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.
* Cloud chasing is more of a social / cultural aspect of e-cigs than a construction aspect IMO. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
* Cloud chasing is more of a social / cultural aspect of e-cigs than a construction aspect IMO. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. How to make an e-cig produce a large cloud of vapor is not about construction. The ] section does have enough information about cloud chasing. The extra details about cloud-chasing merits its own article, as more sources continue to become available. If the ] page was AFDed I am sure more editors will look for sources and that could result in expanding the page. ] (]) 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. How to make an e-cig produce a large cloud of vapor is not about construction. The ] section does have enough information about cloud chasing. The extra details about cloud-chasing merits its own article, as more sources continue to become available. If the ] page was AFDed I am sure more editors will look for sources and that could result in expanding the page. ] (]) 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:Clearly you know very little about cloud chasing then, which would probably explain why the article describes cloud chasing as a "competition". ] springs to mind. In any case cloud chasing is achieved by customizing the design or overall construction of the device as set out in the usage section of the cloud chasing article. Traditionally mechanical mods and rebuildable atomizers (RDAs) were used to achieve this, but high powered regulated mods are becoming more popular. Either way the RDA is constructed by the user themselves in a way that provides the least possible resistence across the atomizer, whilst needing to take into account the fact that low resistances pose potential electrical hazards. If that isn't related to construction then I don't know what is. With regards to sources, there doesn't appear to be many, if any high quality ones on the subject that are required to meet the notability criteria.] (]) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
::Clearly you know very little about cloud chasing then, which would probably explain why the article describes cloud chasing as a "competition". ] springs to mind. In any case cloud chasing is achieved by customizing the design or overall construction of the device as set out in the usage section of the cloud chasing article. Traditionally mechanical mods and rebuildable atomizers (RDAs) were used to achieve this, but high powered regulated mods are becoming more popular. Either way the RDA is constructed by the user themselves in a way that provides the least possible resistance across the atomizer, whilst needing to take into account the fact that low resistances pose potential electrical hazards. If that isn't related to construction then I don't know what is. With regards to sources, there doesn't appear to be many, if any high quality ones on the subject that are required to meet the notability criteria.] (]) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
What would be interesting is if you could elaborate your question/complaint/comment in English here on the talk page rather than post 3 diffs of a collection of edits with no commentary. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Although it's difficult to tell I think QG is publicly patting themselves on the back for fixing a minor error. Nothing particularly interesting about that.Levelledout (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting he's patting himself on the back for removing citation need tags within 3 minutes of them being added, by none other than quackguru. SPACKlick (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The word youth is sourced in accordance with V
"More than a quarter of a million youth who had never smoked a cigarette used electronic cigarettes in 2013, according to a CDC study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research. This number reflects a three-fold increase, from about 79,000 in 2011, to more than 263,000 in 2013." I made this change to fix the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It may be sourced, but it doesn't belong there. WP:V applies to facts and ideas, not to individual word choices and indeed duplicating a source's wording too closely is plagiarism. The word is incongruous in context and should be rephrased.—S MarshallT/C20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I rephrased another sentence in the same section. I don't think the CDC sentence is plagiarised. I prefer we use the wording "youth". I don't have any specific suggestion for rephrasing it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
An assertion that "I prefer we use the wording 'Youth'" carries no weight since it is devoid of any justification as to why we should do. The relevant question is why change it in the first place inspite of being repeatedly told by multiple editors that WP:V is not about matching individual words which is known as plagarism? Particularly when the words mean the same thing.Levelledout (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I do think an individual word choice could be a WP:V issue in some cases, and there might well be times when we did want to quote the source very exactly and precisely. I just don't think this is one of those times.—S MarshallT/C18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 article uses the word youth (PMID 25143298). The 2013 CDC report uses the word youth and a 2015 review found "Of particular concern is that similar trends are observed among youth. According to a report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 263,000 youths in grades 6 to 12 tried ECs in 2013, a 3-fold increase from 2011.8" The experts use the word "youth". QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Quack, what do you think it detracts to use a term more common to the reader than a term which is defined in a way not entirely similar to that in which the reader uses it? SPACKlick (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the different sentences and used a high-quality review for the text. The text is now "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The wording has been tweaked again. "Since their introduction to the market in 2004, global usage has risen." QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Two problems - the first is the breaker: It is a primary source. The second is that you are interpolating a cell study to macroscale. --Kim D. Petersen15:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Rupert loup we typically only use high quality secondary sources such as review articles published by major journals and position statements by nationally or internationally recognized bodies. We do not use the popular press such as ScienceDaily or primary sources, especially for controversial topics such as this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Published under circulation which says: "Statements, opinions, and results of studies published in Circulation are those of the authors and do not reflect the policy or position of the American Heart Association, and the American Heart Association provides no warranty as to their accuracy or reliability." Strange but funny.--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really. You have two entities 1) the journal Circulation which publishes papers from lot of people most of which do not represent a AHA position 2) occasionally they do publish stuff that does such as this AHA policy statement Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't find the image to provide significant information or benefit to the section on motivation. Cloudjpk disagrees I'd appreciate opinions. SPACKlick (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the image provides good information for the section. There is a lot of debate about e-cigs used in places where there are smoking bans. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what significant additional beneficial information the image provides to the reader on top of what is already provided in prose in this section?--TMCk (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Another image
Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.
