Revision as of 05:13, 3 July 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Image of Cloud chasing: Confirmed image of cloud-chasing.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:26, 30 September 2024 edit undoRena1425 (talk | contribs)4 editsNo edit summary | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |
{{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Technology}} | {{WikiProject Technology}} | ||
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{banner holder|text=Page history|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{Controversial}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
{{old peer review|archive=1}} | |||
| action1 = PR | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| action1date = 10 November 2009 | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Electronic cigarette/archive1 | |||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| action1result = Reviewed | |||
|counter = 25 | |||
| action1oldid = 325071387 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| action2 = GAN | |||
|algo = old(14d) | |||
| 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=14 |units=days }} | |||
{{Copied|from=Regulation of electronic cigarettes|to=Electronic cigarette}} | |||
{{connected contributor|KimDabelsteinPetersen|Electronic cigarette|declared=yes|other links= COI declared }} | |||
{{Copied|from=Nicotine|from_oldid=879345406|to=Electronic cigarette|to_diff=880141608|to_oldid=877905653|date=12:42 24 January 2019|small=}} | |||
{{COI editnotice}} | |||
{{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}} | |||
== 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) | |||
Another bold coat rack ].] (]) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Cannabis == | |||
*], your directly led to . It is a good start. This list is similar to other lists like ] and ]. ] (]) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (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) | |||
*Discussion for page move. See ]. ] (]) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (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. | |||
== Slow edit-war without arguments... == | |||
: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== | |||
Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what ] is about, and what ] tells us. | |||
What is this meant to mean?—] <small>]/]</small> 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store. | |||
: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) | |||
So please discuss. --] 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:An image of a vape shop adds tremendous value. ] (]) 21:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Which value? I could have bought your argument if there had been characteristics in the picture of a building that were different from any other business building. But if you want a picture of a vapeshop - then find one that shows a vapeshop from the inside or at the very least has some qualities that make it stand out as being a vapeshop. --] 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Or is your point with the picture that vapeshops look exactly like any other type of shop from the outside? Because that is the only "take away" message i get from it. --] 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The name of the shop on the building shows it is clearly a vape shop. That what makes it special. ] (]) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::So it is the logo/"brand" sign of the shop that is the interesting part? Isn't that against our policies or at least our guidelines (])? --] 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The name clarifies it is a unique shop. It is very interesting to see an actual vape shop. ] (]) 21:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Once more. Are you are stating that the logo/"brand" here is the reason that you picked this picture? And not any other characteristics? If that is the case, then it is advertising - even if you do not (which i do not suspect you to) have that intension. --] 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It has all the characteristics of a vape shop. A building with a vape shop inside. It is a high-quality image. This is very clear. ] (]) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Please answer the question i stated above. And "high-quality image" is not an argument in itself. A building with a "vape shop" inside, is not an argument either. The overwhelming thing here is that there is nothing outside of the logo/"brand" that is special about the image. Thus it becomes, albeit inadvertently, advertising... and ] is rather clear there: We shouldn't have such. --] 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It is a simple picture of a vape shop. The image represents what a typical vape shop looks like. The non-controversial thing here is that this is what a vape shop is. It is in a building like other businesses. The name on the shop is a generic name. ] (]) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::If the only typical characteristic of what a vape shop looks like is their sign/logo/"brand" on a building, then it doesn't have encyclopedic value. The only value then is to present the sign/logo/"brand". --] 21:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::It adds value because now the reader knows what a vape shop looks like. ] (]) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Unless our readers are dim-witted, they already know that shops are located in buildings. This image brings no encyclopedic value. The only thing that differentiates it from any other picture of a business is the sign/logo/"brand" - thus once more: It is advertising. --] 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::A vape shop from the outside is not a fancy customized building like a movie theater. ] (]) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Bingo! That is why it is only the sign/logo/"brand" that differentiates this from any other shop - and therefore an outside picture is nothing more than inadvertent marketing. --] 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::: "dim-witted" is what I thought when I (finally after it was introduced) removed the image. W/o caption, one would not even know what it is w/o blowing it up and I'm talking about a 22 inch screen with standard resolution. It's sooo sad that we even have to discuss such clear cut non issue nonsense but meat and false loyalties demand wasting time on such. What a pity mess and shame.] (]) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)<br>But then again, brains don't mean shit and we're on the internet...] (]) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Revert 24th April 2024== | |||
:Just to be clear: I am not in any way against a picture of a vape shop - it just has to have some characteristic outside of a logo/"brand" that presents to our readers that it is a vape shop. A picture from the inside of such a shop would be very good, and such a picture can be done without being overly promotional. Google image search on "vape shop" shows lots of that kind of images - we just need one that can be used within our copyright restrictions. --] 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Re: {{diff2|1220517884|this revert}}. | |||
::It should be easy to find such an image. ] (]) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
