Misplaced Pages

Talk:Electronic cigarette: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:59, 24 May 2014 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,257 edits →NPOV Edits← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:26, 30 September 2024 edit undoRena1425 (talk | contribs)4 editsNo edit summary 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WPMED|class=B |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |class=B |importance=}} {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=C|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}}
}} }}
{{banner holder|text=Page history|collapsed=yes|1=
{{old peer review|archive=1}}
{{Article history
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| action1 = PR
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
| action1date = 10 November 2009
|maxarchivesize = 150K
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Electronic cigarette/archive1
|counter = 7
| action1result = Reviewed
|minthreadsleft = 3
| action1oldid = 325071387
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| action2 = GAN
|algo = old(15d)
| action2date = 27 April 2016
|archive = Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive %(counter)d
| action2link = Talk:Electronic cigarette/GA1
| action2result = Failed
| action2oldid = 717440138
| currentstatus = FGAN
}} }}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Regulation of electronic cigarettes}}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days }}
{{Copied|from=Regulation of electronic cigarettes|to=Electronic cigarette}}
{{Copied|from=Nicotine|from_oldid=879345406|to=Electronic cigarette|to_diff=880141608|to_oldid=877905653|date=12:42 24 January 2019|small=}}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Usage of electronic cigarettes}}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Effects of electronic cigarettes on human brain development}}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing}}
{{Copied|from=Electronic cigarette|to=2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak}}
}}{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader = {{aan}}|maxarchivesize = 250K|counter = 32| minthreadstoarchive = 1|minthreadsleft = 8|algo = old(90d) |archive = Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive %(counter)d}}


== Etymology of vape == == Move discussion in progress ==


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Usage of electronic cigarettes#Requested move 28 November 2023 crosspost --> —] 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This article needs to clarify for the etymology of vape. Several sources call the use of ecigs as smoking them, while the industry itself refers to the process as ''vaping'' (a word not found in any dictionary as far as I can tell). Where is consensus that we should not be using the form smoking ecigs, and why is it not even mentioned if there is a debate over naming use. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
#http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/13/smoke-from-e-cigs-still-poses-some-second-hand-risk/ - Refering to ''smoke from e-cigs''
#http://motherboard.vice.com/read/teens-are-using-e-cigs-to-quit-smoking-and-failing-miserably - Refers to ''e-smoking'', which as a term is mentionable. WP:RS for the term.
#http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/22/manchester-city-ban-supporter-for-smoking-electronic-cigarette-after-thinking-its-real-3555276/ - Refers to ''smoking e-cigs''
#http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/ecigarettes-under-fire - Craig Youngblood (industry professional) calls them: ''electronic, alternative smoking devices''
#http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zQeQdEWo Ruyan CEO calls the use ''guilt-free smoking''
:Using the term smoking e-cigs is not unheard of, and should be represented in the article. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::So we should because of journalists not familiar with the topic area use incorrect terms? ] is incorrect, while ] is correct - by the definition of the terms. Strangely all of your articles specify that they are not referring to smoking, but to (scare-quote)"smoking", emissions, vaping or specify that (WebMD)''"E-cigarettes don't make real smoke"''. The headlines of articles are generally not reliable, since they are written ''after'' editorial review for promoting the article.
::I'm not against an etymology section, or a section explaining the difference between smoke and vapor - but using an incorrect term, because some media is unfamiliar with the topic they write about, is silly. --] 16:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I've been through this already with ]. The argument he/she used then was that we should say "smoking" because "vaping" was just industry propaganda. I disagree. YOu cannot smoke something that produces no smoke and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::But things on which you disagree with can still be of value for a reader. ] (] · ] · ]) 07:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Trouble here is that you appear to be starting from a faulty position. The mentions of "smoking" e-cigs only exists because journalists haven't (or hadn't) a clue about the topic they were writing about. What comes out of an e-cigarette is vapor, not smoke. The liquid is evaporated, not combusted. etc. Thus smoke is simply wrong.
:::::With regards to your mention of "industry"... i don't really know what to do with that, since i can't see that there is an "industry" creating such terms - i do see that there is quite a large subculture thing going, where such terms come from.
:::::Finally i can't really see that we can make an etymology section without resorting to ], at this point. --] 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::I see only one remotely usable secondary etymology source . In turn, it cites (and questions) a scarce magazine source at ''New Society'', Volumes 65-66 (1983) New Society Ltd. with neither issue nor page number given. I will inqure at ] to see if anyone can locate that primary source. That Wordspy entry may, however, be indirectly derived from by ]. ] <small>]</small> 18:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, so the early article cited was Rob Stepney "Why Do People Smoke", {{google book|vakpAQAAIAAJ|New Society}}, Volume 65, Number 1080 (28 July 1983) New Society Ltd. pp. 126-128. That piece is snippet view, but it clearly backs the text quoted by Wordspy (and by Wiktionary). ] <small>]</small> 19:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to call it smoking just because some journalists calls it smoking, why not call it what it actually is aswell is since tons of journalist calls it vaping as you can see , , , , and .... Oh... and , and as well.] (]) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


== Cannabis ==
:Inhaling "air" ist breathing, inhaling "tobaccosmoke" is smoking, inhaling an asthma aerosol is "using an asthma inhaler"! So: Inhaling a non-combustible vaporized liquid with nicotine is not "breathing" or "smoking" - It is "vaping"! The Etymology "vaping" is established since 1980 ()--] (]) 11:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


