Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlbinoFerret 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the order you are suggesting is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Agree with Yobol. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities RFC

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

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

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

Comments please start your response with Yes or No

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No

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

RFC goes against policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 General Statement overarching the below

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

3,4 Uncertainty of claim referring to lack of evidence

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

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

8 Claim sourced to speculation in paper.

11 Uncertain claim sourced to positive evidence

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

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

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

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

Endless Reshuffling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are putting words in my mouth again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Gopal Bhatnagar presentation to Canda's health minister

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

Ultrafine Particles, the name of the section is inaccurate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wholesale changing of "vapor" to "mist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the words "vape", "vaper", and "vapour" are the correct terminology according to the Oxford English Dictionary: . Mihaister (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Harm reduction and smoking cessation summaries and international organization survey position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with User:Alexbrn revert. Ellen's edit was not an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

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

Questions:

• A. Should we use Mist?
• B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
• D. Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)
• E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used? AlbinoFerret 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article? AlbinoFerret 09:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Guidelines

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

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

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

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

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

Answers

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

A. Should we use Mist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes agree with Zad Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Looking at the definitions for both words shows that Vapor is the correct word to use. Arzel (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Yes of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes but it should be the case in every usage in the article. In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, stick with one term, specifically Aerosol as that is the most accurate term. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No agree with Damotclese Cloudjpk (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No This practice is confusing. Wikilinks are fine, but they should go to the page of the same name as the word. AlbinoFerret 00:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hell no that would be a dictionary of thesaurus function, not really something dcone when talking about an electronic drug delivery mechanism. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, definitely not Wikilinks should link to the correct page, not one cherry-picked to suit an agenda. If you say "mist" link to Mist. If you mean "aerosol" say "aerosol" and link to that. No deceptive links.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Yes in the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quack,

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

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

Practical implications of alternatives to smoke inhalation

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

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

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

Wow. It's common to find an occasional inappropriate comment on a talk page, but here there are three. Editors with knowledge of fringe topics (not this article) understand that science is littered with obvious conclusions that are not so obvious when put to the test of rigorous experimentation. It's more likely that someone is paying for the addition of promotional puffery to this article than the reverse, but regardless, editors have to focus on what sources actually say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine was on a hypothetical situation. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It is even more likely that editors such as myself, with an absolutely unbroken anti-manufacturer paid advocacy track record reflected in literally dozens of dispute resolution interactions, including several at both ANI and arbitration, are fascinated by the opportunity to finally side with manufacturers because that's the incontrovertible position of all the MEDRS reviews reaching substantive conclusions. But thanks for the implied accusation, I'm sure you didn't consider it an inappropriate comment at all. EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No explanation for this change

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

If you are implying that there is any semantic difference at all, then please state what you think it amounts to. EllenCT (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Both can and may is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you know the section this was taken from Quack, just copy/paste the original quote here so the rest of us dont have to search for it. Then we can see whats wrong. You should do that every time you have this type of issue. AlbinoFerret 08:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I didnt mean for you to post the diff from the article, but the sentence in the source that the clam in the article is based on, and paste it into the section you are discussing it in. AlbinoFerret 09:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary shows the word "may" (and "can") was OR. The sentence from the source is in the edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No Quack. To say that the "indiscriminate" use of e-cigs is a public health hazard, based on one paper, is outrageous POV pushing. Again. Just stop it.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The original research was restored. Please read: "This would control their current indiscriminate use, which is not only a threat to public health, but may encourage young people to start smoking." QuackGuru (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus that "indiscriminate" use (whatever the fuck that even means) is a threat to health, and the "gateway" claims have been thoroughly busted. Stop trying to push your POV.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The in-text attribution is at the beginning of the paragraph: "The Spanish Society of Pneumonology and Thoracic Surgery released a position statement..." You did not provide verification for the text you added. I provided text from the source that shows the wording you added failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. There is no consensus that e-cig use is a threat to anything, let alone public health. People I respect more than a Spanish trade org say they could be one of the greatest benefits to public health this century. And I didn't add any text. I changed one word for one I think is better. Stop chucking accusations about and learn how to cooperate.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of "Health effects" section