The only images that would make sense (if at all) would be showing someone actually vaping in front of such sign to circumvent the law.--TMCk (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what significant additional beneficial information the image provides to the reader on top of what is already provided in prose in this section?--TMCk (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The point of these images is to violate NPOV and give undue weight to a specific point. Why not replace the no smoking sign with a picture of a broken cigarette and the caption "Common reasons people use e-cigarettes is to cut down or quit smoking"? That's not a serious suggestion by the way but one to prove a point about how the current image is being used.Levelledout (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.
I've thought about this some more and since we say in the article that "Most users' motivation is related to quitting" perhaps we actually should use the image on the right hand side which is far more relevant and does not give undue weight to the "circumvention" issue. What are other editors' positions on this?Levelledout (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That image is of course just as non-beneficial as the one discussed and just representing another (opposite) pointy viewpoint. It's a good argument against the existing image tho.--TMCk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That was my initial thought. But without wanting to repeat myself, if the main motivation for e-cig use is related to quitting or cutting down tobacco use then wouldn't this image be justified and unlike the no smoking sign, simply illustrating the main point? I accept that any image used in this particular situation could be considered "pointy" to some degree or another but looking at it from the neutral perspective that certain editors seem incapable of, this one would seem less pointy. The only alternative is to use no image whatsoever. I'm OK with that option to be honest since there's far too much general pointyness surrounding this article. I think an RFC would be appropriate if the issue cannot be resolved through this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not acceptable, I have removed it. Allow consensus to develop instead of jumping ahead and making changes without it. If you have an idea suggest it here instead.Levelledout (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Propose text for Frequency section
The source said "Use has been reported to mirror similar variables however other research suggests that despite hearing of such products less often than their males counterparts, female current smokers with less than a high school education and of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to ever have tried an e-cigarette."
Proposed text:
Current female traditional cigarette users who did not graduate from high school and of low socioeconomic status are more likely to have used an e-cigarette.<ref name=Sanford2014/> Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
For starters, there is a big difference between "low" and "lower" and same for "ever have tried" and "to have used". Needs rephrasing and/or quotes should be used if it goes in, after discussion is concluded.--TMCk (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in overly academic language, by which I mean, semi-comprehensible gobbledigook. Science would be much more widely understood ---- and charlatans would be much poorer! ---- if scientists were taught to write decent English prose that normal people use instinctively. But no, scientists always write in horrendously tortuous passive-voice constructions and latin-derived words. English is best written in short Germanic words using short sentences in the simple declarative. As encyclopaedia editors it's our role to turn that horrible scientific prose into something the general reader will easily take on board.