Vaping isn't only for nicotine. I'd like to see this article expanded to include the increasingly common practice of vaping cannabis products. ] (]) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
== Systematic Review not accepted? ==
So... this ?Why? It's a published, peer-reviewed secondary source! --] (]) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::It appears that their are a couple of issues. One was it was a copyright violation. We must paraphrase.
::The other is that it is not pubmed indexed. Will need to look at the whole article. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:::My university carries it. Should be usable with appropriate wording. It does say "Riccardo Polosa is a Professor of Medicine and is supported by the University of Catania, Italy. He has received lecture fees and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl (Milano, Italy), the distributor of Categoria™ e-Cigarettes. His research on electronic cigarettes is currently supported by LIAF (Lega Italiana AntiFumo)." ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:I removed it due to lack of MEDLINE indexing. We have plenty of secondary sources, no need to use sub-optimal ones. ] (]) 00:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure... I can already see what happens here... This is WP, right? Not a political webpage, is'nt it?--] (]) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
::There's no requirement for sources to be either PubMed or MEDLINE indexed.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:::We have better sources on this topic. ] (]) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::"Better" in what way?--]<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I'll second Fergus here, and add the comment that we actually do ''not'' have "plenty of secondary sources", Pubmed search coughs up 70 reviews, where most are non-related (papers such as "Impact of diet and exercise on lipid management in the modern era.") or so old that they are basically useless. --] 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::], it has been a while since I have read ], but is that really something that is supported by policy? MEDLINE indexing isn't the be-all and end-all. This article is listed in ], as a quick search shows me, and there is only a 34% overlap between those two databases (doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098). '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Under "Biomedical journals" in ], "Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE..." This has been a necessary addition to MEDRS due to the proliferation of genuinely bad journals out there. MEDLINE indexing seems to be a fairly low bar to hurdle (crap journals like ''Homeopathy'' are MEDLINE indexed, after all). ] (]) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::::{{reply-to|Yobol}} Thanks for the quote. This is a conversation for a different page, ] or ], but briefly: I disagree with that statement. Nearly every bit of systematic review writing advice, including ], stress that relying on just one database, even MEDLINE, will lead to biased results. Now that is less of an issue for Misplaced Pages than writers of systematic reviews, but the principles are similar. Journals that aren't listed in PubMed but do show up in EMBASE or Web of Science Science Citation Index aren't necessarily unreliable. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Happy to take it to either of the aforementioned talk pages to discuss further. ] (]) 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


:They have different nomenclature and health effects. E-cigarettes replace cigarettes. THC vapes are not intended to simulate cigarettes and are often referred to as vape pens.
== FDA ==
:While all e-cigarettes are based on glycerin and/or propylene glycol, THC vapes usually use an oily substance. ] (] • ] 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


==Even unguided e-cigarette use among smokers unwilling to stop smoking is effective in causing smoking cessation==
Is the FDA website a reliable source? See . ] (]) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
::This would be a position statement from a internationally recognised expert body. So yes ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
::: If I suspected that might be the case then I would not have removed it but clearly the "Adverse Event Reports for e-Cigarettes" section of the FDA page is not a position statement. The section is merely a relaying of information that happens to consist of a summarisation of anecdotal reports. The FDA themselves state that "Whether e-cigarettes caused these reported adverse events is unknown. Some of the adverse events could be related to a pre-existing medical condition or to other causes that were not reported to FDA."


What is this meant to mean?—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::There are various anecdotal yet compelling reports out there of how e-cigarettes have had a positive impact on a person's health, yet obviously we should not introduce those due to their very nature. It is therefore impossible to balance these unconfirmed side-effects with any opposing views due to the fact that firm evidence of either simply does not exist. Whilst I am not saying that absence of an opposing valid source invalidates the original source I do think that we have to be careful to maintain a NPOV. In this case I find it hard to justify alarming, unproven medical reports that would likely remain unchallenged.] (]) 00:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


:It looks like someone read a study, took it as fact, and copied the text into the lead. I've tried to remedy it. ]] 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:In general, the FDA is a reliable source. However, that particular piece of information is a voluntary reporting of possible adverse events (possible form of selection bias) and the FDA has not confirmed any of those events were actually caused by e-cigarettes. I'm not sure it deserves to be included given the tentative nature of the data; if it is included, we have to be sure to note that it is unknown if these events are actually caused by the e-cigarettes (which would argue against even putting it in in the first place). ] (]) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
::It is kind of hard to work out what the point of it is. Right now the article basically says "E-cigs cause all sorts of diseases. Except we're just saying that; there's no evidence."--]<sup>]</sup> 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


==Revert 24th April 2024==
"The FDA has received voluntary reports of ]s involving e-cigarettes which include hospitalization for illnesses such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, disorientation, seizure, hypotension, and other health problems but it is unknown whether e-cigarettes caused these adverse events.<ref>http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm</ref>"
Re: {{diff2|1220517884|this revert}}.


