to make some changes without regulation in these areas. But a troubling wattage race has started. AlbinoFerret 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think wattage matters. The important thing is temperature, and the DNA40 makes that a moot point. This time next year nobody will ever be overheating a coil.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wattage matters, see the PBusardo review of the Segeli 100 watt after the first few minutes go to the 22 minute mark. The wattage race is dangerous. I think Phil is very knowledgeable on gear, he is an expert in a lot of ways. Its true the DNA40 is like a voice of reason to the madness. But 200 or 250 watt devices are out now and higher wattage is coming. The kind of heat they generate will produce all kinds of nasty stuff. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

CAF is kind of right though, if more and more devices have live temperature monitoring, the wattage risk disappears. The high watts will just heat more juice rather than heating juice more. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that temperature control will help to eliminate problems my concerns include:

• The only device that can do it is the DNA40, and it maxes out at 30 watts, and it probably is in the process of becoming patented.
• All the devices in the wattage race use control boards made in china, it may take years for them to develop this technology if past history proves accurate.
• Higher wattage devices without temp control are announced all the time with no end in sight to higher wattages and thus dangerous heat which may stop being vaporizing and become combustion at some point if its not already happening.
• Temperature control is either being ignored or described as a "late comer" because the board only does 30 watts. It may not look like a selling point to manufacturers in China, and profit seems to be the reason they add anything.

The temp control really is cutting edge technology. I doubt we will see anything on it in MEDRS anytime soon. But it looks like Farsalinos is trying to raise funding for a study on the subject. personally I would never buy a device over 20 watts without temperature control for my wife, or recommend it to her smoking/vaping friends. AlbinoFerret 14:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• 0 If we are to understand "moderate risk" using the statutory definitions in US risk assessment guidance, this is demonstrably false. MEDR sources appear to converge on a "low risk" category for vaping with respect to users. Mihaister (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 This does depend on your definition of moderate. If you use moderate to mean much lower health risks than Standard risk assessment parlance I could go to a 2. That said I am sure we will discover some flavourings and some temperatures that when combined will be a moderate health risk. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least a moderate risk as a health hazard.

• 0 no real term risk vectors have been identified, and it if it is there, then it is more likely to be on par with second hand deoderant/perfume exposure. The reason that tobacco control focuses here is the perceived risk of "normalization" or smokers "cheating" on cessation, which are policy issues rather than health issues. --Kim D. Petersen 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Not a chance. Any exhaled residue is barely distinguishable from the levels in a non-vaper's breath.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 There is no proof of at least a moderate health risk from second hand vapor in MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 If we are to understand "moderate risk" using the statutory definitions in US risk assessment guidance, this is demonstrably false. MEDR sources appear to converge on a "de minimis risk" category for 2nd hand vapor. Mihaister (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Nil to minimal risk. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wash my hands of this. It was clearly a waste of time and effort. Maybe after another year or two of bickering people will be interested in looking for areas of agreement and not just explaining to the other side how completely and totally wrong they are. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So we didn't all agree that e-cigs are a health hazard, and now you grab your ball and go home. Fine. See you when you finish elementary school.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98, you asked for opinions of what people see in MEDRS. You asked for nuanced answers, I know I tried to bring out the subtle details of why I answered how I did. It was almost impossible to answer just with a number. I am sorry you didnt get the results you wanted, but I know I honestly answered the questions. I have no reason to think that others did not answer them honestly as well. This poll may yet help. If both sides can see the views of the others it may help the editors of this article understand why there are constant disagreements. But the first thing that needs to be done is that those views have to be written and then read by everyone. AlbinoFerret 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually see the above as a bit of a success so far. More time for more of the page editors to answer might help focus in on where people disagree, these disagreements are the ones we should focus on finding good MEDRS meta-analyses to see what consensus is. So far there are really only 3 questions which aren't leaning in a clear direction.

D There is a clear lean towards agreement but some disagreement over the meaning/wording of the question

E Slight lean towards agree but a lot of uncertainty about the strength of the evidence, really would be good to try and collate some MEDRS on the actual quitting rates with e-cigs.