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.—] <small>]/]</small> 08:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::If so, why don't you go for it or did so in the first place instead of picking a ready to use invaluable image?] (]) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::We can also include an image from inside a vape shop. Both inside and outside is the best approach IMO. ] (]) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::For the reason specified above: No, it is not. At least not unless you present an outside photo that is not indistinguishable from marketing. --] 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::I have searched and looked at other images of vape shops. This is what they look like from the outside. ] (]) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Then the outside of vape-shops is uninteresting, and nothing special => no encyclopedic value. On the other hand: The insides of a vape-shop differs quite alot - so that would be interesting => have encyclopedic value. --] 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You searched with your darkest sunglasses on, didn't you? . Note that 8 of them are even in the same city! Still think "that's how they look like"? And to Kim's observation, yes, the inside would be much more informative.] (]) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::All of them suffer under being either non-descript, or the sign/logo/brand being the major aspect of the picture. We need something that is A) not confused with advertising/marketing B) sufficiently descriptive of a vape-shop. And as far as i can see, that would only be handled with a picture from the inside, with for instance focus on a vape-bar or the like. --] 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Understood, and I agree with your reasoning{{snd}}very well explained, so thank you. ] (]) 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Since I couldn't find any free and fitting images on a search I just did, . A picture from a Brazilian store or lounge would also cancel out pretty much any potential advertising claims.] (]) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes. == | |||
I don't think it is a . The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. ] (]) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:It's not worse either and the result of a misunderstanding of what we're looking for. I clarified at .] (]) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think we looking for another image of a vape shop from the outside. Since the new image is somewhat of a distraction we should go back to the previous image. ] (]) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
> Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go on to also smoke traditional cigarettes. | |||
:::There is no freakin' "distraction". The image is just as good or bad as the previous one. You really want to argue about that image now? There is no deadline here and "your personally picked image" back in would be nothing else but disruptive.] (]) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::A big red sign is a "distraction". ] (]) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Suggest changing this to: | |||
Other editors restored the image that was deleted. ] (]) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
> 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. | |||
:Yeah, some meat joint the editwar. Are you calling for a continuation now?] (]) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
--- | |||
:::Quote: ] tells us, and what ] informs us. The name Vapor Shack is also a big logo which is also distracting.''"]<br>Your edits are not the status quo and if you go by BRD, then your edit was challenged in the first place. Banana my friend, banana. But don't worry, I'm sure meat is on it's way to make a silly pity revert.] (]) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm not sure your position. Do you prefer the or the or you have no preference? ] (]) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
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 | |||
{{OD}}There might be a with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. ] (]) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
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: | |||
:*There can't possibly be a copyright issue over two words used as a trading name. There might conceivably be a trademark issue if the logos are similar, but that's none of Misplaced Pages's concern. Editors should use whichever image they prefer in this case, or consider using no image at all on the grounds that a snapshot of an independent vape shop on a high street somewhere is only very tangentially related to the economics of e-cigarettes.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
::* A trademark issue is a concern. The company could be violating Radio shack's trademark. Misplaced Pages should not be propagating the possible issue. I also think the previous image is better. ] (]) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::*On comparing the logos I see there's no similarity and no cause for concern. Even if there was, Misplaced Pages has no policy or guideline that would require us to protect Radio Shack's trademarks.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:31, 27 June 2015 (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." | |||
==Reverted this == | |||
The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. ] (] · ] · ]) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== The nicotyrine hypothesis == | |||
-- | |||
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 ] (]) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:So What? ] (]) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
This source specifically states there is not enough evidence: https://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf | |||
== Image of Cloud chasing == | |||
Quote (Page 6, point D): | |||
Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. ] (]) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The image is a large plume of vapor (and part of the name of the image has cloud chasing in it). The source is for context for the readers. It is better to discuss rather than deleting this useful image first IMO. ] (]) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::''"A large plume of vapor"'' != Cloudchasing. Deleting the image is appropriate because it is not an image of cloudchasing. --] 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your other "potential image" is not cloudchasing either... The wording "useful image" is completely inappropriate in this context, since it is not useful for the purpose. --] 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: is even a larger plume of vapor. This is an image cloud-chasing IMO. ] (]) | |||
::::No, it is not an image of cloudchasing. It is not the size of the plume that defines cloudchasing, but the context within which it is being done. And sitting on a staircase on just vaping with alot of VG is not such a context. It would generally be nice if you took the time to actually inform yourself about the topic, instead of guessing. --] 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Cloud-chasing is also done at an amateur level. Not everyone is a professional. ] (]) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Wow, did you come up with that yourself? There is just a bit of a problem here, even when it is done on an amateur level, it is still done within a context. Cloudchasing is the contest of creating the biggest clouds possible, bigger than the last you made, not just the act of blowing out big clouds. | |||