AlexGallon, I can see why you've done this, but with this particular article we need to bear in mind our audience. A substantial proportion of the people who type "electronic cigarette" into the search box are teenagers considering taking a puff—and English isn't necessarily their first language. So the lead of this particular article tries to use the simplest possible grammatical constructions. Short, declarative sentences in the active voice with as few subclauses as possible. We can use college level English in the body text; it's just the lead that needs to be super-accessible.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 08:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As long we are using a reliable source and the text is neutrally written I think it is okay. ] (]) 17:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:But what's the point of it? All it really says is "some people who use e-cigs got ill." Great. Some people who don't use e-cigs got ill too. I honestly can't see what it adds to the article.--]<sup>]</sup> 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


:Understood, and I agree with your reasoning{{snd}}very well explained, so thank you. ] (]) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:I am going to remove it, since it is A) A primary source for this info per ] B) per ] this is just about as poor information as is possible. Without analysis these are simply anecdotal. --] 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I agree, what I don't get is how the information got back there in the first place. In the middle of a dispute, it seems to have reappeared like magic. Anyone know where the diff is? Combined with other things I am beginning to think that there are some genuine issues occurring regarding this article.] (]) 22:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Was reintroduced . --] 23:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't think it should be in the article, and I don't think the other sentence, "Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to evade smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes, which may reinforce delaying or deterring to quit smoking." should be there either. That's incredibly POV, as well as making claims - delaying or deterring smoking cessation - that have been thoroughly disproven.--]<sup>]</sup> 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


== Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes. ==
== New review in Circulation ==


This line is not supported by it's own sources, especially in the context of it's section regarding "gateway drugs". It has a heavy lean towards the negative.
Not sure if anyone has seen this review yet, but it looks pretty good. ] (]) 03:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
: No, it is not pretty good. It is biased and according to Prof. Dr. M. Siegel: "this article is little more than a hatchet job on e-cigarettes." and:
: "To illustrate this, let's consider the five studies which the authors cite as providing evidence that electronic cigarettes inhibit smoking cessation. Presumably, these five studies examined the rate of quitting among smokers who used electronic cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking. Question: Of these five studies, how many examined the rate of smoking cessation among smokers who were trying to quit using electronic cigarettes?"
: Answer: "The rest of the story is that none of these studies examined quit rates among smokers who were trying to quit using e-cigarettes. None of these studies were in fact designed to examine the role of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation in the first place." --] (]) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Circulation is a well respected journal. It is a recent review article. Good find. We can definately use this as a source. Now the blog we can definately not use. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:Have you read the "review" ]? I find the paper questionable, even without looking at Dr. Siegel's blog... First thing that strikes me is: It reads more like policy advice/advocacy than a review, Second thing is how far the "narative" in the paper is from the other reviews that we've examined, Third thing is that the references in the paper seems both incestrous and picked to toe a line (cherry-picking may be too far, but not that far), Fourth the summary of some of the papers do not match well with the description in the papers, and finally the primary authors affiliation is a bit problematic. Now after reading Siegel's commentary, i'm even more critical.
:Yep, it is a ]... but frankly i wouldn't use it for the problems mentioned above, and if using it, then i would say that the ] given to the paper must be small considering these observations. Not everything in RS or MEDRS is good. --] 21:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::Just glanced at it. Read a lot of circulation. It is the journal of the AHA and is very well respected. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Even good journals sometimes print dodgy papers... i'm not questioning the journal at all. --] 23:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


> Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.
Some of the language in the "review" doesn't belong in this article. For example: "Although research is limited, it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed." Research is actually extensive - Glantz just won't acknowledge it unless it matches his views - and the way the sentence is phrased practically accuses e-cig manufacturers and harm reduction advocates of lying.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Suggest changing this to:
There are some fairly opinionated assertions in there such as "E-cigarette advertising on television and radio is mass marketing of an addictive nicotine product". At the same time this is somewhat odd because under the disclosures section it states that "Dr Benowitz is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications".


> There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will try a traditional cigarette at least once in their life.
I also wonder whether a cardiovascular journal is an appropriate place for this review. Very little of the review appears to focus on cardiovascular issues. As an example would the peer reviewers have expert knowledge and experience of propylene glycol breaking down due to heat and forming toxic substances such as acrolein? ] (]) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


---
This review is written by tobacco experts, and reviewed in an appropriate journal (smoking cessation clearly falls under the purview of a cardiovascular journal as a topic). If it is incorrect, there will be plenty of other reviews that will come to the opposite conclusion and we can add those if/when they are published. That specific editors disagrees with the conclusion or specific tone of the source is not a valid reason to rule a source unreliable. ] (]) 03:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::Actually reviewing sources and ] their ] is exactly what we should do. Considering the tone of a source as well as compare it to other reviews, is one of the things that we as editors are supposed to do, no matter whether it is science, medicine, history or politics. In this particular case, the review is written by anti-tobacco advocates, and that tone ''can'' be detected in both their conclusions and their tone.
::Let me state an example from the paper that i don't think has been commented upon by others: In the review they refer to a study by Dr. Farsalinos regarding the cytotoxicity of flavored e-cig concentrates, and give some results as if these were actual e-liquid for consumption... they weren't (i noticed this because i myself was thinking that i should keep away from cinnamon flavor based on a quick reading at the time), in fact these were the basic food-flavoring (in 100 and 50% solution) that were cytotoxic at ''concentrate level'' but not at e-liquid levels (typically with contrate dissolved at 6-20% in PG/VG mix).
::So i'd be very careful in using this review as gospel. --] 23:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:Is it? At least one of the authors is an aeronautical engineer. This is the third study he's produced this year that's attracted ferocious criticism from ''within the tobacco control community'', up to and including accusations of intentional dishonesty, because the conclusions it draws aren't supported by the data. He's making claims about the effectiveness of e-cigs as a quit aid based on studies that didn't ask people if they were using e-cigs as a quit aid. That's activism, not science.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::Your personal opinion of the MEDRS compliant source has no weight in the discussion. ] (]) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Fergus is entitled to their opinion and has explained their reasoning. Whether the source has taken a neutral approach or is a biased position paper is actually relevant in determining whether it is ] compliant. On the other hand stating that it is ] compliant without providing a reason is insufficient in accordance with ].