H The least consensus answer. slight lean disagreement with a lot of /X answers. It would seem from this there is general agreement that e-cigs will pose some level of health hazard but that there is little agreement (among editors here) over what level of risk. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit to add: I see part of your issue is with a lot of 0 and 4 answers. Given that the questions are phrased as "more likely than not" and so are already slightly hedging it will encourage people to give more extreme answers. If there was an 11 point scale 0=definitely false 2=significantly likely to be false 5=equally likely true/false 8=significantly likely to be true 10 = definitely true and the questions were phrased without "more likely than not" then you'd get a broader range of answers. SPACKlick (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gopal Bhatnagar presentation to Canda's health minister

I was recently Linked to Dr Gopal Bhatnagar's letter to the Minister of Health Canada as well as the powerpoint presentation he used. Some interesting conclusions drawn from a range of sources which I thought might be useful with the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultrafine Particles, the name of the section is inaccurate

The Ultrafine particles subsection does not just talk about ultrafine particles. It also talks about Fine, and larger particles. Ultrafine particles are less than 100nm. A name change should be made. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's change it to "Speculation about particles".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#OR_template_needs_moving_and.2For_changing_to_.22section.22. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion before you added more sizes to the section. If you add things to change things, it is discussed again. AlbinoFerret 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It does discuss ultrafine particles. Read what User:Formerly 98 wrote; "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?" QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while it does discuss Ultrafine particles, that isnt all it includes. There are now three sizes discussed in the section because of an edit you added after the previous discussion ended. I propose taking nothing from the section if its renamed in some way to reflect its talking about more than Ultrafine particles. We are not talking about Original Research if that happens, we are talking about factual accuracy in the sections name. This needs to be fixed. Please suggest a name that covers all three types of particles in the section. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fine particles in the section = Fine particles can be chemically intricate and not uniform, and what a particle is made of, the exact harmful elements, and the importance of the size of the particle is mostly unknown. Because these things are uncertain, it is not clear whether the particles in e-cigarette mist have health effects similar to those produced by traditional cigarettes
• Ultrafine particles in the section. = Though, the particle size composition and sum of particles emitted by e-cigarettes are like traditional cigarettes, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).
• Larger particles in the section = A 2014 ASHRAE publication stated the word "vaping" is not technically accurate when applied to e-cigarettes and concluded that users of these devices are rather "aerosolizing," which is a dense visible mist consisting of liquid sub-micron droplets.

Three diffrent sizes, yet the section name only says one. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, why did you revert the move of the sentence based on "shows an e-cigarette user exhaling a dense visible aerosol into the surrounding air." back to Ultrafine section, create Original Research by linking statements sections apart apart, and put a claim that is specifically about Second Hand into the first hand section with this edit? AlbinoFerret 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The section makes it clear it is mostly ultrafine particles and I added text that is a description of the aerosol. The text shows it is sub-micron and all the text is sourced. The current section name is simple. We should not make it longer. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend something easy and short, Particles. That way you can add as many sizes as MEDRS mention. You could use "Ultrafine, Fine, and Submicron particles" or those in any order but each future addition of size will make the name longer. You have not addressed the revert. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "Particles" is inaccurate and I did explain it was a description of the aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be ok if the section was only about Ultrafine particles, but you are talking about 3 kinds. Ultrafine particles is an incomplete and inaccurate way to describe Aerosol. If the one word description isnt good for you then just list all of them. Address the revert mentioned two replies above where you created Original Research, or fix it. AlbinoFerret 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the majority are utrafine it is an accurate way to describe the section. I summarised "E-cigarettes do not produce a vapor (gas), but rather a dense visible aerosol of liquid sub-micron droplets..." This added a description about the aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before. The reason these claims are in this section is because they are first hand examples of vapor. You cant take claims in the source that are about second hand vapor, and add them to this section. Thats why I moved them, and I wrote in the notes exactly why I moved it. Remove it please.