::::::Btw. which reliable source are you referring to when making these assertions/claims? --] 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::"Vapers preferring this variety, many of whom refer to themselves as “cloud chasers,” sometimes participate in cloud-blowing contests for cash." There are contents but... | |||
:::::::"Some cloud chasers flaunt it, showing off their cloud-making ability where anyone and everyone can see." ...some like to flaunt it in public. ] (]) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. ] (]) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The first image is a large plume of aerosol. The second image is even a larger plume of aerosol. This is non-controversial. We don't need to include a "professional vapor" blowing extremely large plumes of e-smoke. ] (]) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: "a large plume of" vapor doesn't necessarily indicate cloud chasing. Cloud chasing is about seeking a large plume of vapor intentionally. Some set ups produce a large cloud under certain circumstances, such as in humid environments. Also neither of the plumes shown are the size or shape of a typical cloud chasing plume which is a long tight cone. The firt isn't even a particularly large exhale and would be typical to most high glycerin users with a tank. The second might indicate a slightly higher than average wattage as well but to call either of them cloud chasing is merely opinion. Seek a sourced picture and back away from claiming any plume of vapor is cloud chasing.] (]) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The is categorised under "Cloud Chasing". See under tags for the categorisation. See too. Therefore, it ''is'' a confirmed image of cloud-chasing. Imagine that! ] (]) 05:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
"These data do not allow the conclusions to be drawn as to whether this is a sign | |||
==Known unknowns== | |||
of adolescent smokers switching to ENDS, an established pattern of dual use, or a temporary | |||
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
experimentation fashion. Therefore, in the absence of longitudinal data, existing evidence does | |||
:The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. ] (]) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
not allow an affirmation or rejection of the role of ENDS in increasing nicotine addiction | |||
::I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
among adolescents above existing uptake rates, much less as to whether ENDS lead to smoking | |||
:::The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a . ] (]) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
in these countries. Among adults the pattern of dual use seems also the predominant one, | |||
::::You are aware that both inserting '''and''' removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --] 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
resulting in a reduction of smoked cigarettes and with few never smokers starting to use ENDS | |||
:::::Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. ] (]) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
(below 1% of the population)" | |||
::::::Who "highly value" that text? --] 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. ] (]) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
-- | |||
:::::::It's really ] who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.<p>However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::We had a RfC on this very issue. See ]. The consensus is to use such information on the article. This is normal practice across Misplaced Pages to include the known unknowns. ] (]) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
This source does not draw conclusions, only specifically stating there is a strong correlation between: | |||
:::::::::No, it really isn't, QG. It's relatively normal to include ''significant'' known unknowns. We don't know how to replicate spider silk, and that fact is rightly mentioned in ] because it's significant for engineering and textiles. We don't know whether the ] is correct, and that fact is rightly mentioned in the article because it's one of the most significant unsolved mathematical problems for the 21st century. But it's not at all normal to mention all the known unknowns in articles about medical and semi-medical devices. The word "unknown" does not appear anywhere in ], ], ], or ]. It does appear once in ]. But this article includes it ''seven times'', including one place where we say it in three successive sentences. And they're bizarrely specific sentences as well.<p>What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says ''The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown''. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.<p>I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Misplaced Pages being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::After reading the source again I tweaked the wording. ] (]) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
- EVER having used e-cigs and EVER smoking a cigarette (what kind of e-cig use? In passing? Habitual? Etc?) | |||
:While I see there is a point past where it is not useful, discussion of "known unknowns" is an important part of an encyclopedia article, when it is established by high quality secondary sources. If high quality secondary sources feels it is important to mention, I think it is relevant here. ] (]) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Absolutely, the disagreement here is not all known unknowns but those which are extremely speciic and of little value but emotional scaremongering and or cannot be put into good english. The three claims under dispute are exactly that. | |||
- 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). | |||
"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." | |||
"The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." | |||
"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 impact of e-cigarette use by children on ] is unknown." | |||
There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. ] (]) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
-- | |||
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) | |||
*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.—] <small>]/]</small> 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. ] (]) 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.—] <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.—] <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.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Electronic cigarette|answered=yes}} | |||
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 ] (]) 23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Not done. I'll reply in the other section you started, explaining why.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:39, 16 July 2024 (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. |
|
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page history | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
, andmeta-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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm afraid I read the source very differently. It says:
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)
- Not done. I'll reply in the other section you started, explaining why.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Health and fitness articles
- Low-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Low-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- B-Class pharmacology articles
- Low-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review