This source does not even discuss the topic, it is not a research paper related to the discussion: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416
:::I have tried to think of a compromise to address some of the grievances discussed here and there is only one that I can think of at the moment that would keep personal opinions and unreliable sources out of the actual article. This would be that if this source is used then the disclosures should also be added to the article. For example:


The only thing remotely related is from the Author of the study speaking their personal opinion regarding potential ethical concerns, for it to be _potentially_ a gateway drug:
:::++info about study++ One of the authors of the study "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies"] (]) 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


"The growing ubiquity of e-cigarettes lends itself to ethical scrutiny. Many have expressed concern about the potential for e-cigarettes to act as a “gateway” to cigarette smoking.39,40 Unlike other NRTs, e-cigarettes provide a recreational function and could feasibly entice unintended product users (eg, nonsmokers and youth) to engage in smoking-like behavior when they otherwise would not. However, it is unclear how many youth or nonsmokers are purchasing these products."
== Another Cessation Study That Has Been Added ==
See ]. The New York Times has been used as the source which obviously does not really conform with ], the article is I believe based on this press release in the peer-reviewed Addiction journal:
]
The study is not actually published until tomorrow (midnight tonight UK time, which is a couple of hours away). It is not a systematic review but it has been peer-reviewed and renowned UK organisations like University College London and Cancer Research are involved. It also seemingly directly addresses the issue of e-cigarettes and smoking cessation in an area where data in general is lacking at present. Although 6000 people took part, I'm not sure of the quality of the methodology of the study, maybe others can comment here and more will obviously become apparent when its published. The question is should we wait for this to be reviewed or should we keep it? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Consensus so far has been not to use non-] sources (and non-reviews) for information such as this. NYT is certainly not a valid source for this. --] 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:: What do you mean it is not reliable? This is not an article about Medicine, and the article is not attempting to diagnose or treat a disease. ] (]) 22:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:::The survey and the results are medical data - NYT is not a reliable source for interpreting science. It is a reliable source for many other things though. --] 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes we need high quality secondary sources and position statements of major organizations. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
::: That is a very narrow interpretation of policies, and I respectfully disagree with your assessments. ] (]) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::There certainly are some narrow interpretations going on here, such as the utterly baseless claim that to be ] a source has to be PubMed-indexed, but in this case it's reasonable to ask for a better source. .--]<sup>]</sup> 00:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I think it would be better to follow ] and wait until a consensus has developed on this matter rather than descend into a mini-edit war after almost every post. ] (]) 00:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:The NYT article, and the primary journal article are not ] compliant. When this study is reviewed and placed in context by a MEDRS compliant secondary source like a review article, we can include said information. ] (]) 01:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:: My previous post was not a complaint that it had been removed, it was a complaint that the information had been reverted back and forth 4 times in the last 24 hours. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: This approach to argue for WP:MEDRS is totally stupid. This is a survey reported in reliable secondary sources, not an assertion of a cure or a medicine. ] (]) 02:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::The problem is that you have come to the determination that the NYT is a reliable source for medical claims. It is not. ] (]) 03:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've asked several times for someone to show me where MEDRS says primary sources can't be used. Zip. Yes, I know it says they can't be used to rebut secondary sources, but MEDRS does ''not'' say they can't be used at all.--]<sup>]</sup> 03:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:You should stop asking. Everyone knows primary sources are generally not acceptable. Claiming "MEDRS does ''not'' say they can't be used at all" is not the point. We got plenty of good sources. ] (]) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::Exactly, the issue is that primary sources are allowed, but they are generally considered worse as they are less reliable than secondary sources. Therefore they should only be used when there is a lack of secondary sources concerning a topic, and in this case there is no lack. Any perceived lack due to secondary sources only pointing in one direction should be telling for the stance of the medical community at large. ] (] · ] · ]) 09:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::But the secondary sources ''aren't'' all pointing in one direction. I know that's the accepted version here, where WHO FAQs are counted as secondary sources and the Smoking Toolkit Survey isn't, but the evidence is in fact quite conclusive that e-cigs are not an obstacle to smoking cessation. Even Glantz seems to acknowledge this; .--]<sup>]</sup> 12:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::: I quote from the WP e-cigarette article, "The review found no studies that directly measured the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes in smoking cessation". ] (]) 10:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm sure there have been several. The Bullen study, for example, or the Italian one. They consistently find that e-cigs - even cigalikes - are ''at least'' as effective as licensed NRT.--]<sup>]</sup> 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::::: Well the review from my previous quote was published in 2011 so that information may be outdated to some extent. My point was as much intended to illustrate the fact that there is a lack of systematic reviews using direct studies on cessation. So other than position statements which echo this decent primary sources are (mainly) all we have. In fact we already have several primary sources in the article's cessation section.] (]) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