Ultrafine Particles may initially make up the vapor at first, but it looks like all the sources are saying that the state and size of the particles change. Therefore Ultrafine Particles is an inaccurate description of vapor. Find another name for the section that covers most if not all that is in it. Arguing why it was named what it was named in the past is not a good reason to keep the name on the section as what it covers changed. Just as the Safety section is short and covers everything about safety. The name of the section isnt Chemical Safety as that would exclude kids swallowing stuff. AlbinoFerret 13:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made all the changes discussed in this section, no good reason existed to keep factual errors and inaccuracies in the article. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the wording for both sections. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that, but the section name still needs changed. Cloudjpk changed it back, it should not stay as it is, so pick a name that covers what the section includes, and change it. AlbinoFerret 02:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is awkward to have a long section name and the section name does describe what is in the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Then find one that is short and change it. Unless you know a policy that allows inaccuracies it should not stay inaccurate. Im pretty sure I can find one that says to fix inaccuracies or that articles should be accurate. AlbinoFerret 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"..., with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm)." The text and section name are accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The name of the sector isnt Vapour or Aerosol, its Ultrafine Particles. If it was Vapor you could claim that, but your talking about three different particles. It is inaccurate. Would a uninvolved third party change your mind?AlbinoFerret 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing will change his mind, and if you try to get an administrative resolution his sugar daddy will interrupt the process by giving Quack another barnstar. As long as the MED coven are hovering over this article it's only going to get more negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@CheesyAppleFlake: The only way this gets better is using the tools Misplaced Pages gives us. Even offering things that are either ignored or refused is useful. WP:IDHT AlbinoFerret 01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale changing of "vapor" to "mist"

I have changed the word mist in harm reduction where the source used the word vapor. I have also changed "mist" to vapor in hardware. When talking about hardware vapor is the common term. Changing vapor to mist is without consensus. AlbinoFerret 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Without consensus, and stupid.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Cloudjpk just reverted it back to mist citing consensus, I would like them to prove there is consensus for "mist over vapour. AlbinoFerret 01:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was for "mist" over "aerosol" and "vapor". As it happens "mist" wasn't my preferred term but I accepted consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the consensus was about one sentence in the lede, not the whole article. See the discussion here, and look at the last comment. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor." It would be confusing to the reader to switch back and forth with the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, you have no agreement to switch all the uses to "mist". That was never agreed to if it was mentioned you wanted to do that there would be no agreement in the lede. You are arguing accuracy here, but in the section above you want inaccuracy. Thats double talk. The original agreement was only made by me to stop the ever changing sentence in the lede. It is more confusing now with your changes that it was before you changed things first to aerosol, then mist. If anyone is at fault for making the reader become confused it is because of your edits and failure to hear anyone else WP:IDHT]AlbinoFerret 03:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will change every instance of the word Aerosol to Mist since thats what was agreed to in the lede. AlbinoFerret 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then I am going to change every instance of "mist" back to "vapor". Nobody else in the entire fucking world calls e-cig vapor "mist" apart from this idiotic article. Can the mist advocates please grow up?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I cant revert them at this point. Doing so now would be edit warring and there is a vote to topic ban me. I wont be getting into revert wars, no one should at any time. AlbinoFerret 13:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

For the lede we can use the word "mist" or "aerosol". But it should be wikilinked to aerosol not mist. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on using "mist" it should be wikilinked to Mist - "small droplets of water suspended in air". Want to do that, or should we just not use the completely inaccurate "mist"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You have no consensus for any other uses of vapor to be changed to "mist or "aerosol". If you are trying to enforce a partial agreement for the lede only to the whole page. You have no consensus to wikilink every instance, or any instance, of "mist or "vapor" to Aerosol. Doing so is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Harm reduction and smoking cessation summaries and international organization survey position