As per WP:BRD I renamed the Health Effects section to "Speculation on health effects", which is more appropriate because there are no actual health effects described. I'll WP:AGF that when Doc James called this silliness and reverted it he really can't see the difference between speculation and real effects, but I think we should consider this renaming seriously. No health effects of e-cigs have been detected by any research, so all we have is speculation. The section heading should make that clear, and not imply something that on current evidence just isn't there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Section titles do not contain an editorial message. It is obvious that e-cig users are particularly interested in health effects, and the section has to be present and has to say what sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cig users are not particularly interested in health effects at all. As long as they're healthier than actual cigarettes that's good enough. My issue here is that the section is called "Health effects" when no health effects have been found. It should be called "Speculation on health effects", because that's all that's in it - speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James and Johnuniq, "Health effects" is concise, informative and neutral. Random editorializing does not make a neutral encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Health effects" is a great title - for a section about health effects. Problem is, right now we have a huge section under that title but there are no health effects in it. All the cited sources are very clear that they're talking about speculative health effects. If any real ones have been detected I'm sure someone will let me know, but until some are known that title needs to be changed. It's like having a section in the Jupiter article called "Goats", just because someone speculates there might be goats there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Health effects section certainly doesn't contain only speculation and it would be inappropriate to label all the content as such. There's no reason to rename the section from its more concise, general title. Zad68 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, what actual health effects of vaping does it describe?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "there is not enough evidence to determine whether they have Benefit X and Risk Y" and "they may have Benefit X and might have Risk Y"? If so please demonstrate. If not there's no point in continuing this further. Zad68 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And if there's not enough evidence to say they have X and Y then X and Y are not health effects. They are speculation about health effects.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and because I think further attempts to explain would be equally fruitless I'll stop now. Zad68 19:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical article, and when the general reader sees a section called "Health effects" they're going to think health effects have been identified. Then they're going to get lost in a Wall Of Text riddled with "A study concluded" and "The Patagonian Homeopathic Venereal Disease Committee states..." that makes no sense at all. As it stands the section is misleading, because it implies health effects when none have been identified.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example. The "Health effects" section has EIGHT separate references to concerns about the so-called "gateway effect", the idea that e-cig use will encourage people to start smoking. However there is no evidence that this is happening. There is convincing evidence from multiple studies that it isn't happening. There has been no credible attempt to explain why it even might happen, because it's basically a stupid idea that was already used against Swedish snus and turned out to be completely wrong. But it's still listed repeatedly under "Health effects" when it's nothing more than unfounded, biased speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Health effects is the correct section heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Who died and left you in charge? That's only your opinion. Mine is different.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a Hint:

Cite: "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known. Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke. There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from tobacco smoke or air pollution can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death. (emphasis added) – Grana, Benowitz, Glantz, Circulation 2014."

I'm not interested in Glantz's manufactured crap about particles because it's junk science and intellectually dishonest.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of bullet points in a list and renaming the section

It appears Quack has been busy editing the "generation" section of the Power section. At first he got rid of the subsections that separated the generations. This made one paragraph. The problem though is it lumped together all the generations in one paragraph making it harder for the General reader to find information about a specific generation of device if thats all they want. I am in the midst of expanding the section and gathering citations for what I am going to put in. But taking out the subsections wasnt a big deal because it was a little small at the time.

I separated the paragraph a little more to make it easier for someone looking for information on a specific generation. At first using bold, but I removed it as its clearly a list, and added bullet points. I shortened the unnecessary long section name, and removed what some may consider promotional language. Quack removed them and language to show that what came after was basically a list. Again making it harder for someone interested in finding specific information.

This morning I added more language to show that the section contained a list ending in a colon, and added the bullets again. Quack then changed the name of the section again and removed the bullets from the list. The section name was inaccurate as all generations are still being made. I changed the name of the section to something simple but accurate. I have started this section so that Quack can give a good reason for these changes as he did not start a talk section on them even after changing the section twice. I would like to know why he is also changing the section to make it harder on the reader to find specific information. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just try changing any of Quack's wording and see how quickly he yelps "Why was this changed without explanation?" But he can change anything he likes. Serious WP:OWN issues here and if he doesn't stop I'm taking it to ANI.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The changes seem very worthwhile. They add an encyclopedic tone that is required. In general (WP:PROSE), lists are not desirable, and I don't see why more on the "generations" topic would be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because this article needs more info on electronic cigarettes - check the title - and less on hypothetical risks and scaremongering?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the words "First generation", "Second generation" and "Third generation", eventually resulting in one big section called "Progression" does not improve the article, it is simply more evidence of widespread WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that means the article is even more confusing and removed from the general reader. Sources such as call them "First/Second Generation devices". But seemingly it doesn't matter what reliable sources say because apparently the words "First generation devices" are . "First generation device" is a statement of fact used for the pure reason of distinguishing them from "Second generation" which are substantially different. If these words are promotional, then so are most other words in the article such as "electronic cigarette".Levelledout (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: The subsections may be coming back soon. An even bigger issue is that there is no distinguishing of findings in the medical section between the generations. The majority if not all of the findings in the medical section are on first generation devices. Without the generational information, its all just Original Research in my opinion. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to have multiple subsections and bullet points are not the standard on Misplaced Pages. You added ref duplications and extra spaces. Why did you do that? There is no reason to add the same ref full citation twice. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell there was no reason to remove the words "First/Second/Third Generation" from the article in the first place and an explanation not been provided. The words themselves are a completely neutral statement of fact that simply categorizes different types of e-cigarette product.Levelledout (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the repetitive text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please address why you removed the subsections originally. AlbinoFerret 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine well I have reinserted the sections in a non-repetitive way, I take it you will have no problem with that since that seems to be the only issue of concern to you. I would however add that a vast majority of Misplaced Pages sections and articles start, naturally, by discussing the subject. Such as "Electronic cigarette" - "an electronic cigarette is..."Levelledout (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:It was the goofy Visual Editor, I used it to move the section, thats where the long citation appears. I normally edit source to add citations. The spaces were there because I wasn't done with the section, I just took a little break. It is necessary to have the subsections in place for organization. A bigger section needs organization. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the differences between device generations are immensely important. Most of the research done so far has been on crude Gen 1 cigalikes, which have a declining market share. However preliminary research indicates that Gen 2 devices are far more effective for smokers who want to switch, with Polosa's new study achieving 36% smoking cessation among unmotivated subjects. There are also safety implications. The heavy metal contamination found by old studies is produced by Gen 1 cartos which use nichrome wire (nickel) with soldered joints (lead and tin). Gen 2 and 3 atomizers use kanthal wire and don't have solder, so this contamination, which is already at very low levels, will be completely absent. If this article is supposed to be informative it should contain much more info about electronic cigarettes and much less of Quack's irrelevant bullshit about diesel exhaust and atmospheric pollution particles.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this discuss still about the use of bullet points? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's about the repeated removal of information that actually covers the subject of this article - Electronic cigarettes, remember? - by an editor who insists on filling it up with irrelevant trivia about secondhand smoke and vehicle exhaust particulates.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: It was never ment to be just about bullet points. I was more concerned with the ability to organize the information to make it easier to read and navigate to an area the reader might be interested in. Be it subsections, or bullets, it really doesnt matter to me. AlbinoFerret 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:USEPROSE, prose is preferred over bullet points. Zad68 03:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that from above, but the need to organize and separate so information can be found still exists. AlbinoFerret 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the sourcing supports organizing the content into 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation, just compose a series of well-written, impeccably-sourced prose paragraphs. Decoration is unnecessary, and isn't preferred. Zad68 03:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and we will remove them from the next medical section that adds subsections, right? AlbinoFerret 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss the organization of medical content in another section, this is not a tit-for-tat or zero-sum game. I just looked at Construction and the sourcing is terrible. THAT is the #1 problem with that section right now, and there's way too little well-sourced content there to even consider breaking it up into subsections at this point. Can you help with the sourcing? Zad68 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I know more work needs to be done on the whole components section. But the generations were not a subsection of components, but of the Progressions section, which has a lot more citations, to medical journals. Secondly, there is no consensus to remove the sub-subsections. Therefore they should revert to the first addition of the section as they were before they were removed. As for tit-for tat, no its not that, but you would be setting president which I will copy into any discussion in the future. AlbinoFerret 04:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

All this constant chatter and delete this or that because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is just slowing work on the article. AlbinoFerret 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For subsections, it all comes down to the sourcing and some judgment regarding how distinct the subtopics actually are. If the excellent-quality sourcing shows that the differences between the "generations" are so significant that each generation is its own topic with enough content to fill out multiple paragraphs of well-sourced content, then subsections make sense. In fact the Health effects section is exactly that. You should aspire to develop the Construction content to be as solid as what's in Health effects, you shouldn't be looking to remove subsections from Health effects as a finger in the eye to other editors. Setting up for a "Zad said I couldn't have subsections here so you can't have subsections there" is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND, please don't do it. Zad68 04:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about looking to remove subsections from the health section? Not me. There is already well sourced information to fill the sub sub sections, with more to come. But I learn from what people say. If there is a small subsection opened I will look at it and raise the same arguments you did here and link to your statements. But getting back to consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The bold edit was Quack removing them because they had been in the article for at least a week prior to them being removed. AlbinoFerret

You have not given a logical reason why you added a long citation and changed the ref names that could give the appearance it was a different ref when it was the same ref. You added duplicate long citations before while changing the ref names. There should not be multiple subsections for the same topic for first generation to new-generation devices. Sourcing is an issue with the section. Please find better sources. The bold edit was a short time ago by adding the multiple sections in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The long reference makes little difference. It doesn’t show up in the readable text. What sourcing issue in the Progression section? Be specific. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You changes the ref names while creating a separate long citation for the same reference that is already in the article. It did show up as a separate reference. I don't think you want me to tag or delete every unreliable source in the construction section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Make your own arguments. Linking to something someone else wrote somewhere else isn't demonstration of your own understanding or working collaboratively for the benefit of the Encyclopedia, it's game-playing. As I wrote, you need to use judgment, which depends on the sourcing available and related content. Zad68 04:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasnt just something someone else wrote, like an essay, but WP policy. The sub sub sections were added on November 6th Quack removed them on November 16th. 10 days later. AlbinoFerret 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the article "settled" since then, would you? Zad68 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was in that area (components). AlbinoFerret 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the quality of the sourcing in the Construction section, I will explain with point-by-point detail my concerns regarding that. The section uses anonymous bloggers company promotional material, these are generally unacceptable sources for the kinds of statements being made. Zad68 04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So what do you want, a paper from Professor (of mechanical engineering) Glantz on e-cig generations? This is the problem with trying to force MED rules onto this article. Any e-cig user can tell you about the generations of device, but because the cabal insists on MEDRS we can't put any actual relevant information in the article. Meanwhile the opinion of air conditioning engineers has Godlike status. Will you people please grow up?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that using anonymous bloggers and company's promotional material is unacceptable, that is an entirely separate issue. Also, I agree that WP:MEDRS is neither appropriate nor necessary for describing construction, there is certainly no consensus to use it in this context and WP:V is perfectly adequate.Levelledout (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats shifting the discussion and "tit for tat" AlbinoFerret

In classic Misplaced Pages e-cigarette page style the changes have back into the article without WP:CONSENSUS.Levelledout (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, AF, review my responses here, my focus has been on the sourcing for the section, and whether the build-out of the content warrants subsections. I had tried to resolve the sourcing issues about a week ago and I was reverted. The sourcing issue hasn't been resolved. It needs to be addressed. Zad68 04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

All this silly, and I mean silly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problems slows work, I finally get back to it, and more erupts. How about just letting it be as it was on the 15th, before Quack's edits and letting me get back to work on the article? AlbinoFerret 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to the sourcing issue above. However the fact still remains that there is no consensus for the original changes so they should still be removed and not reinserted until if/when there is a consensus.Levelledout (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AF if you can improve the sourcing as described and build out the content using that sourcing into significant, well-developed paragraphs, I will absolutely support subsections! Zad68 05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first generation is pretty done, the second, close, the third I was interrupted. I am not asking you to support in the future, but to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. If not you are going to set a precedent that may create more problems in the future. That isnt a threat, but a reaslistic looking ahead, and knowing lots of people will read these words. It will give Quack carte blanche. AlbinoFerret 05:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that Zad but whether you personally support it or not does not amount to consensus, hence my posts here stating that the article should remain in its original state until consensus is achieved. By the way what does "AF" mean?Levelledout (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do believe Zad got tired of typing out Albino Ferret. :) AlbinoFerret 09:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought this to DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette.23Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section AlbinoFerret 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Rfc on removal of "Mist"

Let's get this article locked and properly reviewed by someone sane