--
Well here is the study anyway which has now been published:
]] (]) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


This source specifically states there is not enough evidence: https://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf
I fail to understand the arguments made here. This study is a survey, not a medical treatment or a quack, or any other medicine-related study. So why are folks here referring to ]???? Enlighten me, please. ] (]) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:Since the survey you are referring to, is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, it is classified as science. And as such a summary from a non-science source wouldn't be reliable, regardless of the general reliability of the non-science source, thus the requirement for ] on such info. Newspapers and other such media are generally very poor at summarizing science and interpreting the results. Other than that, the information is interesting, and hopefully will be covered in a review within a short while, and thus end up being written about here. --] 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:: So the policy you are then invoking is ]? I am still confused, sorry. ] (]) 22:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:: Why we can't quote directly from a peer-reviewed article? ] (]) 22:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:: Per ]: ''Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and '''peer-reviewed publications''', scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually '''the most reliable sources.''' '' ] (]) 22:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:::You can use the peer-reviewed paper as a source. What you can't do is use a newspaper article about the peer-reviewed paper.--]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
::::: OMG, all this discussion for just saying that the NYT article can't be used, but the peer reviewed article can? This is nuts. ] (]) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::According to . User:FergusM1970, you . ] (]) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Regardless of whether removal of the information was right or wrong in this particular case, it must be admitted that ] and ] were not adhered to in the first place. ] was not followed due to editing (adding information) during a dispute before a consensus had been reached (same as the FDA information). ], well that one is obvious to a greater extent but included:
:::::::* Opinions were stated as facts in Misplaced Pages's voice
:::::::* Judgemental, biased language was used, e.g. "to evade smoke-free laws"
:::::::* No attempt was made to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views
:::::::] (]) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::CON was not followed and this was the . Questioning reliable sources again is not productive. ] (]) 23:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I have no intention of commenting on slurs on other editors. However, I politely ask you to consider why these policies might not be being implemented and to respond as they are very important policies, NPOV for example is a "core policy". I am not trying to get into an argument, I am simply trying to improve the article and to do that it is pretty much vital that we are all agreed on following these policies.] (]) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Speaking as the implementor of that block, it was a special circumstance that reflected a long standing issue not fully relevant to this conversation. However, that does not mean that your position is incorrect. ], rather than arguing about whether procedure was followed, can you concisely state what your objections are with the current state of the article? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I think the fact that edits were being made during disputes (] for example where an edit was made which disregarded both the FDA and the Circulation Study disputes) is an important issue to raise and sort out and I still think that there is a case to answer.


Quote (Page 6, point D):
::::::::::However, on the separate issue yes I am quite prepared to clearly define all of my general present objections to the article. Unfortunately I don't have time to right now but I will do this when I get this chance, possibly in a new section as it would probably be more appropriate there.] (]) 13:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


"These data do not allow the conclusions to be drawn as to whether this is a sign
== NPOV Edits ==
of adolescent smokers switching to ENDS, an established pattern of dual use, or a temporary
Hello, I have made some edits to the lead to try to improve on NPOV. I was going to provide a long list of everything that I thought could be improved with the article but I thought it would just be easier to go ahead and start making some changes to see if people agreed that they were suitable. I have not added any new sources here, just done some rewording, removed a couple of things and moved/copied a couple of others around. It's pretty much all listed below anyway.
experimentation fashion. Therefore, in the absence of longitudinal data, existing evidence does
not allow an affirmation or rejection of the role of ENDS in increasing nicotine addiction
among adolescents above existing uptake rates, much less as to whether ENDS lead to smoking
in these countries. Among adults the pattern of dual use seems also the predominant one,
resulting in a reduction of smoked cigarettes and with few never smokers starting to use ENDS
(below 1% of the population)"


--
My main problems with the content of the article are that opinions are commonly stated as facts, the prominence of opposing views of often not represented and on a minority of occasions content is simply plain biased and partial. All of that obviously comes under the umbrella of ].


This source does not draw conclusions, only specifically stating there is a strong correlation between:
If you have a problem with any of what has been done below please reply so we can discuss the issue.


- EVER having used e-cigs and EVER smoking a cigarette (what kind of e-cig use? In passing? Habitual? Etc?)
*"They carry a risk of ] *to non-smokers*".<ref name="WHO2013"/>
Changed (added "to non-smokers") to reflect obvious reality and the actual findings of the study.


- Current users of e-cigs and EVER having smoked a cigarette (this does not support the statement above, it is not a gateway if someone who uses e-cigs tries a cigarrette out of curiosity, nothing else being available, or simply tried it at some point in their life, etc).
*"There are concerns that these products should be adequately regulated, mainly to protect users, while avoiding unintended consequences caused by excessive or inappropriate regulation."
Removed because, in order to reflect the actual conclusions of the study, I would have to change this to something like:
"One study stated that the products should be adequately regulated but that this should be done on the basis of an "enabling framework"
This would have represented a minority opinion within the medical/academic establishment too prominently, particularly in the lead of the article.


"Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up."
*"while some young people who have never smoked cigarettes have tried electronic cigarettes at least once."
Removed because the scenario is so inevitable that it is statistically meaningless. Of course at least one young person in the world somewhere who has never smoked a cigarette has used an electronic cigarette at least once, at least one young person somewhere in the world who has never smoked a cigarette has used every single other drug in existence at least once and done everything else you could possibly imagine. It doesn't add anything to the article, it just creates a vague impression that there is a problem with e-cigarettes and non-smoking young people, which is not proven, particularly internationally.


--
*"One study found that frequency of use has increased with up to 10% of American high school students having ever used electronic cigarettes as of 2012 and around 3.4% of American adults as of 2011."
Removed because they are tabloid statistics, that is the highest, most exaggerated ("ever use"), most shocking (children involved) statistics have been selected. Replaced with an opinion from the same study and an opposing opinion from ASH UK. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::A review article is not a tabloid Thus reverted. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Frequency of use is correlated in that text with ever-use - that ''is'' tabloid usage of statistics. What are your comments on the other changes? And how do you propose solving the perceived POV problem? Reverting back didn't resolve that - did it? --] 16:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
*If someone is already a smoker, they can maintain their addition by using e-cigs thus "to non-smokers" is not really needed. You are correct that the WHO ref didn't support it entirely thus added another ref which supports in those already smoking.
*This is a 2014 review article and is not just the conclusions of "One study"
*There are primary sources that state it is fairly frequent. This second source sees it as notable enough to mention thus there is no concern with us doing the same. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:*When stating "risk of addiction" then it begs the question "to whom" and "by what". This is not written for medical professionals.
:*So read that as "one review stated" - we have several reviews here, who do not agree with each other.
:*Of course there is a concern, particularly because other reviews state that it <u>isn't a concern</u> for instance the Saitta et al(2014) that you mention in your second bullet. I quote ''"Regulatory authorities have expressed concern about e-cigarette use by youngsters or by never smokers, with e-cigarettes becoming a gateway to smoking or becoming a new form of addiction. However, such concerns are unsubstantiated by existing data that e-cigarette use by youngsters is virtually nonexistent unless they are smokers and in fact the use of e-cigarettes may serve as a gateway ‘out’ of smoking ."'' add to this that the British large scale population study finds no statistically significant usage amongst non-smokers (including adolecents)
:What you aren't doing here is addressing the ] which we ''have'' to do when writing in an ] manner. Reviews aren't agreeing - thus there is a significant discordance amongst scholars on some of these issues (for instance usage amongst youth, and the "gateway idea"), and we can't just use whatever fact we find in a review as being gospel. --] 17:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:Let me summerize my comment into: Having a secondary sources stating something does not mean that you can uncritically add that information, a secondary source is only the first tier for making content available for use, you still have to address the ] of the literature, and ] between views based on that. --] 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:: ], please explain why you felt it necessary to revert the whole edit without keeping any of it? You could also have discussed the situation here first to seek a compromise but you didn't. To be honest you seem to miss the whole point that I am trying to improve the NPOV of the article, you seem more interested in justifying a certain POV instead of engaging in this discussion, I hope I am wrong.


The only source (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e045603#T1) which seems to support the lean this statement has, is very unclear with regards to whether the measured effect was "never users becoming habitual tobacco users after using e-cigarrettes", or "former cigarettes users who tried e-cigarettes relapsing to cigarettes", or "never users having _ever_ smoked a cigarette after first using e-cigarettes" and so on. It cannot support the statement it is attempting to. ] (]) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::* With regards to the contents, yes the usage statistics were selected in and presented in a tabloid manner which is why they were removed. If we are going to put those statistics there, then why choose those ones from the Usage Statistics section and not the ones that say "among non-smokers under 18, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice," 0% reported continuing use, and 0% intended to try them in the future" (which of course would be equally biased as your proposal)?