Come on, I'll help you get started. "Current female traditional cigarette users" --> "Women who smoke". Can you do the rest?—S MarshallT/C05:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can add a quote for now. Proposal: A 2014 review found "female current smokers with less than a high school education and of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to ever have tried an e-cigarette."QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a real improvement. I think you don't need "current". If you meant "female former smokers" you'd say "women who used to smoke", and if you meant "female current and former smokers" you'd say "women who have smoked", so "women who smoke" isn't ambiguous. The way I'd personally put it is "Women who smoke and who are poorer, or did not finish school, are more likely to have tried vaping." I think the general-interest reader will find that more accessible.—S MarshallT/C22:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't really agree that it's too general, but I would welcome other phrasings that are a little pithier than the text first suggested.—S MarshallT/C07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. The underlying fact, which nobody disputes, is that e-cigarette use by people in their teens and early twenties is ballooning. The undue weight issue is that we repeat this underlying fact four times, in four slightly different ways, with four slightly different sources, in four separate places ---- thereby giving it a great deal of emphasis through sheer repetition. What we should do is have one (1) sentence saying that e-cigarette use by young people is ballooning and put all four sources after it.
There are many other instances of undue weight by repetition in this article, by the way. This is happening because editors are building the article by finding a source, hunting through it for factlets, closely summarising exactly what the source says about the factlets, dumping the factlets into the article (sourcing them very carefully indeed), and then grouping what seem to be related sentences together. I've explained before that this is not the way to build a decent encyclopaedia article.—S MarshallT/C04:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that with the patently obvious, that we should not repeat ourselves 4 times in different places. There's another problem, and this is systemic throughout the article - undue weight given to US data and stating US data as world-wide figures.Levelledout (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to me. I mean, I'm not exactly a big fan of the USA, Levelledout ---- I've never set foot in the country and I never intend to ---- but they have large academic community and a large population so a large proportion of the data comes from there.—S MarshallT/C12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we're the best. We can shit studies and everything else en mass, and when we're low on shit we're making shit up and most inhabitants of this planet buy it anyways, no questions asked b/c if they open their mouth, you know where the shit goes to shut them up :P --TMCk (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"E-cigarette use is rapidly growing in young adults." Young adults is different than youth, young people or teenagers. Therefore, it is not duplication. This is a different age group than people under 21.
"In 2013 the CDC found a threefold increase from 2011 in youth who have vaped but never smoked. Between 2013 and 2014, use of e-cigarettes by US teenagers tripled." These two sentences are different. The first sentence is about young people in the US who tried an e-cigarette but never have smoked, while the other sentence is about young people in the US who use e-cigarettes. Different sources are stating different things about young people.
"Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes,..." This is about young people is general not the US. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand that. It doesn't affect what I'm saying, though. We have four slightly different statistical statements and I fully accept that they have slightly different meanings to a scientist or statistician, but for a general readership they boil down to the same basic point, which is that use among teenagers and young adults is ballooning.—S MarshallT/C19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't see a clear consensus coming out of this old discussion but either way, we have plenty of good newer sources to use so I see no need to rehash but rather to lean towards more up-to-date sourcing in this rapidly evolving topic.--TMCk (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Was there a reason this topic was posted to the talk page, if there is could you post diffs and put some content in your talk page posts Quack? If there isn't then could you not post pointless talk page posts Quack? SPACKlick (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable sources all over the web claim the review is unrelable, but the source is reliable and it is a recent review according to WP:MEDRS. Although there is a lot of sources on the topic, the research is very gradually moving forward. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The claim is made not by unreliable sources but in two letters written by experts, pointing out shortcomings in the Grana review. Wasn't there very recently a huge debate about scientific bias at acupuncture to treat some med sources with care or leave them out entirely? I'm not arguing to remove all mention of Grana here but to avoid it whenever possible and use less controversial sources. Studies on this topic are coming out in fast since Grana and when reviewed, should be given their due weight, especially when they render older ones obsolete (at least in part).--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The unreliable websites have no basis for what happens on Misplaced Pages. The letters are not from reliable sources since they are from unreliable websites. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if unreliable sources have published the letters since we don't use those in the article. The letters and surrounding controversy can indeed be the basis for talk page discussion about what sources might be used for specific content. BTW, I'm sure you can find those letters on more reliable sources but that's not the point anyways.--TMCk (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The 3 tags have been removed. Also the NPOV dispute tag was removed from the top of the page. I don't see a benefit for restoring any of the tags to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Propose wording: "The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has stated, "While early studies show some potential benefits, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes with nicotine as a smoking cessation device is not fully conclusive," and expressed concerns about the lack of long term studies with regard to health effects to the user as well as second hand exposure. They also note public health officials' concerns about renormalizing smoking behavior undermining current tobacco control as well as being a gateway for nicotine addiction and tobacco abuse."
I think that what the reader needs to take away from that section is:- (1) Western national medical authorities unanimously agree that we need more studies of e-cigs before we'll know how to regulate them; and (2) Nicotine's addictive, so don't start using them if you don't smoke; and (3) There are a few proven ways to quit smoking but as yet, none of them involve e-cigs; but (4) If you really must inhale clouds of nicotine, then as far as we know vaping is probably a bit safer than smoking. We need to distil that basic message down into a single paragraph that's well-supported by sources, say it, and move on. It's definitely a mistake to repeat the same basic information several times in slightly different language because each separate national medical authority phrases its advice slightly differently. Only add another source if it says something new.—S MarshallT/C05:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with providing a summary of points reflected by all or most organisations and going into more detail only where the positions actually differ from each other.Levelledout (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY doesn't instruct us to repeat the same information several times. All the guidance from the reputable, national-level authorities is fundamentally the same.—S MarshallT/C20:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's a pretty awful excuse and flawed logic to say that it's OK to repeat something umpteen times if the sub-article does it. The sub-article shouldn't be repetitive in the first place. And repitition would appear to be the antithesis of a summary.Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Different sources say different things. We can't conduct our own review of what we think the medical authorities unanimously agree upon. Each source says many things. If there is an issue with similar text an editor can read the source and add something else instead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Quack, where the majority of the sources say the same thing just in slightly different ways with slightly different focal points the job of the encyclopedia editor is to compile that into a form that is easier for the reader to get information from than reading each source. The repetition is harmful to the encyclopedia. SPACKlick (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to streamline
I think that this is important, and I think other editors as well as QuackGuru will find this point difficult. The problem is that in contentious areas, editors are taught to use the very best sources and stick very closely to them. By doing this, a lot of rubbish and nonsense is removed from the encyclopaedia. Editors who are active in contentious areas will have learned this lesson very thoroughly because admins shout it at them while holding big sticks. In contentious areas, this is how Misplaced Pages works.
The problem is that you end up with an article that reads like this:- "According to source X, there has never been an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in Colorado. According to source Y, no lesser-spotted sasquatches have been seen in Alabama by separate people who can confirm each other's stories. According to source Z, no black people from Wisconsin have ever seen a lesser-spotted sasquatch at all..." and goes on, and on, and on. What you really need to do is say something like "Four studies could not find an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in any of the areas they covered", stick all four sources after your sentence, and move on.
Which brings me to another point: According to a 2015 review, 47.63% of this article consists of precise and narrowly-defined statistical statements. Those belong, in some areas of the encyclopaedia ---- particularly technical areas that are likely to be read by people with a decent scientific education. They're also popular with Wikipedians, because Wikipedians tend to be in the upper quartile of intelligence and educational attainment (read: nerds). But this article is non-technical and our audience is the general reader ---- including people who are seriously considering using e-cigarettes. And, if I can be permitted a statistic of my own, half of those people will be of below average ability... I'm afraid a lot of the people who want or need to read this article will find the statistics impenetrable. We do need to turn mathematical and statistical sentences into accessible ones.
Going through the e-cig article doing this, to remove repetition and turn statistical statements into conclusions, is really the next important stage in its development, but it's also likely to cause friction, so I'd like to pause here, discuss the ramifications and get consensus for the general approach I propose before continuing.—S MarshallT/C23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I get a lot less time to edit now so I don't think I'll be able to massively contribute but I've been on board with this proposal for months. It really needs doing. Your analogy is perfect. People who read this article will indeed generally not be scientists they will be consumers and most of them won't get beyond the lead because of the way it's currently written. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I'll just stick a big flag on this right now to make sure editors don't miss the key point.
This proposal does involve removing sourced content from the article.
It also involves rephrasing statistical statements as simple declarative statements, so it needs consensus before I start.—S MarshallT/C11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, and I think in fact it'll be better to give several examples.
1) "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." ---> "In the UK user numbers tripled in the year to 2013."
2) "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked. Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, those who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012 and those still vaping rose from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%." ---> "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." (The intention here is to delete statistical sentences because they add nothing to the first sentence, but to keep the sources, placing them directly after the first sentence, which they do support.)
3) "In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 51% said they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked, 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% still uses them. In 2013, among those under 18, 7% have used e-cigarettes at least once. Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use. Sustained use was mostly confined to children who smoke or have smoked. In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%, children who have ever used e-cigarettes was at 10%, and occasional or greater use among never-smoking children was at 0.18%. About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers." --> "In the UK, about half of the people who smoke have tried vaping, but only about 1% of the people who do not smoke have tried it. About 7% of smokers' children have tried vaping, but only about 1% of non-smokers' children."
Yes thanks. This "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." gives much more information than increased three fold. so I would oppose the change. Three fold could me increase from 5 to 15 or 5 million to 15 million which are very different.
With respect to the second example I would say delete the first sentence as it adds nothing to the second one. Is increasing from 3.3% to 6.8% "growing rapidly"? Some may say yes other may say no. We should not be telling people what to think but giving them the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's true of some articles but not others. Some articles should be aimed at people with a good academic education ---- for example, Mayer–Vietoris sequence is quite properly aimed at people with an undergraduate understanding of mathematics; it's not the kind of thing a general reader is likely to look up. So it's reasonable for that article to contain text like:
Because the intended audience will be able to make sense of it. On the other hand, articles on everyday devices and utensils mostly do not assume a high level of education on the reader's part and do not lean heavily on statistics, even when these are associated with medicine. Look how our articles on syringe, nebulizer, eye drop, catheter, or transdermal patch are phrased appropriately for the likely audience, and consider the jump in reading age between those articles and this one. We shouldn't be writing this article for scientists and doctors ---- they are not, or bloody well ought not to be, reading Misplaced Pages to find detailed statistical data about e-cigarettes. We should be writing for schoolchildren who're considering whether to take a puff, who are people who're very likely to turn to Misplaced Pages for information. I feel that there are good ethical reasons to make this article more accessible to them.—S MarshallT/C23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I have seen way to may people try to bent the truth by converting raw data to percentages.
This "increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013" is not rocket science. Everyone can understand it.
I added "Between 2013 and 2014, vaping among students tripled." I don't think it is duplication after reading the above discussion. The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability and will make the wording too vague and thus meaningless. I disagree with replacing precisely written text with ambiguous text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am torn, because I really do wish the message underneath the statistics would be made clearer, but as Doc points out, removing all the well-sourced statistics will actually increase doubt instead of decreasing it, and subjective summarization like "rapidly" is asking for trouble. I would support this effort if it could be done in a way where the underlying data isn't removed from the article altogether. Perhaps sections can start off with a summary paragraph that gives simpler, easier-to-read overview of the data upcoming in the following sentences or paragraphs, and then the more data-driven content can follow for those who want to plow through it. Zad6805:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
History section
TMCk, you previously said "There are still some recently introduced problems in the history section. I won't point them out here b/c someone will jump ahead again and make it worse. So I'll try to fix it when I have time unless a knowledgeable editor beats me to it.--TMCk (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)"
And? There are no images for many sub-sections, nor is there a requirement to have one for every section or sub-section.Levelledout (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would support that. I'd be OK with Image D for the first section; it's not specific to motivation, but it is appropriate for the e-cigs topic generally Cloudjpk (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I added text to the image since it was not clear. Perhaps we can use a different image for the frequency section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As the poster, I am withdrawing this RfC since one of the choice of images turned out to be a suspected copyvio and thus needs to be removed. Image D has also been moved to a more relevant place in the article and replaced with another relatively neutral image. I have no objections to a new RFC being started with updated images, particularly if the situation changes.Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note (added after 3 !votes): With respect to image captions I suggest using the existing ones that QuackGuru has posted below. The caption for Image C should work fine with Image A or Image B. To prevent repetition, some modifications to the caption text may need to be made depending on the combination of images that is decided on and this will only be possible after the RFC is complete.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Responses
Image A at the top and Image C below. We are told in the article that the main motivation is quitting or cutting down and circumvention of smoke-free policies is therefore a lesser motivation. In accordance with WP:UNDUE we should reflect that with the prominence given to images illustrating these points.Levelledout (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Other: This article contains a number of images which are mainly decorative rather than informative. We should have an image or images showing the various different kinds of e-cigarette, one image of a person using one, and photos or (ideally) line diagrams of an exploded e-cigarette labelling the parts ---- and that's all we really need. I would prefer that other images are removed, although I don't feel massively strongly about it.—S MarshallT/C17:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that from the article, we are told "Most users' motivation is related to quitting, but a fair proportion of use is recreational... others use them to circumvent smoke-free laws and policies, or to cut back on normal cigarette smoking".Levelledout (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D has almost nothing to do with motivation for using e-cigarettes. I have no idea why it's in the article in that particular place. It's needs to be replaced with something that is relevant. Captions can be sorted out later. Including questions about captions would make the RFC too complex. Saying that you cannot evaluate whether the image should be put into the article in the first place without seeing the caption which is generally written after the decision to put the image into the article is silly.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D is related to the popular activity known as cloud-chasing. See "The activity vapers call cloud-chasing to exhale the largest cloud of vapor is growing more popular." Without text for each image I'm afraid this RfC is incomplete (malformed). I recommend you archive this RfC and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, we've only had three votes and one of those was mine. I've added a brief note to the RFC to address your concerns.Levelledout (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We have text for image C. Now you are proposing to include image A without any specific text. It is hard to evaluate the proposal without text. Image C currently in the article does explain the common reasons people use e-cigs. So what is the benefit for also including image A in the same section when the commons reasons are already clearly explained? So far I don't see a specific reason for including image A in the motivation section. There is a reason for using image C. Please read "Some surveys found that a small percentage of users' motives were to avoid the bans, but other surveys found that over 40% of users said they used the device for this reason." A significant portion of e-cig use is to get around smoking ban. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No I am not proposing that, I have just addressed that very concern. If you continue to either not realise or ignore the fact that I have addressed your concerns then I do not intend to enter into an endless futile debate about it. So far as I'm concerned the RFC is now structured as well as it can reasonably be expected to be. The reason for including image A is addressed in my response.Levelledout (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Image A replaced Image C. Image B and C are the related images. You said the caption for Image C should work fine with Image A, yet you want to use both Image A and Image C. If both Image A and C are used then there is no caption for Image A yet. This RfC is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That is ridiculous and unreasonable. There are many possible combinations of images and as you have correctly identified, the choice could potentially affect the caption texts. Therefore it isn't practically possible to provide the exact text before a choice has been decided on. It's not necessary to clear up every little tiny detail with an initial RfC statement, that's partially what this discussion section is for.Levelledout (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You proposed A and C but you since you have not proposed a caption for A then I don't know if image A will improve the section. It may not be necessary to include image A in the section since we currently have an image with common reasons people use e-cigs. I can't think of another caption that would benefit that particular section. Can anyone else think of a another caption specifically about motivations? There is another issue about image A however. After thinking about it overnight, it seems a bit provocative to add an image with someone breaking apart a cigarette into two pieces. I noticed the e-cig device for Image A is out of focus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure other editors can see through this nonsense and filibustering. You know perfectly well that's its perfectly easy to split the existing caption into two or otherwise modify it slightly so it doesn't repeat itself. And yes it's very provocative to have an image of somebody splitting a cigarette in half, so provocative it took you two days (the image was first introduced here) just to realise it's provocative. Quite who it's going to provoke and in what way is anyone's guess. The UK NHS must also allegedly be provocative then for using the same type of imagery?Levelledout (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise I added the image but to another section.
So according to you the image is "provocative" and "out of focus" but you decided to insert it anyway in a place and manner that you and only you deemed appropriate right in the middle of an ongoing RfC that has the purpose of gathering the opinions of all editors on whether or not it should be included? You also did more or less exactly the same thing yesterday. QG, I am not the first person to tell you and I probably won't be the last: You do not own the article.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
And by the way the image has been removed since the obvious result of inserting it was to render both this RfC and the consensus process redundant.Levelledout (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Are we even allowed to show Image C. Its a copy of an Arriva poster. I suspect that the original poster is protected by copyright so this becomes a copyvio. We cannot claim fairuse as alternative images are available. I've nominated the commons:File:Bangor bilingual station no smoking sign.jpg for deletion. I'm also suspicious of the copyright status of the other images Images A and D both look like professionally taken advertising copy. Tracing the source back they come from flicker page of the-best-electronic-cigarette-review.com a website which uses a lot of stock advertising copy without proper attribution although they claim to use only use CC images from flickr I'm suspicious and suspect they are copyvio as well. That leaves image B, which looks OK from a copyright status. As an alternative I would suggest File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which has a traceable source going back to a public domain US military source.--Salix alba (talk): 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Now you mention it Salix alba, I'd say we should exclude Image C. With respect to Images A and D, I think that they may be OK. The flickr link you have provided for Image D shows the camera that has been used to take the photo and specifications such as the camera's focal length. From clicking the left and right arrows, there are several slightly different shots of the image. Therefore it would appear that the photo has been taken by the owner of that flickr account, which is TBEC review. Likewise for Image A. So basically Images A and D would seem OK to me, but Image C would quite possibly not. However I see that you say that TBEC is known for using copyrighted photos without proper attribution, perhaps you could elaborate on that and provide more details?Levelledout (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes good point about the alternative images for image D, unlikely to have lifted the whole image set. I'll withdraw my compaint about image A as well.--Salix alba (talk): 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
So uninvolved commentators will know what text and images is currently in the article rather than assume it is a new proposal with new images or new text. You haven't proposed in the RfC what the caption would be for any new images. How are editors going to evaluate the proposal for this RfC? Currently you are not proposing any text for the images. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no image for the Harm reduction section, yet I have a good idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: In an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy, and are likely to be less harmful than tobacco.<ref name=Cahn2011/> See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Captions are used to describe images, not the other way around. How can you write a caption without knowing what the image is?Levelledout (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Another Pointless Image Added
This image was added to the top of the Harm Reduction section . There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Cloud-chasing is merged, partially with this article and partially with the sub-article Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes. There is substantial overlap between the Cloud-chasing article and this article - in fact we already mention cloud chasing in Society and culture and Motivation. The concept of cloud chasing does not merit it's own article anymore than the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers warrant their own article. Cloud-chasing is an activity that requires specialist equipment, skill and knowledge and only a very small minority of e-cigarette users actually partake in it.
The article was only created a month ago, has only ever been edited by one user and is very short on content. Some of the sources used are not particularly high quality either.
Oppose. How to make an e-cig produce a large cloud of vapor is not about construction. The society and culture section does have enough information about cloud chasing. The extra details about cloud-chasing merits its own article, as more sources continue to become available. If the Cloud-chasing page was AFDed I am sure more editors will look for sources and that could result in expanding the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you know very little about cloud chasing then, which would probably explain why the article describes cloud chasing as a "competition". WP:COATRACK springs to mind. In any case cloud chasing is achieved by customizing the design or overall construction of the device as set out in the usage section of the cloud chasing article. Traditionally mechanical mods and rebuildable atomizers (RDAs) were used to achieve this, but high powered regulated mods are becoming more popular. Either way the RDA is constructed by the user themselves in a way that provides the least possible resistance across the atomizer, whilst needing to take into account the fact that low resistances pose potential electrical hazards. If that isn't related to construction then I don't know what is. With regards to sources, there doesn't appear to be many, if any high quality ones on the subject that are required to meet the notability criteria.Levelledout (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please actually read what I said in the proposal... and then you will know the answer to that question, which is fairly obvious anyway.Levelledout (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Image was removed
The image was removed. So I replaced it with another image. The text about cloud-chasing was removed from the motivation section. So I moved the image to another section where it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed three images that are basically clip art. The images need to be more than just decoration. We all know what someone smoking looks like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