I disagree with User:Alexbrn's revert of my recent edits claiming that they were "not an improvement." On the contrary, the RFCs and Editor Poll above show clear consensus for the additions on harm reduction and smoking cessation. The sources are both from MEDRSs in journals with above-median impact factors. None of the statements contradict any other MEDRSs, but the rejection of summaries of MEDRSs which do not reach definitive conclusions with conclusive statements from reviews of larger numbers of primary sources is absolutely good encyclopedic practice. And why should the positions of the several international organizations precede summaries of specific topics? How can that possibly serve the reader? EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed the part of the editor poll which states, "No one is required to take this poll, it is not on any specific edit, it will change nothing in the articles content now or in advance change anything because of the responses." Yobol (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And the RfC was withdrawn. Alexbrn 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The #RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions was not withdrawn, and the editors' poll is still useful for making judgements no matter how many disclaimers it has. Everything here is voluntary. EllenCT (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC at the time of your revert had exactly one "support", which was yours. That you think this is in any way, shape, or form a "consensus" for your preferred version raises competency questions. The editors' poll specifically said it could not be used for determining consensus on content changes in the future, and your continued insistence that it can be, despite the very clear disclaimer that it can't be, also raises serious competency issues. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is clear from the prior discussion, where no reasons were give to doubt the reliability of either source, and no reasons were given that the inconclusive reviews of fewer numbers of sources were any more reliable. The survey responses were explicitly unopposed for several days. EllenCT (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol, the disclaimer on the poll expressly goes against its use in this fashion. Its purpose was not on any specific edit or future edits. Its purpose was to give other editors an understanding of the points of view of other editors in hopes of avoiding conflicts, nothing more. I cant agree with its use in any other way. I hope that other editors see this and take part in it for that purpose, and understand that I will post against its use in any other way. If I miss a post using it , please post a link to this comment in response. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol and Alexbrn that the RFC and editors poll I posted can not be used to show consensus. The editors poll especially because of the limited participation and statement on its purpose. Sadly more people didnt respond from the medical perspective, it still couldnt be used, but it may have helped in problems like this to see both sides pov. But there is a problem removing MEDRS claims from the article. AlbinoFerret 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to my #RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That one's had one "response" - from you - and is undecided (if even validly put, which is questionable). If that's what you honestly meant by "shows clear consensus", I doubt you've assessed it impartially or accurately. Alexbrn 14:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Yes, that RFC can be used, I had meant to vote in it, and had commented in it, thanks for linking to it so I could. I have had a lot going on. @Alexbrn: There are two support votes, you probably were writing your comment because I added a vote 1 minute before you commented. Though "clear consensus" cant really be shown by even that low number of votes considering all the editors who edit this article, it is useful to show some form. AlbinoFerret 15:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above (and suggest replying there to keep threads from duplicating), the consensus is clear from the prior discussion, where no reasons were give to doubt the reliability of either source, and no reasons were given that the inconclusive reviews of fewer numbers of sources were any more reliable. The survey responses were explicitly unopposed for several days. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

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

Questions:

• A. Should we use Mist?
• B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• C. Should we use the term any that sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• D. Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your first choice when answering)
• E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used? AlbinoFerret 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Guidelines

As always the Misplaced Pages guidelines should be the basis for your answer. The controlling wikipedia guideline at this time is WP:MEDMOS because this article has Health sections. MEDRS states:

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

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

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

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

A. Should we use Mist?

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

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

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

• Yes, if If the answer to D. does not reach consensus this is the best choice. AlbinoFerret 00:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No This practice is confusing. Wikilinks are fine, but they should go to the page of the same name as the word. AlbinoFerret 00:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

EllenCT, I respect your right to not comment. Sometimes the way words are used makes a difference,and some may be glad that others dont comment. If small issues are cleared up, more time can be given to larger issues. You also have to pick which things are possible to fix at this point in time. Every day more research is done. We will see in the long run which side is correct by the available sources. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Other editors disagreed with you. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Practical implications of alternatives to smoke inhalation

It seems to me that some editors are not fully realizing the extent to which avoiding smoke from burning tobacco is beneficial. This recent primary study showed that mere contamination of tobacco smoke on room surfaces can be significantly harmful to room occupants hours after a cigarette has been smoked. Of course I'm not proposing adding it to the article, but would editors please take a minute to stop and reflect that the central idea of what we are discussing is an alternative to smoke inhalation, and the implications for the health of smokers and the people around them? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But hey, it's also an alternative to very lucrative (but useless) NRTs, so the med crowd don't care if it saves lives or not. That's why they focus on trivial or hypothetical risks and refuse to let anything positive go in the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone editing this article has ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But if they did it may be a COI. IMHO even the appearance of a COI should give anyone with such ties at least moments hesitation in editing the article when it comes to a comparison with NRT's, using them to quit, or harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No explanation for this change

The text was changed from "can" to "may". Explanation? QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)