*This is a medical article, so we apply medical sources in accordance with ]. The systematic review and meta-analysis published in the BMJ trumps the WHO paper.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::* "A risk of nicotine addiction" is not the same thing as "maintaining a nicotine addiction which already exists" and this should be made clear if we are the slightest bit interested in presenting the article in an impartial way.
*:Regardless, one source which itself does not claim a gateway effect, only a correlation between vaping and smoking, still does not support this statement. It itself makes no claims to a ‘gateway theory’.
*:Only that vapers will eventually try a cigarette at some point. The heavy lean in the context of that section implies use of one leads to habitual use of the other. There is _no_ evidence to support this. ] (]) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm afraid I read the source very differently. It says: {{tq|meta-analysis showed e-cigarette users were much more likely than non-users to go on to smoke combustible cigarettes, even after adjusting for covariates}}, and {{tq|meta-analysis showed a markedly higher odds of combustible cigarette use in those who had used e-cigarettes}}.{{pb}}My position is that the first of those is not a claim of a correlation. It's a claim that vapers ''go on'' to smoke tobacco, and the sequence is clear: first they vape, then they become more likely to start smoking. "Gateway" is a reasonable way to summarize this.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 23:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::You are implying causation, when there is only correlation. A "gateway" must in itself be the cause, but as we all know, people do not start smoking because they start smoking. The evidence is unclear, and that is clear. ] (]) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::For example, I could find a strong correlation between those who drink water, and those who eat food. People who eat food at the start of their life are 9001x more likely to drink water, and people who start drinking water in their life are extremely likely to also begin to eat food. However, neither of these things are caused by each other.
*::::There is simply too many other factors here to suggest that e-cigarrette usage is _the_ cause of later tobacco usage. ] (]) 23:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The article doesn't say it's _the_ cause. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation, and in my view the BMJ source is clearly claiming the latter and not the former, so there doesn't seem to be much possibility of us agreeing about this.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 08:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I do not believe that making alarmist statements based on personal interpretations of semantics is valid documentation, reporting, or science.
*::::::Given the three other sources mentioned do not even remotely appear to agree, or are not even remotely related to the topic, it seems very clear that statement was ham fisted in with an intended bias. I’m not sure how that’s not very obvious to you. ] (]) 12:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Well, hang on. This article does have quite a number of phrasing problems, and there's definitely a lot of hamfisted language.{{pb}}The article was started by a problematic editor, who is now not allowed to edit any medical articles at all. There was quite a lot of drama about him. The article needs properly checking and rewriting. That's an exercise I've been slowly chiselling away at for years and will continue when I get the opportunity.{{pb}}I won't make the specific edit you ask for, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to you and it doesn't mean I oppose other changes. I would particularly welcome proposals that make the article more accessible (reduce the reading age, simplify convoluted sentences, but without simplifying the underlying thoughts), and I'd also welcome proposals to replace poor sources with meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in medical journals. I do expect you'll be able to find places where previous editors have been unduly skeptical about e-cigarettes, and I do hope to work with you to fix them.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 ==
::* With regards to the review article, great if you found a valid source, I have no problem with that. Now you found a source, how about we represent the opposing minority point of view as of ] in the original source somewhere in the article which states:
::‘there is place for regulation, but it should be to create an “enabling framework” for these new, much less risky, alternatives to smoking to enter the market in a way that gives consumers confidence in switching from smoking’


{{edit semi-protected|Electronic cigarette|answered=yes}}
::* I propose we revert back to my edit eventually with whatever compromises are necessary because I think the revert by ] was unjustified.] (]) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.
:::per ] let us finish the discussion first. You were bold, Doc James reverted, and now we'll discuss it for a bit :) --] 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We state "They carry a risk of nicotine addiction" to what is obviously "nicotine". Have clarified to "They carry a risk of nicotine addiction in those who do not already smoke, and possibly continue addition in those who already smoke." ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggest changing this to:
:::{{ec}}*"Who do not already smoke"? That would indicate that you believe that vaping is smoking. Should be rewritten - non-smokers is significantly more clear.

:::*Do they really carry such an "addition"? What refs are you using for that. (for instance the Saitta et al(2014) states that such concerns seem to be unfounded). What is the weight?
There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will attempt a traditional cigarette at least once in their life
:::*Do we have such concerns mentioned in the lede on other nicotine replacement products? Why not? Iirc the Cochrane review states that such is a concern for NRTs. Is it because they are medical products?

:::--] 19:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
See talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette ] (]) 23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::This "among non-smokers under 18, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice," 0% reported continuing use, and 0% intended to try them in the future" (which of course would be equally biased as your proposal)?" is from a primary source. Should really be removed from the article but definately should not be in the lead. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

:::I do not see that in the lede, but in the usage statistics section. And it is a secondary source from a major British health organization (ASH). --] 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
*Not done. I'll reply in the other section you started, explaining why.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The proposal seems to be to put it in the lead and it is a single survey done by ASH. It is not published in a journal. And major, I'm not so sure. This article does comment on it though ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:26, 30 September 2024

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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: 3 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccupational Safety and Health Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPharmacology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs
          Page history
Former good article nomineeElectronic cigarette was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 27, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Regulation of electronic cigarettes. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Regulation of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Nicotine was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette with this edit on 12:42 24 January 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Usage of electronic cigarettes. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Effects of electronic cigarettes on human brain development. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Electronic cigarette was copied or moved into 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Usage of electronic cigarettes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cannabis

Vaping isn't only for nicotine. I'd like to see this article expanded to include the increasingly common practice of vaping cannabis products. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They have different nomenclature and health effects. E-cigarettes replace cigarettes. THC vapes are not intended to simulate cigarettes and are often referred to as vape pens.
While all e-cigarettes are based on glycerin and/or propylene glycol, THC vapes usually use an oily substance. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Even unguided e-cigarette use among smokers unwilling to stop smoking is effective in causing smoking cessation

What is this meant to mean?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone read a study, took it as fact, and copied the text into the lead. I've tried to remedy it. Reconrabbit 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert 24th April 2024

Re: this revert.

AlexGallon, I can see why you've done this, but with this particular article we need to bear in mind our audience. A substantial proportion of the people who type "electronic cigarette" into the search box are teenagers considering taking a puff—and English isn't necessarily their first language. So the lead of this particular article tries to use the simplest possible grammatical constructions. Short, declarative sentences in the active voice with as few subclauses as possible. We can use college level English in the body text; it's just the lead that needs to be super-accessible.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and I agree with your reasoning – very well explained, so thank you. AlexGallon (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.

