Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 20 December 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

There has not been consensus on usage of the terms Vapor, Mist, and Aerosol as to the best word to use for what comes out of an e-cigarette. This disagreement has the words being changed all the time. The common term used by most average people and the media to describe the inhalable product of E-cigarettes is Vapor. A number of Medical journals describe it as Aerosol, but there are also a lot of uses of Vapor in journal articles. No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist. There is a discussion now on the page discussing this issue. 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 that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• D. Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)
• E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used? AlbinoFerret 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article? AlbinoFerret 09:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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 in which the word will be used. 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)

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

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

Answers

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

A. Should we use Mist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No - I don't see "mist" in significant use in the sources. "Vapor" appears more frequently. Jojalozzo 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• No It's nearly always always referred to as vapour, if that's also more accurate there's no reason to use mist. HalfHat 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, stick with one term, specifically Aerosol as that is the most accurate term. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No agree with Damotclese Cloudjpk (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Misplaced Pages does not need to carry ambiguity into this article. One term for the concept should be used in this article regardless of variation in the original sources. If various terms are used then they should be used while distinguishing various concepts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak No as above. Single term is preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Use one vernacular term consistently per WP:MEDMOS. Jojalozzo 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Other editors disagree with you. User:Cloudjpk disagreed with your changes. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Vapor per MEDMOS. Jojalozzo 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• We should use vapor, as this is what general readers will understand best and are most likely to use themselves. There should be a short section explaining that what leaves the device is technically a mist, and the water soon evaporates converting it to what is technically an aerosol (or whatever the words are that physicists prefer). Maproom (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor, i think mist is too associated with water vapor. Aerosol is unnecessarily scientific. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol because that is what it is. Informally sometimes called a mist. It is not vapour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Aerosol I guess as no one wishes to use the simpler term mist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Use vapor to describe molecules in the gas phase. If those molecules condense to form particles suspended in the air, they are an aerosol. A mist is a specific kind of aerosol comprising solvent droplets (typically water) as opposed to suspended solids (e.g. dust). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor is the most common vernacular term, even if not strictly pertaining to the precise scientific usage of the term. Aerosol is a confusing term, as in common usage, this term refers to aerosol cans (e.g. air fresheners) and their spray. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

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

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

AlbinoFerret previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." At the time he agreed to wikilinking to aerosol and did not have a problem with mist in the lede. Now he wants to change things back to vapor and delete the wikilink to aerosol? Please read the source: "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas". 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)

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

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

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

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

Quack,

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

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus in the past?

Consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local consensus versus broad consensus Misplaced Pages wide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR accusations

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, that is not true at all. Can you find a source for this claim?--FergusM1970 04:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed change to Atomizer section

This change should be easily passed. The current wording is:

A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations are available.

I proposes the more neutral wording of

A lot of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations exist.

AlbinoFerret 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a neutrality problem; it's just verbose.--FergusM1970 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I try to keep language used in selling things out. The replacement only says that they exist, and it doesnt remove the information. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case you only wish to change available -> exist. Why change "a wide range" to "a lot"? It looks far less professional. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Array" looks slightly odd, but "range", "choice" or "variety" would do. Not sure about "combinations" either - it's not really accurate. The container is usually an integral part of the attie. "A wide variety of atomisers is available"?--FergusM1970 08:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I didnt write the line so I cant be sure, it might be talking about catro tanks. Its also applicable to second generation devices that have atomizer heads with different ohms ratings available, that is very common. AlbinoFerret 11:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion the new form would be

A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations exist.

AlbinoFerret 11:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really like "e-liquid containers". Wouldn't most people assume that referred to the bottles it comes in?--FergusM1970 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Make a suggestion then. AlbinoFerret 12:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"atomizer and tank assemblies"? Not sure. Most people I know use "atomizer" to mean the coil/head, base and tank combined, not just the coil.--FergusM1970 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That differs from the usage I'm familiar with where atomiser/atty means head (the coil and mount) in a clearo but not the base or tank itself. Same with a Carto, atty would mean the coil inside including the wicking material and not the whole assemblage. SPACKlick (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going off the usual terminology, like RDA standing for rebuildable dripping atomiser.--FergusM1970 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Im starting to think this line should just be removed. It really is not about the atomizer. AlbinoFerret 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It doesn't seem to add much, does it?--FergusM1970 15:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote the line. Back then carto tanks, eGo C punch style atomizer where quite popular, and I didn't find anything anything better than "atomizer and e liquid container combination" to describe them... English is my second language so I didn't find any better way for describing them. But I still think that we should find a way to say that a lot of attys are available (clearo, RBA, RTA etc etc) TheNorlo (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheNorlo: Thank you very much for the background on that sentence. I said I thought it was about cartotanks. I agree it would be nice to give an idea of how many different devices there currently are, but I am 100% sure it will need a citation. I think a good place for that information would be in the Components paragraph. Was the line always in the Atomizers section. I know I did a lot of reorganization awhile back. AlbinoFerret 01:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the line was originally in the intro of the construction section.TheNorlo (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I cant seem to find a number of devices being offered, I have a citation for "many devices" on the market. Another says about 400 brands, but its only talking about cigalikes. The intro to Construction would be best. I would like to find one that gives a better idea of how many. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With all the companies jumping in to make a quick buck, particularly in china, it would be nearly impossible to even give a good estimate of all the available devices that are out there. Think about all the different mechs, their clones and knock-offs. And then you have all the different eGos. I don't see where one could find a WP:RS listing all of those. TheNorlo (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a study in Tobacco Control (you're probably aware of it, http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_3/iii3.full) which found 466 *brands*, but the number of models is obviously greater than the number of brands, and it only looked at products available online through English-language sites. I've never seen an estimate for total models, worldwide, through all channels. I guess you could use a phrase like "466 brands advertised on English-language Websites alone" in order to both be reliably sourced, and indicate that there must be many others in addition to that number. Barnabypage (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I went looking and didnt look at the reference from digitaltrends.com I placed on the sentence in the article now. It has some interesting wording thats probably going to have to be paraphrased

"To get the good stuff, you need to go online, where you’ll find a whole universe of devices:

could that be rephrased to "a very large number of devices can be found"? Perhaps someone else can suggest something. AlbinoFerret 02:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Given how many types of atomizer we can describe, we shouldn't need much in the way of a citation to say "many different models of atomizer are on the market".--FergusM1970 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we are now looking past just atomizers. AlbinoFerret 16:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

• The line "A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations are available." will be removed from the Atomizers subsection.

The line "A wide array of component combinations exist." will be added to the Components intro with the same citation. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support That looks like a good option.--FergusM1970 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support AlbinoFerret 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Fine with me.TheNorlo (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Connector types

The device generation sub-section of the construction section says the following:Common connection types are 510, 901, 808 and 801 with the 510 being the most common. It should be noted that every other connection than the 510 is only common on cigalikes and in no way are common on any serious PV.TheNorlo (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the eGo connection is probably the second most common after 510 and it's not even mentioned. The rest are pretty much cigalike only.--FergusM1970 08:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

All we need is a reliable source to add it. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not much, but could this source be used just to show that the 510 connector is the industry standard, I don't care about and don't want to promote the lame mōd Power Kit V2 that the MarketWatch article is talking about. I would also erase all mention of the other types of connections since they are basically obsolete. Even most of the cig-a-likes now uses a proprietary BS connector that only works with their crappy cartomizers, kr808d might be the only exception. TheNorlo (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly it states its a press release, so we cant use it. AlbinoFerret 11:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Society and culture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

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

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

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

Why is this page still locked.

It says that the article will be lock until December 2nd. Is that December 2nd 2015? If not, then why is it still locked?TheNorlo (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Its locked to the 17th. AlbinoFerret 21:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of claim

Currently the article says this:

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

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

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

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

So, should this claim be removed?

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

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

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

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

• Support - A new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine refutes the claim that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

New review by AHA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, I'd be happy with that.--FergusM1970 14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. So the statements about there being no evidence need to be removed.--FergusM1970 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Specific changes

The specific changes proposed are this wording be removed

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

The following language replace it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific changes 2

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". 17 DEC 2014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

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

• Support it's an accurate representation of the source's characterization of the state of the evidence. Zad68 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A little less black and white

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific wording 3

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

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

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

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

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

Working out Specific wording

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

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

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

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

RfC closure

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

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

So does this mean we can switch to a more sensible order now?--FergusM1970 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry what, are you psychic? How do you know what people are coming here to look for?--FergusM1970 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vapist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.--FergusM1970 03:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Something else to remove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews from 2014

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

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

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

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

Here Fergus removed two 2014 review articles calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean like Grana/Glantz, citing newspaper articles and their own work?--FergusM1970 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

POV pushing. Already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxins

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

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

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

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

Current request for page protection

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

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

Whatever

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on Safety of Electronic Cigarettes

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

Chocrane Review found statistically significant difference between EC and placebo

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

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

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

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

Another point, Cochraine Review is considered the gold standard in medical reviews, they have many standards in place in order to prevent bias, thus there's certainly reason to give this article vastly more weight when it comes to a highly controversial subject.Zvi Zig (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

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

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

Well, let me respond to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits removed by consensus replaced

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

Medical Medical group opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. The Health section should be moved below Construction and Usage.--FergusM1970 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Grana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede Paragraph 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections Reorder Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positions

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

Yes there is: The fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article.--FergusM1970 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No it isn't. NRT is a medical product. E-cigs are a consumer product.--FergusM1970 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That looks entirely reasonable.--FergusM1970 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not really. How about doing that but moving History up between Construction and Health effects?--FergusM1970 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

Edit Request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you; it was long overdue.--FergusM1970 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useage

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

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

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

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

Wording

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

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

AlbinoFerret 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outstanding! Sorted then. Any comments on this wording? Any suggested improvements? Anyone just not like it?--FergusM1970 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

So we could say:

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose we could always create an article on vaping culture :-) --FergusM1970 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Cite error: The named reference Caponnetto2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cheng2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Weaver2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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

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

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

Grammar

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Another considered the data is inconclusive"

with

"Another considered the data inconclusive"

"Another considered the data were inconclusive"

"Another considered the data to be inconclusive"

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

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

Nature article

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

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

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

That looks like an excellent article, and great material for the Controversy section I proposed a while back.--FergusM1970 18:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm. There are now three developed countries where smoking prevalence is increasing. All have e-cig bans.--FergusM1970 15:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Article protection for a month at a time seems excessive

Locking an article for an entire month at a time seems excessive. Is there precedent for this, is this a usual edit war remedy? I've read some of the talk page discussion, and it seems to be a handful of editors arguing intensely over points that are largely inconsequential to a general encyclopedia audience. The intro clearly explains that it's all new and the jury is out, the rest is haggling.

Pro & Con table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it shouldn't be taking this long to get it right!--FergusM1970 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

There is no "getting it right" in this case, our trusted scientists are coming up at odds, and there is no long-term data, that is inarguable considering the available information. However, there are numerous reliable sources, academic/scientific and popular media, reporting the various findings, speculations, and disagreements. Presenting this is an editorial format problem, not a matter of editorial agreement: essentially, how to present equal and opposing views. The Pro/Con table solution is the most common approach to solving this sort of problem. Locking down the page is like a scientific journal ceasing publication until there is certainty. --Tsavage (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes can still get through. There just needs to be clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Do you agree that the first priority is making the article readable? At the moment the standard of English is frankly diabolical. Grammar and syntax are, in many cases, worse than I would expect from my cat. Who is German. We need to eliminate all the endless repetitions of inconclusive statements and replace them with coherent sentences backed up by multiple cites.--FergusM1970 02:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@FergusM1970: To discuss improving the article sentence by sentence, please start yet another section. In this section, I'm proposing a simple comparison table, leaving the rest of the article to be as concise and in summary style as possible, channeling all the energy and disagreement into one table. --Tsavage (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to try it, because right now we're getting nowhere.--FergusM1970 02:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, yes, changes can get through, but are you saying that the article is anywhere near easily updatable in lockdown, or that a typo can be corrected if someone finds an admin to do it? I came here wanting to add some stuff, and I'm locked out because, as far as I can tell, 4-5 editors are busy...quibbling. --Tsavage (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a Pro/Con Table. I think the table should be largely agreed on the talk page before being inserted and this is why I am pro lockdown. So is anyone willing to make a first draft of the pro/con table, knowing full well it will likely be controversial for some time? SPACKlick (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It can't hurt to at least try it, because we're accomplishing nothing here, so;

• Support This could be a way to end the current deadlock, so it deserves a chance.--FergusM1970 15:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Style improvement urgently required

The way the article is written right now is atrocious. Much of it is rambling, meandering, ungrammatical and has appalling syntax. It urgently needs to be made concise and readable. This can be done without losing any useful information. For example this mess:

"They appear to be similar in toxicity to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions. The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes. A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using electronic cigarettes. The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapour" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses." A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco. As of 2014, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as harmless. Until additional data is available on the topic, using e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as safe. No long-term studies have shown that e-cigarettes are a "healthier alternative" to traditional cigarettes. A 2014 review found no serious adverse effects reported in trials."

It could be replaced with this:

"Evidence suggests that e-cigs have similar toxicity to licensed nicotine replacement products, although it is not conclusive. No serious adverse effects from use have been reported in trials. However several organizations believe that there may be unknown risks and that e-cigs cannot be regarded as safe on current evidence. Some tobacco control experts claim that these concerns are exaggerated."

It conveys exactly the same information but it's actually readable, and doesn't contradict itself every second sentence. Yes, there is disagreement on content, but we should all be able to agree that right now the style and writing is abysmal.--FergusM1970 02:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, much of the article is unreadable, worse than typical label fine print. Your sample summary is clear and accurate, however, if there was a will amongst the handful of arguing editors to be clear and accurate, the article wouldn't be in its current unreadable state, so I'm not sure why you are suggesting this as if it's something new. It seems the article is in the state it's meant to be in. It's hard to assume good faith on anyone's part. :) But, indeed, summarizing everything as you have done, and pouring the detail into a pro/con comparison table, would solve the problem, IF good faith editing prevailed. --Tsavage (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the arguing editors and I'd love to improve the standard of writing! It's certainly something new for this article; the trend has been to keep stuffing in as many repetitive statements as the internet has room for. I want it to reflect the current state of the science, not 2009 tests on a brand of cigalike that's no longer made or a WHO FAQ that exists only in the Wayback Machine, but right now I'd settle for syntax that doesn't make my blood boil.--FergusM1970 03:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the improvement, although in the third sentence we would probably need some reference to limited evidence or lack of long term evidence for accuracy. SPACKlick (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Like this?

"However several organizations believe that there may be unknown risks and that e-cigs cannot be regarded as safe while evidence remains limited."--FergusM1970 15:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spot On. I Support the proposed replacement paragraph as amended should an edit request be made. SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Professor John Britton's pro/con comparison table can be found here.--FergusM1970 03:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up the Safety of electronic cigarettes article. Here's what the Environmental impact section originally looked like:

"There is limited information available on the environmental issues in connection with the production, the usage, and the disposing of e-cigarettes. There have been no studies formally looking at the impact of manufacturing or disposal of any components. As of 2014, it is uncertain if the nicotine in e-liquid is United States Pharmacopeia-grade nicotine, a tobacco extract, or a synthetic nicotine when examining the environmental impact of how its made. The emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled. That there have been no studies looking at the enviromental impact of nicotine manufacturing. Some e-cigarette brands state their products are ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’, even though in the absence of any supporting studies. Some journalists contend that such marketing may raise sales and increase e-cigarette interest, particularly among minors. It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to using one e-cigarette for the average user when looking at the cost of manufacturing them.. It is unclear in the manner that energy and materials used for production equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use. No studies on manufacturing impacts of e cigarettes has been done. Even though some brands have began recycling services for their e-cigarette cartridges, the frequency of these services is unknown. Some brands have also began recycling services for their e-cigarette batteries."

Obviously, a barely readable and repetitive mess. Now it looks like this:

"No studies have been conducted into any environmental issues connected to the production, usage, and disposal of e-cigarettes or the nicotine they contain. Some e-cigarette brands state their products are ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’. It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to one e-cigarette when looking at the cost of manufacturing them. Some brands have began recycling services for their e-cigarette cartridges and batteries but the prevalence of recycling is not known."

All the actual environmental information is there (sadly, there isn't actually any) but it's been condensed to the four sentences Tsavage suggests. I'm going to remove the third sentence unless someone can explain what it means and why it's important, but even without doing that it's far more readable and doesn't have the Wall Of Text appearance it did before. If we can do something similar for this article I think it would be a huge improvement.--FergusM1970 14:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's a massive improvement. I'd leave in the third sentence. It means that we don't have the information to compare the environmental impact of e-cigarettes with the conventional cigarettes they are replacing, because we don't know how many cigarettes each battery, coil, cartridge, tank, ml of e-juice etc. replaces. It's important because the consideration of direct comparison is inevitable. SPACKlick (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can tentatively agree with that. However going by the source the author seems to think that e-cigs have a lifetime of a few weeks. I've been using my Nemesis since last November, so it's replaced something like 16,400 cigarettes already. My weekly waste consists of a pinch of cotton wool and three inches of kanthal wire.--FergusM1970 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. Some people throw out two disposable carto's and two bottles from e-juice every week and a battery lasts 3 months. On better devices a battery will last years, as will the clearo/tank, kanthal and cotton last a while and in small amounts and bottles are re-used to diy e-juice. Working out the environmental impact of e-cig use is difficult. That fact should be noted. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is finding a source for that, although I agree that more advanced devices have a significantly lower impact. I used to throw out a dozen cigarette packs and a couple of hundred butts every week. No-brainer really.--FergusM1970 15:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the statement that assessing the relative environmental impact is difficult is sourced and we can't really say any more. I'm not dealbreakingly tied to the sentec but I await more voices in the discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to do it at the talk page for that article. I'm continuing to clean it up, making it readable without removing any sourced information for now. I'm also finding some deliberately misleading cites, unfortunately. Any help sorting it out would be welcome.--FergusM1970 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How did this page get protected?

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

It was requested by Doc James and Formerly98.--FergusM1970 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Count me in. If we can get agreement on this it will vastly improve the article.--FergusM1970 06:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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