This line is not supported by it's own sources, especially in the context of it's section regarding "gateway drugs". It has a heavy lean towards the negative.

> Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.

Suggest changing this to:

> There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will try a traditional cigarette at least once in their life.

---

This source does not even discuss the topic, it is not a research paper related to the discussion: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416

The only thing remotely related is from the Author of the study speaking their personal opinion regarding potential ethical concerns, for it to be _potentially_ a gateway drug:

"The growing ubiquity of e-cigarettes lends itself to ethical scrutiny. Many have expressed concern about the potential for e-cigarettes to act as a “gateway” to cigarette smoking.39,40 Unlike other NRTs, e-cigarettes provide a recreational function and could feasibly entice unintended product users (eg, nonsmokers and youth) to engage in smoking-like behavior when they otherwise would not. However, it is unclear how many youth or nonsmokers are purchasing these products."


--

This source specifically states there is not enough evidence: https://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf

Quote (Page 6, point D):

"These data do not allow the conclusions to be drawn as to whether this is a sign of adolescent smokers switching to ENDS, an established pattern of dual use, or a temporary experimentation fashion. Therefore, in the absence of longitudinal data, existing evidence does not allow an affirmation or rejection of the role of ENDS in increasing nicotine addiction among adolescents above existing uptake rates, much less as to whether ENDS lead to smoking in these countries. Among adults the pattern of dual use seems also the predominant one, resulting in a reduction of smoked cigarettes and with few never smokers starting to use ENDS (below 1% of the population)"

--

This source does not draw conclusions, only specifically stating there is a strong correlation between:

- EVER having used e-cigs and EVER smoking a cigarette (what kind of e-cig use? In passing? Habitual? Etc?)

- Current users of e-cigs and EVER having smoked a cigarette (this does not support the statement above, it is not a gateway if someone who uses e-cigs tries a cigarrette out of curiosity, nothing else being available, or simply tried it at some point in their life, etc).

"Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up."

--

The only source (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/3/e045603#T1) which seems to support the lean this statement has, is very unclear with regards to whether the measured effect was "never users becoming habitual tobacco users after using e-cigarrettes", or "former cigarettes users who tried e-cigarettes relapsing to cigarettes", or "never users having _ever_ smoked a cigarette after first using e-cigarettes" and so on. It cannot support the statement it is attempting to. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  • This is a medical article, so we apply medical sources in accordance with WP:MEDRS. The systematic review and meta-analysis published in the BMJ trumps the WHO paper.—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Regardless, one source which itself does not claim a gateway effect, only a correlation between vaping and smoking, still does not support this statement. It itself makes no claims to a ‘gateway theory’.
    Only that vapers will eventually try a cigarette at some point. The heavy lean in the context of that section implies use of one leads to habitual use of the other. There is _no_ evidence to support this. J. Christ Denton (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I read the source very differently. It says: meta-analysis showed e-cigarette users were much more likely than non-users to go on to smoke combustible cigarettes, even after adjusting for covariates, and meta-analysis showed a markedly higher odds of combustible cigarette use in those who had used e-cigarettes.My position is that the first of those is not a claim of a correlation. It's a claim that vapers go on to smoke tobacco, and the sequence is clear: first they vape, then they become more likely to start smoking. "Gateway" is a reasonable way to summarize this.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    You are implying causation, when there is only correlation. A "gateway" must in itself be the cause, but as we all know, people do not start smoking because they start smoking. The evidence is unclear, and that is clear. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    For example, I could find a strong correlation between those who drink water, and those who eat food. People who eat food at the start of their life are 9001x more likely to drink water, and people who start drinking water in their life are extremely likely to also begin to eat food. However, neither of these things are caused by each other.
    There is simply too many other factors here to suggest that e-cigarrette usage is _the_ cause of later tobacco usage. J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    The article doesn't say it's _the_ cause. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation, and in my view the BMJ source is clearly claiming the latter and not the former, so there doesn't seem to be much possibility of us agreeing about this.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I do not believe that making alarmist statements based on personal interpretations of semantics is valid documentation, reporting, or science.
    Given the three other sources mentioned do not even remotely appear to agree, or are not even remotely related to the topic, it seems very clear that statement was ham fisted in with an intended bias. I’m not sure how that’s not very obvious to you. J. Christ Denton (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, hang on. This article does have quite a number of phrasing problems, and there's definitely a lot of hamfisted language.The article was started by a problematic editor, who is now not allowed to edit any medical articles at all. There was quite a lot of drama about him. The article needs properly checking and rewriting. That's an exercise I've been slowly chiselling away at for years and will continue when I get the opportunity.I won't make the specific edit you ask for, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to you and it doesn't mean I oppose other changes. I would particularly welcome proposals that make the article more accessible (reduce the reading age, simplify convoluted sentences, but without simplifying the underlying thoughts), and I'd also welcome proposals to replace poor sources with meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in medical journals. I do expect you'll be able to find places where previous editors have been unduly skeptical about e-cigarettes, and I do hope to work with you to fix them.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

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

Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes.

Suggest changing this to:

There is little evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to traditional smoking at present, and further research is needed to clarify the strength and veracity of any correlations between the two. However, evidence does suggest that those who have smoked e-cigarettes will attempt a traditional cigarette at least once in their life

See talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette J. Christ Denton (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: