Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 5 December 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Economy, trade, and companies Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

I have asked about this at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the respondents there did not raise reliability issues with the sources or the statements, instead saying that inclusion of the proposed statements is an NPOV issue, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT, so I asked those questions at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 29 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)

Compromise proposal

Based on the preliminary discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims, I propose replacing the conclusive statements in question prefaced by the phrase, "A 201_ literature review in the journal said ...." EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What sentence exactly are you trying to replace with what sentence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Maths, science, and technology Society, sports, and culture Language and linguistics When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Questions:

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

Misplaced Pages Guidelines

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

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

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

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

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

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

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

Answers

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

A. Should we use Mist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quack,

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

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus in the past?

Consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local consensus versus broad consensus Misplaced Pages wide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sources

There's a few spots in the article that use patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sourcing. Also be careful with press releases disguised as "news" from institutions trying to promote the results of their own research efforts. These kinds of things are generally unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT, for hopefully obvious reasons. The filing of a patent application or even its granting is in no way independently notable. These sorts of primary sources can be used carefully alongside good-quality independent secondary sources to, for example, fill in a particular date or name that didn't appear in the secondary, but they cannot be used by themselves. I've corrected this in a few spots but there's more to go. Zad68 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. While I did not run across language that seemed to me to specifically prohibit the use of promotional material from manufacturers of products as a source, I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. It seems to me that we should be using WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and if none exist, the subject matter is not notable. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why this is framed as a WP:WEIGHT issue. A patent application is a perfectly reliable source for a statement like "In 2014, Pat Smith filed a patent application for..." and a press release is a perfectly reliable source for "Company X announced the availability of..." but compliance with WP:WEIGHT cannot be demonstrated with that kind of sourcing. Zad68 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We have perfectly good peer reviewed secondary MEDRS literature review sources. They fall in to two categories: inconclusive, claiming insufficient evidence for a determination, and conclusive, saying that e-cigs are clearly beneficial. The inconclusive reviews cite very many fewer primary studies than the reviews which reach substantive and prescriptive conclusions in favor of e-cigs. All of the primary sources from the past year which discern between 1st- and 2nd-generation e-cigs reach similarly substantive conclusions in favor. Why do we even need to worry about promotional material at all? WP:NPOV is completely clear that all mainstream points of view need to be represented. Period! Furthermore, WP:LEAD is clear that "prominent" controversies need to be summarized in the article's introduction. We are all very aware how prominent the controversy is, so why does the article only represent the "inconclusive, needs more research" point of view? That's against the rules, plain and simple. EllenCT (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Can you please show me where the website says E-cig advanced is a worldpress blog? AlbinoFerret 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, this indicates it's on WordPress. The site appears to be a "community-contributor" driven site, it has "regular contributors" who are simply enthusiasts. Look at the "industry news" section, the news articles appear to simply repeat press releases. Zad68 14:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That link only shows that they used the worldpress for the member blog area, which appears to be separate from the news section. AlbinoFerret 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I can find on the site is

ECig Advanced Transparency Statement

EcigAdvanced.com is a for-profit business. We employ the use of advertising, affiliate links and banners to bring in revenues. Our reviews are done by paid reviewers, paid for their time, not for their opinion. Our reviews are not biased based on the revenue that we stand to gain from a particular product. Our reviews are based solely on the opinion of the reviewer’s experience with the product and nothing more.

While we do employ these banners, affiliate links and other methods of advertising for a profit, we also have considerable expense to cover in order to keep the lights on and the door open here at Ecig Advanced. We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers as well as forum moderators. Ecig Advanced also uses its own funds to partially or wholly purchase products for giveaway to our community members. Further, we use the relationships we’ve established with vendors and suppliers to bring giveaways to our members, in exchange for advertisement and promotion on our pages.

Which doesn't comment on an editing policy. SPACKlick (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes create vapor

In the title section, it says EC do not produce vapor.

Interestingly, the Oxford dictionary on "vape" disagrees, it states: "vape: Inhale and exhale the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device."

This is reconciled very simply; there are 2 definitions for vapour - the everyday definition and the scietntific definition.

See Oxford Dictionaty on "vapour." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vapour "vapour 1 A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: 'dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour' "

But then the dictionary states:

" Physics A gaseous substance that is below its critical temperature, and can therefore be liquefied by pressure alone. Compare with gas."

Bottom line: as EC produce vapor according to ordinary english in the way even Oxford understands, the title section should mention that it produces vapor. The technichal definition may be discussed in a separate section.

We are using a review rather than a dictionary for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if our readership learned their vocabulary from reviews instead of dictionaries. EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ignore MEDRS sources in favor of unreliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you think using dictionary definitions are unreliable for avoiding "words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality." (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary) EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The MEDRS trumps a dictionary. One might argue to add the word vapor to the list of misused words and we are following what the source did say for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't trump anything. In fact WP:JARGON specifically notes that we shouldn't use technical language if avoidable. I don't know where you get the "MEDRS trumps a dictionary" from? And of course as noted below, you ignore that even in the MEDRS literature there isn't consensus on using aerosol as the descriptive word. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See above, MERDS only refers to the technical definition of vapor, Oxford dictionary brings a separate technical and everyday definition for vapor. MEDRS do not include language journals and by no means takes priority with regards to the regular use of non-technical English over the Oxford Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But at the same time you are ignoring all the reviews that use vapour exclusively. Fact is that even in the MEDRS literature vapour is more used than aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have a massive, ongoing Rfc on this very issue higher up on this page. Please just comment there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than feelings

The opening of this article states: (...) a battery-powered vaporizer which has the feel of tobacco smoking.

I've been vaping long enough to say that I don't get the "feel" of tobacco smoking... It's a different feeling.

All of this to say that this statement is subjective and should be rewritten. TheNorlo (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found a review to fix the unsourced claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Which ignores what TheNorlo said - doesn't it? It is not about it being "unsourced", but instead about whether it is correct or not. I agree with TheNorlo, it is not the same. --Kim D. Petersen 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it has the appearance of smoking, but feeling is subjective. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to not be in the source used I am placing a verification tag on it. If it exists, the original claim and page number need to be given here. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When you added the tag this was the text: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking." You added a FV tag to sourced text. Did you read the source? The part "has the feel" was originally removed by me. By adding a FV tag you could be confusing other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Produce the line and page number from the source for verification please. AlbinoFerret

What do you think is unsourced based on the link to the source. The objection was the part "has the feel" and that was removed. What was the tag for when anyone can verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide the location in the source for the claim. Since you found it, provide it. 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have the exact wording, it appears to be from the Abstract. Per WP:MEDRS

When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. However, when it comes to actually writing a Misplaced Pages article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.

The section in Capponetto that is relevant is

"The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine-delivery device resembling a cigarette designed for the purpose of providing inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution to the respiratory system. This device provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no smoke or combustion is actually involved in its operation."

It uses sensation. Feel, feeling, and sense are synonyms. The sentence should be rewritten based on this, not the abstract. Perhaps

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sense of tobacco smoke without tobacco or burning tobacco." AlbinoFerret 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence in the lede says "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." We do not need to repeat something similar in the lede. The word "sense" is practically the same a "feeling". The current wording is better. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Only the " emulate"wording is contrary to clear instructions of WP:MEDRS if you dont like the suggested wording, suggest something else, but it cant be based on the abstract.

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sensation of tobacco smoke without tobacco or smoke." is more like the original and can be sourced from the body of the review. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From the body of the PDF file: "Electronic cigarettes look very similar to the conventional cigarette and are capable of emulating cigarette smoking, but there are differences." ... "Hence, handling an electronic cigarette feels very different from a conventional cigarette." The next sentence in the e-cigs page still say "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." The lede also says "They do not produce cigarette smoke". The part of your proposal "without tobacco or smoke" is repetitive text and the word "sensation" is not accurate when there are differences according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the PDF is wrong. None of mine look even vaguely like a cigarette. No Gen 2 or Gen 3 device does.--FergusM1970 07:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid Doc James's change but I undid it wrong and put in simulates instead of emulates. I've left simulates pending discussion from other editors SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Smoking Cessation - Ugly wording

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

The smoking cessation section's first sentences is;

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated, and the benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain.

Which I would propose be changed to

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain and has not been convincingly demonstrated.

as it reads in better English. To whichever admin makes the edits, the Harrell source is to go at and the Franck source is to go at SPACKlick (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Franck, C.; Budlovsky, T.; Windle, S. B.; Filion, K. B.; Eisenberg, M. J. (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes in North America: History, Use, and Implications for Smoking Cessation". Circulation. 129 (19): 1945–1952. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416. ISSN 0009-7322. PMID 24821825.

Harrell, PT; Simmons, VN; Correa, JB; Padhya, TA; Brandon, TH (4 June 2014). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ("E-cigarettes"): Review of Safety and Smoking Cessation Efficacy". Otolaryngology—head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. doi:10.1177/0194599814536847. PMID 24898072.

Two different sources made two different conclusions. Combing them together is SYN. The part "therefore their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain" is SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the therefore would be better as a fullstop. I have edited above for the ease of the eventual ediotr and removed the template until consensus is reached. SPACKlick (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated. Their benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain." This can be done without combining two different sources and conclusions together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is very tiring and demonstrates the reason that this page was protected, This is what SYN would look like:

• "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain and has not been convincingly demonstrated. Therefore man did not land on the moon"

WP:SYN has nothing to do with punctuation marks or other grammar. Further more neither suggestion combines two sources to reach a third conclusion. Both of the points that are made, whether separated by a full stop or not, are accurately cited to sources. There is no third/secondary conclusion, therefore it is in no way whatsoever WP:SYN. Levelledout (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks levelled, the original proposal was Syn I'd taken A therefore B. And C and turned it into A therefore (C and B). QG the issue with your proposal is that the first sentence isn't written in English. The current proposal is not Syn, well sourced and better written than the current. SPACKlick (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Given the limited available evidence on the risks and benefits of e-cigarette use..." This is about the risks and benefits but the proposal says only that "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited" for the first sentence. The part "therefore" is missing. The previous wording is explaining because the research is limited therefore, the effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid has not been convincingly demonstrated. This is closer to what the source said. You are using two different sources together for the second sentence which is misleading and the first sentence lost its meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really believe you are arguing over one word. I have gone with SPACKlick's suggestion as it seems an improvement over the current wording. You can carry on arguing over the "therefore"! A more serious problem was the double sentence starting "A 2014 review found ..." I assume only one of these should be there, or they should be combined in some way? Perhaps someone could create Draft:Electronic cigarette with the proposed wording (and no edit warring on that page please). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed with the new wording as previously explained. This is not about a single word. Now the first sentence lost it meaning. These are two different sources that should not be combined. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the proposed statements fail to represent the significant and opposing point of view, that e-cigs are relatively safe and effective for harm reduction and smoking cessation, as the high-impact MEDRS sources at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims clearly indicate. I have no confidence in the current set of editors trying to assert WP:OWNership over this article by trying to exclude those sources' clear conclusions in violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK in 2nd generation

The second generation section opens with

Second generation devices are often used by more experienced users. These devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.

The first sentence is unsourced and feels like it's there to peacock users of 2nd gen devices. I propose

Second generation devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, I doubt that any usage figures actually exist yet that are broken down into user experience and device generations so there's no real way of telling.Levelledout (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the source cited supports the content, the source says There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers). In the source it's in a paragraph discussing 2nd generation. I think it's reasonable to explain the difference in the users of first and second generation, don't see a reason to remove it. Zad68 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spot that, however I'm still not overly sure on the feel of the sentence as is (I know horrible fluffy wording here). The concept almost seems to be backwards. However, proposal dropped. SPACKlick (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. The previous wording that was in the article was something like "more advanced users", which I really did think was fluffy peacock, because it implied that e-cig use was on some sort of promotion/advancement track. "More experienced" I think is fairly neutral, it just describes the amount of time a user has been vaping. Zad68 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Zad pointed out, its in the source, I think its fine as it is. AlbinoFerret 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ECigIntelligence.com as possible source

ECigIntelligence.com has a lot of secondary source material, particularly on regulation but some scientific coverage too. I am involved with the site. If any editors would like to see the text of specific articles or relevant segments of articles I'm happy to provide it (within reason!); probably best to mention my username in the request so it shows up on my notifications. For obvious reasons I can't provide access through the paywall to all and sundry in an open forum like this. Barnabypage (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it counts as a reliable source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I think it meets the criteria (as an independent, professionally-edited news publication specialising in the subject) otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it, but if you do have any specific questions regarding that feel free. :) Barnabypage (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also would suggest it meets the criteria, the staff seems to be a mix of Lawyers and Journalists. They make clear declarations of independence from subject companies. It seems to hit all the criteria. It's not a source I'll be using because I doubt the subscription would be worth it for me personally, however I wouldn't object to it being included in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah it has no reputation for reliability as required by WP:RS. And it is mostly written by User:Barnabypage so definitely not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't mostly written by me. There are six writers on staff (including myself), as well as occasional outside contributors. I write about half the news, maybe slightly more, and none of the longer in-depth pieces on specific countries. Barnabypage (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oxford word of the year.

This might be trivial, but I think that it should be noted in the article that the Oxford Dictionary have chose the word "vape" as the word of the year for 2014. http://www.cnet.com/news/inhale-oxfords-word-of-the-year-vape/ TheNorlo (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED editors say that the name of the most substantial mitigation so far of the greatest cause of preventable deaths in both the developed world and emerging economies is the most important neologism of 2014. Why would that be trivial? Perhaps the OED editors need instruction from Misplaced Pages's medical clique about how representing all major points of view is less important than the personal opinions of unreviewed conference attendees. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

While I would love to include this titbit, I can't honestly see where it would go. @EllenCT: Did you mean representing all major points of view is less more important than the personal opinions of unreviewed conference attendees? SPACKlick (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asking a sarcastic rhetorical question because after being castigated for questioning the wisdom of pesticide manufacturers for the better part of a year, by editors who wanted to include obviously COI failed paid advocacy attempts to mimic the MEDRS criteria, editing this article feels like opposite-land to me. Sarcasm is unproductive and I should try to be above it. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It could easily go in society and culture.TheNorlo (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this WP:TRIVIA? QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how this info is integrated to the text... TheNorlo (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:TRIVIA? It's about sections devoted to trivia, and one of its main points is that statements which you might find in such sections can usually be integrated into other parts of the article. But my question asking why it would be trivia is sincere. Why would it be? EllenCT (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not of earth-shattering importance for sure, but it is an interesting indication of how rapidly vaping has entered mainstream consciousness. I don't think a brief reference would be inappropriate. Barnabypage (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree a brief mention in society and culture. It was noted by a lot of sources. Now all we need is some text. AlbinoFerret 15:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is evidence that words such as "vape", "vapor" and "vaping" are by far the most common words in general usage and therefore the most familiar to the general reader.Levelledout (talk) 16:31, 30 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) 21:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that proves very much - more tellingly, how many of the actual words from the last decade do you recognise and perhaps occasionally use? If you're like me, most of them. In any case, surely it's a recognition of a currently important neologism, rather than some kind of prediction about longevity, and the point it (implicitly) makes about vaping is that it has come pretty much out of nowhere to become a well-known and much-talked-about phenomenon very, very quickly. Barnabypage (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "refudiate" much talked about? How about "hypermiling"? I don't doubt they were the year Oxford chose them. But since then, not so much :) That's my point. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I do take the point. But on the other hand chav, sudoku, carbon footprint, podcast, unfriend, big society and (for now) selfie have all pretty much entered everyday language. Barnabypage (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Extending the articles protection

I think that the article has quieted down considerably. I think the page protection is a good thing and that it should be extended. AlbinoFerret 05:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

hummm... What?TheNorlo (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably better to have this conversation on the Requests for Page Protection page. Obviously it's quietened down considerably at the moment but I must say that I don't personally see the point in temporary page protection if not accompanied by other measures as it just delays the disputes until the article is unprotected.Levelledout (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If support for extending the protection is established here, a request for it at RFPP pointing to this discussion is likely to be accepted. Zad68 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: I think the temporary page protection might just delay things. But if an extended protection doesnt change things for the better it may show where the problem lies by the contrast to when it was in place. At this point I am enjoying the peace it brings and using the time now to look forward. I thinka first step towards not needing protection can be found below. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support extending page protection, for let's say another 2 weeks, I think it's helped the editing atmosphere immeasurably. Zad68 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support extending page protection. The improvement in atmosphere is very apparent. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "I think that the article has quieted down considerably." That is a good reason to remove the NPOV tag at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why the protection is needed. Without consensus you removed that tag. That was wrong of you. The object is to solve the issues before removing tags. You didnt even discuss it. AlbinoFerret 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: In light of the massive, controversial edits that occurred as soon as protection expired. Mihaister (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support extending page protection, this page needs a little more discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin 1971 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• wholeheartedly Support. QuackGuru has shown that those with a POV to push are willing to make wholescale changes to the article without discussion. Forcing discussion is the only way this article is going to be improved. I'm slightly disappointed there wasn't even a minor slap at AN/I for QG following his giant edit pile within 5 hours of the protection being lifted. Protect, indef if needs be. SPACKlick (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The POV pushing, including making contentious changes while RFCs in place is why we need to protection. I have reverted to the previous version that was protected, and encourage editors to get consensus before making contentious changes. Yobol (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1RR proposal

I like the peace that has come to the page through the protection. To make a more lasting peace I think this page should adopt a 1 Revert Rule. This would help eliminate the edit wars. I also propose an addition to the 1RR rule that if something is reverted a talk page section be created and a revert by any other party not happen until consensus is determined. Of course spam and obvious vandalism is not covered by this rule. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Non consensus edits by QuackGuru

I thought perhaps the protection would change how things are done, apparently not QuackGuru has been busy in his sandbox and when he found the page unprotected did a massive edit. diff and then without discussion removed the POV tag. diff2 AlbinoFerret 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the NPOV tag removal. I'm still wading my way thru the other massive edit, and I find some of the changes helpful, but many are not and deepen the NNPOV slant. At this point, I think this should be reverted and invite QG to make small incremental edits to facilitate discussion and consensus for each item. Mihaister (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should be reverted, I am asking for protection now. AlbinoFerret 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the issue with any of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reasons? The POV tag, you didnt discuss its removal even though its been gone over before. The reason you gave for its removal isnt a reason to have it removed. Your other edit is massive and hurts the page POV, you didnt discuss such a massive edit, you just did it, there is no consensus now for adding so much to slant the pov even further. You have not added one positive, all negatives. Looking at your sandbox, you have been planning this since the protection was enacted but didnt come here and discuss them , but waited to ambush everyone. AlbinoFerret 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, QG! The burden of proof lies with you. And massive edits like that are against WP:CAUTIOUS, particularly on a controversial topic such as this. You should've anticipated that such an action would be inflammatory. Mihaister (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, QG, that the edit you did is all the proof we need that you are not acting in good faith. You didn't discuss a single one of those edits here while the page was protected. You are making the article more to your taste, not closer to the consensus version. I will freely admit that any edit you make to this page will receive more scrutiny from me that the average edit and if it's even slighlty out of line with consensus expect to find a revert and section on the talk page asking you to justify it. SPACKlick (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does verify the claim

"Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes." QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does not verify the claim! Even the real world does not verify the claim (smoking among youth is on a new low)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I note User:QuackGuru and User:Cloudjpk have engaged in a tag-team edit war to insert inflammatory and unsubstantiated opinion into the article written in Misplaced Pages's own voice. , . Per WP:BRD, QG made the Bold edit, I reverted here, then QG should've brought the topic for discussion here and seek consensus, rather than proceeded to edit war the claim. Mihaister (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not making much sense for deleting the text. I don't understand your objection based on WP:PAG. The text is sourced using a MEDRS compliant review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The material is relevant and factual, the source is MEDRS, and the source verifies. Anyone is welcome to check. Calling it "inflammatory and unsubstantiated opinion" is simply inaccurate and frankly over-the-top. An actual objection, we can discuss. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The addition is in a section describing another page, its supposed to be a summery. Adding to it over and over again is bloat! There is no consensous to add the claim, add it to the Legal page. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You have to have a reason to exclude it. The addition was relevant text. You haven't given a valid reason to exclude the text and you deleted it from the other page too. You replaced the MEDRS sourced text with a primary source at the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do, it doesnt belong on this page, it belongs on Legal Status. AlbinoFerret 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This arbitrary and prejudiced opinion does not belong on Misplaced Pages in any article. It is not a medical claim - so MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. Mihaister (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a very POV twisting of whats in Grana. Grana is also not a source on marketing or laws or how laws are formed. It is not a source for how people exercise their rights. I agree it is nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX. Would we use a journal of an association of mechanics or lawyers to give insight into medical issues? No, its not their field of expertise. AlbinoFerret 04:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So the text we are talking about is "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

Seems fairly relevant in a society and culture section. Could use some adjustment to wording. Would also belong in a section called marketing rather than under legal status. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry can we have specific line by line justification of that text it makes lots of claims.

1) The companies recruit consumers to push a policy agenda? This will need to be distinct from advocacy because it's a different claim. Also they'll need to be recruiting specifically for that agenda.

2) Do e-cig companies highlight laws negative to their business to their consumers more than other industries? What source says that?

3) We seriously need exact reference in a secondary source for the 1980's smokers comparison because that is POV as hell and it will need to be well sourced for weight.

4) The TPD wasn't minimised, and we can't really raise the advocacy issues with the TPD without also mentioning the fact that many of the scientists quoted to justify the regulations outspokenly claimed to have been misused.

All in all the whole passage reads like spin. I would oppose inclusion in any form without significantly better sourcing and I don't believe the better sourcing exists. SPACKlick (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that this is the opinions of the authors, not facts. And the authors (and the venue of publication) is not authoritative on that particular issue. We may want to have a section on such policy/marketing, but it should be populated by WP:RS's that are highly reliable within that particular subtopic. And not just present opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Heavens, nothing is stopping you from going to Grana and reading it yourself. I did so and the source verifies. Nor is it a matter of opinion what companies have done; e.g. websites and marketing are pretty public behavior. A reliable soure is documenting what has appeared there. It's relevant, factual, sourced, and not otherwise covered in the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James: I agree with everything you said except for section. The activity in question is aimed at affecting legislation and regulation, not just marketing. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't find a better source. Why? I know a better sourcing does not exist because we are already using a high-quality MEDRS compliant source. It is not our job as editors to question a reliable review in this manner. Neutral observers can read the source to verify the claim. The text belongs in the legal status section IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? No one is doubting that the source is stating this opinion. You cannot quote opinion as fact - and you most certainly cannot quote opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice! --Kim D. Petersen 05:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You argument is we can keep it if we add in-text attribution? QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is a singular opinion - no. If it reflects the balance of writings on the topic then yes. But opinions are not authoritative. A general caution between what is opinion/policy recommendations/.. and factual medical material is needed when citing papers. While a medical review may be authoritative on medical stuff, it is not authoritative on policy, history etc. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Atomises in the lead

Does the Atomiser actually atomise? I don't have access to the source but my understanding is that it vaporised the liquid which then condensed into a visible aerosol? If the source says Atomise that's fine but I wanted someone to confirm. SPACKlick (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The source uses it, and its common terminology when talking about a vaporizer. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Coolio just couldn't check the source and I'm always unsure between those two. SPACKlick (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FDA quote

"E-cigarettes have not been fully studied, so consumers currently don’t know: the potential risks of e-cigarettes when used as intended, how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or whether there are any benefits associated with using these products. Additionally, it is not known whether e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death."

As this bolded claim has all but been debunked is it worth including that the FDA speculated about it in 2013? I'd recommend truncating the quote to remove that part. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

AgreeZvi Zig (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Um no, that is madness. We do not remove reliably sourced information because individual editors believe something is "debunked". Numerous medical organizations have come to the same conclusion as the FDA. Yobol (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol. Has the FDA withdrawn the statement in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The point being the concern expressed in 2013 has been tested since and so the concern is no longer relevant. Nobody is saying the FDA didn't say it just that the concern was considered and found without merit. I'm trying to find which source the relevant studies on gateway effect were discussed in but I can't off the top of my head remember. 213.106.233.97 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So tell the FDA to take it down and when the do your argument will be stronger. The page in question was last updated in late 2014 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

POV edit

I went back and read the Harm reduction section today. Amidst all the issues an edit sneaked in.diff Yobol turned a neutral statement into pure negativity. Should this have happened? No the claim was sourced. AlbinoFerret 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you fixed it, and that's good but I don't like the third sentence purely stylistically. It is possible one could be approved in the future, but hat approval would have to demonstrate that they reduce harm for tobacco related disease or will improve the health of the population as a whole.. This is pure speculation and talks about regulation rather than harm reduction. Not sure how to improve though SPACKlick (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I will remove it.AlbinoFerret 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yobol just reverted everything, including sourced additions. diff and replacing the part you pointed out that I just removed and restored the POV edit. AlbinoFerret 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This was explained here which is now archived as no one actually responded to it. You don't get to wait a few days after a discussion is archived and say something was "sneaked in" and then revert to your preferred version as if no one discussed this at all. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion a day with only two editors, during normal travel time before a holiday. You did not have consensus to change it to the POV edit you did. Completely removing one claim. AlbinoFerret 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So instead of unarchiving the discussion and continuing it, your decision is to ignore the actual discussion and edit war over it, against the objections of both editors who did respond to it. Awesome plan. Yobol (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt aware it even existed, still, you have no consensus as is shown by this section. You edit warred over it by reverting it a second time, before discussing it. I started this section before my edit. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for the change, it reverts back to before your edit. AlbinoFerret 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You weren't aware of a talk page section you started and replied to existed? Really? Yobol (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh now convenient that your interpretation of the rules leads you to believe that when two editors disagree with you, and no one agrees, there is "no consensus" and therefore your version is the one that has to stay put. /smh. Yobol (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I forgot the section existed, I was out of town for thanksgiving in a place with very limited internet. I actually enjoyed my time away and was planing on coming back and starting out on a new foot when I found the page had been protected during one of the few chances I had to be online in a town of about 600 people. There is more than one person that disagrees with your edit, look above. AlbinoFerret 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that you are aware of the section, why don't you actually try responding to it, instead of edit warring? Yobol (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I changed back the bold edit to show I dagreed with it. You , knowing that the section existed DID edit war by reverting it. You also removed sourced material in your massive revert. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, why don't you actually try responding to the the discussion points brought up instead of trying to justify your reverts/edit warring. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did not edit war, You did. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Drummond in the Harm reduction section

Drummond says this

"Until electronic cigarette safety and efficacy data are available, the promotion of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction and cessation tool in smokers is premature, although it could possibly occur if a modified risk tobacco product claim is submitted and approved. Such a claim would require evidence that e-cigarettes significantly reduce the “harm and risk of tobacco-related disease” and “will benefit the health of the population as a whole” (60).

The article was edited here to combine two separate thoughts into one.diff The reasons for it being premature are separate from the requirements to be approved. Combining them is Original Research WP:OR. AlbinoFerret 06:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you slow down a bit on the changes? Revert 1. Revert 2. Revert 3 Revert 4. Revert 5. Is the current wording okay with you or are you going to continue to make changes such as adding "It is possible one could be approved in the future..." Do you still want to include future claims? QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Number 2 isnt a revert, its removing a citation and a tag, thats an edit. #3 is an edit, I added that. #4 was an edit, I added most of that. All three of these were edits. A revert is restoring a page to a former state by undoing another edit. You need to have a page, or at least a part of a page, in the recent past,that existed before, just like it. Editors are also not required to have a memory of all the forms of the page that existed in the past, or to search through all of them for one. With a page like Electronic cigarette , it would be impossible to do. The other two were over a day apart. AlbinoFerret 07:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed on page 237 where it states, "Although there is increasing evidence of e-cigarette use among youth and adults, the population health impact of e-cigarettes is unknown." The text in question clearly states that harm reduction is premature because we don't know about how well e-cigarettes work and if they are safe, and that we need to know specifically if they reduce tobacco related disease or how if affects the population health as a whole (which, of course, comes under the safety and efficacy discussion earlier). We know these last two points apply because we see it used on page 237 and because it takes an incredibly strained reading of the source to say that he is throwing the last phrase out there without making a determination of where e-cig falls, after already stating it on page 237. Yobol (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not speculative information and I disagree with your changes to the lede too. Changing unclear to premature is a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorporating the usage statistics on 237 into harm reduction which is on page 240 is OR. AlbinoFerret 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading and incorporating material from the entire article, in context, is not OR, it's called editing. Yobol (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Page 237 isnt about harm reduction at all, its usage and regulatory history. Secondly, he entirety of page 240 is speculation from a section titled "The Future Directions for e-Cigarettes" and is opinion, not facts and is unusable in its present form. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin? 1) Sources with opinions are perfectly reliable and usable on Misplaced Pages, in fact we use "opinions" throughout the article, in-text attributed already. 2) Your attempts to ignore the context of the material by looking only at one paragraph out of context with the rest of the article is pretty sad. It's not often that you see someone arguing that we shouldn't be looking at the context of the rest of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what I said, I said it was unusable in its present form as facts. Inclusion of speculation and opinions is by consensus and the material will have to be rephrased, and attributed if used at all. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As for combining things inside an article, its ok if the author does it. But WP editors doing so are creating OR by synthesis. Imediate context is good, within sections. But combining information from diffrent sections is pure OR if the author doesnt state it. AlbinoFerret 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are fine based on facts. But speculation of what facts could happen in the future is beyond the scope of what should be used imho. It also should never be phrased as facts as it is in the article now. AlbinoFerret 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with in text attribution such that the second sentence is also in text attributed . I'm not fine with the wikilawyering above about not being able to use the source as written. We clearly read the source differently, and I have said all I can to explain my position as clearly as possible. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we have a difference of opinion. Wikilawyering has a clear negative connotation link. Discussions of edits and material to be included in an article are to be based on WP policy and guidelines. Not I Just Like It or I Just Dont Like It WP:JDLI. I have learned that basing discussions on guidelines and policy is a better way of discussing things and it avoids personal attacks. Im sorry you dont like it. But I recommend you assume good faith. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. I think you are misreading WP:OR and have no intention on discussing this further with you. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF and the rest of the guidelines are preferable to ad hominem attacks, I suggest you stay away from them. I will take this to the OR noticeboard. Here is a link AlbinoFerret 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal There is no consensus for keeping this edit WP:NOCONSENSUS per the policy is should be reverted if kept at all. The material is highly speculative and is written as facts in its previous form, therefore it should be removed and consensus gauged on a possible new form to take its place. AlbinoFerret 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I think I know which text you are referring to and I disagree with removing it. After the discussion was over for a bit you started it again and began making changes again? Sources with opinions can be fixed by using in-text attribution and that is what we are doing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal per AF. -A1candidate (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Another attempt to remove any and all material that might put e-cigs in any hint of negative light. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The the lower relative risks of e-cigarettes is not really an uncertainty

That the lower relative risks of e-cigarettes vs. combustible tobacco cigarettes is no longer an uncertainty. A wider-ranging and strong agreement exists on this point.

Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control: '

"FCA Policy briefing: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems," (October 2014):

"E-cigarettes are almost certainly considerably less hazardous for individuals than cigarettes."

http://www.fctc.org/images/stories/policy_brief.pdf

Public Health England

“Electronic cigarettes: A report commissioned by Public Health England,” (May 2014):

"Overall however the hazards associated with use of products currently on the market is likely to be extremely low, and certainly much lower than smoking."

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

US Food & Drug Administration (May 2014):

FDA Tobacco Products Director, Mitch Zeller, Testimony before Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees:

"If we look at a subset of smokers who are otherwise unable or unwilling to quit – half of them will die prematurely later in life from that decision – if we can get all of those people to completely quit all of their cigarettes for one of these noncombustible products that would be good for public health."

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4510243/zeller-e-cig-safety

Cancer Research UK "Cancer Research UK Briefing: Electronic cigarettes.” (May 2014):

"There is a consensus that e-cigarettes are almost certainly much safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes"

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy_may2014_e-cigarette_briefing.pdf

American Heart Association

"Electronic Cigarettes: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association." (August 2014):

"The levels of toxic constituents in e-cigarette aerosol are much lower than those in cigarette smoke, there is still some level of passive exposure to organic compounds, nicotine, and fine particles."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/16/1418.fullZvi Zig (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is no longer a question of lower risk. Safe, no, but lower risk than tobacco cigarettes that have been proven deadly is not an unanswered question. This is not a question for current smokers, who we know are killing themselves. How great a reduction of risk may yet have to be proven, but some reduction of risk is proven by these statements. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

While the precise risk profile of anything is always somewhat elusive, words like "much" or "considerably" are used in four of the above statements in order to delineate a lower risk. All of the statements above are definitive. Most of them explicitly use the word "certainly." The statement in the main article saying "the limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer," certainly does not reflect the position statements above. There is no reason the statements in the main article should not reflect the position statements above.Zvi Zig (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note this is risk per puff. Actual risk depends on use patterns: dual use versus switching. We need to be clear in stating what is lower than what. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are any of these sources reviews? We are using better sources in the article for the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we state "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes." Would be happy to see that changed to ""The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes." We can discuss other wording aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

But that doesn't reflect what the sources are saying. They're all saying that e-cigs are much safer than smoking, and the scientific debate right now is where in the order of 95-99.9% safer they actually lie. "Probably safer" doesn't convey what the vast preponderance of RS are stating.--FergusM1970 05:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Again: that's puff for puff. Actual risk depends on patterns of use. Reduced quitting smoking because of device use, for instance, is less safe. And this is not a hypothetical; this is the pooled results of five population level studies (Grana). And this is why we need to be clear and specific: the "lower risk" comparison is puff for puff. Saying e.g. "e-cigs vs. smoking" does not make that clear. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

But "reduced quitting" is purely hypothetical and conflicts with all the actual evidence. Grana is a bad review; it's cherry-picked, because it's advocacy not science, and it's a disgrace that this article has such a disproportionate reliance on it. Why did Grana and Glanz ignore all the data from the UK and Europe? Why is half their paper filled with policy recommendations and diatribes against (irrelevant) tobacco advertising, instead of science? There is no reduction in quitting due to e-cigs. People like Robert West are adamant that the actual effect is increased quitting, and unlike Glantz they have the data to back that up.--FergusM1970 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it does not conflict with all the evidence; it does not conflict with the published evidence of 5 population level studies, as reviewed in a reliable source. That source is used because, if I may quote Zad68: "Grana et al. is a recent review article published in Circulation, which has the #1 top impact factor rating among all journals in its subject area, and further is associated with the AHA, one of the most prominent and influential medical associations. Therefore per WP:NPOV it deserves huge weight in our article." Cloudjpk (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Cloud, those reviews don't say "Puff for puff" they're talking about the use profile. A smoker switching to using e-cigarettes is much safer than one who doesn't given how they each use their respective nicotine delivery systems. That's the current scientific consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Some sources do make that distinction clear. For instance, among the sources cited here, FCA: "...depends not just on the extent of this reduction in hazard, but also on the extent and impact of dual use, on the uptake of e-cigarettes bynever-smokers, on the impact of e-cigarette use on continuing or prospective smokers" and Zeller: "if we can get all of those people to completely quit all of their cigarettes". Emphasis mine. So I'm not saying no one mentions that distinction, or takes it into account. I'm merely saying it's important that the article does not confuse or gloss over that distinction. I don't think there is any question that e-cigs are less harmful, puff for puff. But actual risk depends on patterns of use. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the same user is going to use an e-cig as they did tobacco ones. This is arguing over fractions of percentages, which probably wont be in the article. The information is also not limited to the above statements by major medical but reviews like Hajek have said it. Though an addition of lower risk for current smokers may make sense. AlbinoFerret 15:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OR accusations

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Electronic cigarette. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massive edits before protection

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Electronic cigarette. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Two massive edits were made before the page was protected diff1 diff2 there is either consensus to remove them, or no consensus that they remain per WP:NOCONSENSUS they should be removed. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

More Discussion out of the discussion section

The proposal to revert back to an older version is counterproductive. The article was expanded with additional information from MEDRS reviews and original research was tagged and then subsequently removed. Why would anyone want to restore original research? Any specific proposal must show what's actually the problem. See here for background information related to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You Call it OR QG, you haven't convinced anyone it was. This is part of why the page has been put back in protection because your ownership of this article is making it worse in many people's opinion. Most of your edits are good ideas but the quality of the final product is often worse and some of your edits give excess weight to minority opinions. I agree at this point we should fix the article step by step rather than just rollback but how can you still be so blind to the point that you have a minority understanding of the subject of this article. You have a focus on articles that other people feel do not reflect the overall picture of scientific publication and that you write in an English that several people have commented is often hard to read and sometimes makes no sense at all. Do you at elast understand the problem? SPACKlick (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: There is no reason it cant be rolled back and piece by peace gone over. But in the present massive form its impossible to do it on the talk page. All that comes in, and from my reading it wont be a lot, will certainly need to be changed in some form. We need to address specific edits or the discussion will be all over the place. There is simply to much to go over at one time. AlbinoFerret 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I did remove original research and add high-quality sources to verify unsourced claims. The text in the lede is sourced and that is an improvement. For example:

Previous unsourced text: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has the feel of tobacco smoking."

Sourced text: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking." See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Nothing more than feelings.

The text was sourced to a 2012 review. Please read "The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system that looks very similar to a conventional cigarette and is capable of emulating smoking, but without the combustion products accountable for smoking's damaging effects."

Unsourced text: "Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to reduce harm from smoking and to cut back on traditional cigarettes."

The part "reduce harm from smoking" is OR. Another editor added a source in the middle of the sentence does not verify the claim.

Current sourced text: "Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, another common explanation for the use of these products is to cut back on traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes have potential to decrease the popularity of traditional cigarette use in the UK." I split the sentence into two different sentences.

New MEDRS compliant reviews have been added to the article along with sourced text:

Here is an example of some text that was added: "A 2012 review found e-cigarettes could considerably reduce traditional cigarette use and they likely could be used as a lower risk replacement for traditional cigarettes, but there is not enough data on the safety and efficacy to draw definite conclusions."

Here is another example of sourced text that was added using a secondary source. "The Oxford Dictionaries' word of the year for 2014 is 'vape'." There is a discussion to include the word of the year, vape. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Oxford word of the year..

1. ^ Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.
2. Fallon, Claire (November 19, 2014). "'Vape' Is Oxford Dictionaries' Word Of The Year". The Huffington Post.
3. Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.
4. Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995274. PMID 24732165.
5. Lauterstein, Dana; Hoshino, Risa; Gordon, Terry; Watkins, Beverly-Xaviera; Weitzman, Michael; Zelikoff, Judith (2014). "The Changing Face of Tobacco Use Among United States Youth". Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 7 (1): 29–43. doi:10.2174/1874473707666141015220110. ISSN 1874-4737. PMID 25323124.

• There are issues that go beyond a traditional content dispute. For example, both User:AlbinoFerret and User:SPACKlick proposed sanctions against me at ANI. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru and see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Action or closure.3F .28e-cig threads.29. Without supporting evidence AlbinoFerret and another editor accused me of canvassing in another thread on this talk page. User:Damotclese explained that I am not the problem.. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear example of WP:IDHT the consensus has already been reached to remove them, and WP:STONEWALL. You had your say and comment on keeping this below. If you argue that there is no consensus the edits are removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS adding more and more on the same topics will not change things. You are also outside of the Discussion area, your posts should be moved. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have provided examples of improvements to this article and now AlbinoFerret is not engaging in discussion about the improvements I cited. This is counter to promoting collegial editing at this page that would lead to a much faster resolution and a higher quality article. WP:CIR to edit. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You are getting dangerously close to disruptive behaviour. I suggest you take some time and think. I also suggest you strike the clear violation of WP:AGF. AlbinoFerret 18:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack can I please make a polite request that you try to focus on what you think the issue is with the article's content instead of directing conduct accusations at specific editors. Doing this would certainly help to promote collegial editing. I understand you are frustrated that a compromise has not developed with regards to these specific edits, but it was made clear to you on your talk page by John that , a statement which you did not challenge. In light of it this, it is perhaps best to clear the edits that happened in the short time that the page was unlocked. Then we can start afresh to try and work towards consensus on future edits.Levelledout (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic

Yobol reverted the page today to the point after the previous protection.diff1. It at least gave us a chance to discuss some of the edits. QuackGuru then did two massive edits, reverting what Yobol did and adding more. diff2 diff3 What is the consensus for keeping these edits that happened without discussion? AlbinoFerret 23:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Though I share QG's view on many of the issues here, he broke the atmosphere of working toward consensus that developed during the previous period of protection with a lot of unilateral edits. So I would support reverting to the state it was in at the end of the last protected period. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Removal They were added without consensus and can be added again if consensus is reached on each part of the edits through discussion. AlbinoFerret 00:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep "I don't like how it was done" is not a compelling reason. Yes, the style of how it was done may indeed offend! But it's the substance that should be under discussion. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal Edits appear to be an attempt to WP:GAME the system. Not to mention no consensus, neutral point of view, WP:REDFLAG, etc, etc.Levelledout (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal until a consensus can be gathered on the individual additions/changes. Unfortunately the edits seem to me a continuation of the POV problems already in the article, by focusing on primarily one review, and primarily on the negatives and ignoring the overall agreements amongst WP:MEDRS's - cherry-picking is a good word, and FUD another. --Kim D. Petersen 01:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless editors can show what is the issue with the changes there is no reason to revert to an old version. The changes also added new MEDRS reviews to the article and removed original research from the article. Now all the text in the lede is sourced too. Making vague accusations there is a problem with the text is unhelpful and shows editors just don't like it and will continue to oppose. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Content is not decided with an ILIKEIT vote. Any proposal has to be based on evidence showing a problem. The dynamics of this talk page (fifty edits per day) are such that no reasoned discussion can occur and there can be no proper evaluation of consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote on if someone likes or dislikes the material. But that no consensus was reached before they were added, and now it appears there is no consensus to keep them. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you don't like the contributions. You haven't explained any problems with the contributions. Side-note. Neutral observers can read WP:FILIBUSTER. We should strive to improve the article and not get into a heated discussion to revert obvious improvements. The recently added MEDRS reviews are the highest quality evidence available. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They're only "obvious improvements" in your opinion. You had no consensus to change the article so much.--FergusM1970 08:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support revert to version prior to the expiration of PP. The massive edits have been reverted by multiple editors, which, per WP:BRD is reason enough to have all text removed and opened for discussion here. Even without overwhelming opposition from other editors, massive edits like this are also in violation of WP:CAUTIOUS and are clear attempts to WP:GAME the system. Mihaister (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support revert - QG needs to stop making bad edits without consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what are the bad edits. It is unreasonable to remove all the text and all the MEDRS sources. It is also unreasonable to restore the original research that was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Process is important as well as content QG, you re-inserted material I've disputed with these two edits. What is the benefit of having "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles." in the lede? What is the benefit of referring to the vapor as mist when nobody else does and consensus went against you at RFC? Why do you over rely on Grana when the weight of scientific research shows Grana as an outlier particularly for dubious claims like those about cannabis? Why don't you check what you've written is in English like where you've added the bold part "Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this shows that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths, with the addictive drug nicotine.". Why do you keep adding things to the lede which are far too detailed for a summary of the article? Why do you constantly not hear the objections people have to your style of content and editing? In essence QG why do you kepp taking steps to make the article harder to read and convey less accurate information to readers rather than seeking consensus and working with people to build an article that is high quality? SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can support removing this sentence from the lede: "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles." Removing one sentence from the lede does not require reverting back to an old version. You have not explained how it would improve the article to remove all the MEDRS sources and to restore the original research that was removed. There are several editors who disagree with you at the RFC that is still open. The text is obviously sourced and you are not explaining why you want to delete it. Please read the source: "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes." You want to delete sourced text from the body without a good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Revert - I really think QG needs to step off this article. Bad edits, in Bad faith causing a Bad atmosphere leading to a bad article. It's a shame everything got closed at AN/I just as GQ stepped up his biggest example of bad faith. (unsigned comment by SPACKlick diff
• Why? Many of the changes were simply adding refs. Removing some bit sure. But removing all of it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious claims

The article now states "A refill bottle can contain up to 1g of nicotine". I know this is sourced to a review, but it's still false. A standard refill bottle is 10ml. The highest generally available strength of liquid is 24mg/ml. Do the maths. This claim is false.--FergusM1970 05:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have another source to verify your claim? QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes: any website that sells liquid. We do not need a MEDRS source to know the size of a small squeezy bottle.--FergusM1970 05:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that supports your claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just told you, Quack: Any website. I buy e-liquid three times a week and I don't need a medical journal to know what size the bottles are. They are 10ml. Refill bottles do not contain anything like a gramme of nicotine. A bottle of high-strength liquid has less than a quarter of that amount.--FergusM1970 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Different countries may have different levels. Any website is not reliable. I request a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody vapes 100mg/ml liquid. All countries use the same range of levels. You are just abusing the rules to push your POV. You still haven't answered the WP:WEIGHT points against your drug claims, have you?--FergusM1970 05:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoa? That would mean a 10ml refill bottle with 100 mg/ml ... i don't know of any e-liquid for consumers that contains 100 mg/ml. Is someone confusing a nicotine base with actual e-liquid for vaping? The actual text in the Lippi et al(2014) is cited to this article, where the claim cannot be verified. I'm inclined to think that this is a typo/error in Lippi... It certainly raises a WP:REDFLAG by being incompatible with reality, and thus shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen 05:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If editors think the source is wrong then I recommend editors can find another reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot? You are asking people to provide proof of the negative. That won't fly - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 05:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to address the WP:REDFLAG here. Do other sources claim that 100 mg/ml refill bottles exist? --Kim D. Petersen 05:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen anything higher than 72mg on sale, and even that was base for DIY mixing. 100mg/ml refills? Nope. If this is to stay in the article we need a better source, preferably more than one.--FergusM1970 05:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys this is kind of my area. There are larger refill bottles, some people have 50ml refills they carry around. While 72mg/ml is the strongest base fluid you can get in the UK and 100mg/ml is available as base in other countries (the chemistry gets interesting much more concentrated than that) the highest I'm aware of anyone consuming is 32mg/ml, which in a 30ml bottle is close enough to 1 gram of nicotine in the bottle. It's the extreme end of the scale but it definitely exists. The question is should it be pointed to when the vast majority of refill bottles are going to contain 180mg-540mg and what is the point in specifying that figure? SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The point of specifying the figure, obviously, is to create a perception of e-cigs being dangerous. Just like all his other edits.--FergusM1970 11:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd accuse QuackGuru of one sided POV, there are balancing posts. The issues are more usually related to writing which is hard to understand and a lot of data bundled together uninformatively. If we can work out why the fact that some bottles may contain a gram of nicotine is important maybe we can work out how to write a coherent article. (unsigned comment by SPACKlick diff)

Fair enough; let's hear from Quack on why the 1g claim and the material about erectile dysfunction drugs are important.--FergusM1970 11:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How about replace we work together and replace it with another source or add or replace it with something without a source for now and find another source later. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we just delete it? It isn't interesting or informative. You still haven't attempted to explain why you think it deserves to be in the article.--FergusM1970 22:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• I was called by the 'Bot some time ago due to what looks like edit warring and the inability for some editors to understand the difference between aerosols and vapor. Yet after reviewing the extant article in my opinion there are a lot of unfounded claims being made in the article, and the article itself reads like it was written by eSig industry marketing / sales people. The edit warring looks like it's a battle between eSig industry and a lone quack-busting editor, both of which have an emotional investment in the subject, the industry-related editors holding a financial dog in this race.

No offense intended however going out and soliciting people to take sides in an edit war or an RFC is against the mundane guidelines for Misplaced Pages editors. As one editor has already pointed out, facts aren't subject to votes, so calling in people to take your side in a debate is pointless.

I see QuackGuru making legitimate requests for references and evidence, and I see other editors asking QuackGuru for evidence however what I don't see is anyone providing independent references to bolster their suggested edits. This article is being contentious, and it looks to me like it's financially-motivated people who are the problem, not QuackGuru.

Resolution of this contention should not be difficult: Open an RFC on specific items of debate and when people respond to the solicited comments, adopt what the RFC conclusions are. You can also ask for a third party resolution instead of an RFC but once again, if you do so you must accept the recommendations of the responding editor. There should not be this protracted argument. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I would caution you about making statements on the motivation of editors without proof. That is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Other people may disagree with you or your position. But keeping to the edits proposed, and not the editor, is best imho. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As for QG, perhaps he has some points, and edits that should be included. But the way he goes about it is wrong. This is a contentious article, and things need to be discussed. Not put up an OR tag and one minute later remove the wording. Not paraphrasing. Adding difficult language. Adding fringe opinions as facts. Adding massive edits with no discussion on consensus of the editors is to include it. This article needs to slow down and discuss things. Serious work needs to be done on some sections that look like someone wrote down claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a hat, and pulled them out and wrote them into the article. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would caution you about WP:NPOV in Talk:: pages as well as extant articles. The edit warring I have been observing, and the edit warring that prompted being called by the RFC 'bot clearly shows highly biased motivations, and the protracted argument yourself and others are engaged in have been getting increasingly petty.

Misplaced Pages is a volunteer effort, and you editors engaged in this petty dispute need to behave more professionally, otherwise few volunteers called in to admonish unprofessional behavior and work to resolve disputes are going to waste their time. As for me, your unprofessional behavior means I'm done with you, and finished with this RFC cycle. If I get called once again to mediate this endless war, I won't respond. Damotclese (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting "mediation" attempt, but I think we were doing better without the unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks that go against the most fundamental behavioral guideline of Misplaced Pages: WP:AGF. Mihaister (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense inserted

Immediately before the article was locked again QuackGuru inserted this. Do we really need this sort of subjective rubbish?--FergusM1970 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A comparison of the difference is reasonable. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of e-cigarette is it talking about? Define "cold". What about the ones with a soft rubber coating? It's nonsense. It adds nothing to the article.--FergusM1970 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of e-cigarette is it talking about? The review did not mention any specific e-cig. Do you have a source for a soft rubber coating. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If the review didn't mention any specific e-cig how is it a reliable source for the claims it's making? As for the rubber coating, most Gen 2 batteries have one.--FergusM1970 05:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for the claim because we are using a review without OR. For the rubber coating we can include that too if you have a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It. Is. Wrong. Have a real close read at that PDF. It's full of nonsense claims. "E-cigs closely resemble a tobacco cigarette" and similar bilge. That paper is in no way a reliable source. It's absolutely riddled with errors. As for the rubber coating, would a manufacturer's site satisfy you or are you going to insist on something from UCSF?--FergusM1970 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is a recent review. "Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Papale G, Russo C, Polosa R. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2012 Feb;6(1):63-74. doi: 10.1586/ers.11.92. Review." The source is definitely reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is definitely wrong, Quack. Modern e-cigs do not closely resemble cigarettes. They are not smokeless tobacco. They are, largely, not made by tobacco companies. And the "cold, hard and bulky" description is not universal by any stretch of the imagination.--FergusM1970 05:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Distributor of standard black eGo batteries, referring to a soft rubber coating.--FergusM1970 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:SECONDARY for what is a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to insist on a WP:MEDRS source for the finish on an e-cig battery? Don't you see a problem here? The most common e-cigs are eGo-style ones. Unless they're SS finish they are coated in rubber. This is non-controversial and should not be subject to wikilawyering.--FergusM1970 05:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt by Quack to insert nonsense based solely on what can only be described as magical thinking (i.e. it's small, white and smooth and looks like a cigarette, therefore it must be "bad"). WTF? Mihaister (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Caponnetto(2012) is not a "recent review" in this context - it only covers 1st generation devices, and thus only "cigalikes"... probably because in 2011 when the review was written, that was the most common device in the US. The world has moved on... Here in late 2014, the information is outdated, and incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Would remove. This is a better overview Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How is a statement from the FCTC that they are preparing a statement/report a better overview? It provides little to no information. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What that says is already in the Components section sourced to reviews. The addition by Quack isnt needed and is outdated. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If editors are concerned about the text they can tweak the text or add or replace it with text from WHO. See "Although some e-cigarettes look like tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipes, hookahs, or shishas), they may be produced in the form of everyday items such as pens, USB memory sticks or larger cylindrical or rectangular devices." There are options on the table. QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The information is already in the article sourced to a 2014 review

Most electronic cigarettes take an overall cylindrical shape although a wide array of shapes can be found: box, pipe styles etc. First generation electronic cigarettes were usually designed to simulate smoking implements, such as cigarettes or cigars, in their use and appearance

If anything that reference can be added to the already existing wording. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Per RFC above remove all references to Mist and change most to Vapor

I propose the following changes to the article. First to change every instance of the word mist to vapor. Then 1) Section Lede They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. to They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is commonly referred to as vapor.

2) Section Safety The aerosol emitted from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor. to The aerosol emitted from an e-cigarette is commonly called vapor.

3) The tag of File:Cigarrillo electronico funcionando.jpg|thumb| from Aerosol (mist) exhaled by a first generation e-cigarette user. to Vapor exhaled by a first generation e-cigarette user.

4) delivered to users and the surrounding air from the exhaled aerosol, even when the same liquid is used. to delivered to users and the surrounding air from the exhaled vapor, even when the same liquid is used.

I look forward to seeing if there is consensus for this change. SPACKlick (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

• Oppose Yes we have a huge issue here. You came and "closed" the RfC which is not allowed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close the RFC and as far as I'm aware nobody has closed the RFC, however the consensus surrounding mist appears overwhelming. SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just requested the RFC be closed by an admin link, the results should be available soon I hope. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Neither oppose nor support Why not simply explain that "vapor" is not technically correct (as per Grana) but that "vapor" and "mist" are still used (by other sources) to refer to "aerosol" when talking about e-cigarettes. After we have explained that the terms are synonymous for all practical purposes, it really does not matter which term is used in each individual instance (although ideally some consistency would make things less confusing).Levelledout (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Including the different synonyms benefits the reader and this was not part of the RFC to change the wording in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC covers the whole article. it is not limited to any section. AlbinoFerret 16:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support I can't believe someone has changed "vapour" to "mist". NOBODY calls it mist. This article is supposed to be informative, not confusing, so using an unfamiliar (and inaccurate) word is just perverse. It needs to be changed.--FergusM1970 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should wait for the RfC to be closed. Yobol (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of redundancies and over detail in the lede

I propose removing the following from the lede as redundant or excessively detailed

1) E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles This sits between sentences detailing that it contains nicotine and forms and aerosol.

2)The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes. This bolded section seems to add nothing but bloat to the sentence.

SPACKlick (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yes belongs in the body of the text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Its already in the body and the lede has become more detailed and harder to read, again. AlbinoFerret 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If the proposal is to shorten this sentence then that is fine. Shortened sentence: The evidence suggests that products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes. If the following sentence is too much detail for the lede it can be deleted as long as the similar sentence in the body stays: "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles". QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We can shorten it even more by changing the clumsy "liquid particles" for the more familiar and accurate "droplets".--FergusM1970 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of out of date WHO report

The positions of organisations section contains

A previous WHO statement from July 2013 stated that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be effective helping people quit smoking. It also recommended that "consumers should be strongly advised not to use" e-cigarettes unless a reputable national regulatory body has found them safe and effective.

This statement is not the most recent and was published before the majority of papers that now show that e-cigs are at least as effective as other NRTs. I therefore propose removing it. Also stylistically it falls between discussion of the 2014 report and a response to the 2014 report so removing it would improve readability. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A new statement of that sort is not out yet per Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The WHO FCTC do not have a current statement/position, and apparently the new one is going to differ so much from the old one, that they have retracted/revised their old position. Thus referring to the old one makes no sense, it implies something that we cannot know --Kim D. Petersen 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support We have later statements from the WHO, this one is older and gives only speculation. That speculation is mirrored by other sources. AlbinoFerret 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Suport The citation links to web.archive.org, not the WHO's web site. From a quick Google search, the statement seems to have been replaced with which says "The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently reviewing the existing evidence around ENDS". Therefore we should update the information accordinglyLevelledout (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That removal alone should be reason enough to remove it. AlbinoFerret 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A previous 2013 statement from WHO is not old per MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is if further statements by the same source are found, the source removes the statement and replaces it, or if it is clear the information is later found to be questionable by later sources. AlbinoFerret 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Suport WHO has withdrawn that 2013 position as evidenced by its removal from their own website. Mihaister (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The section is titled "Position of medical organisations". Clearly this isn't the WHO's current position or they wouldn't have withdrawn it.--FergusM1970 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Position of medical organisations". This is not the position of a medical organization so obviously shouldn't be included.--FergusM1970 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Levelledout. We should use the WHO's latest statement from 2014, not from 2013. -A1candidate (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Levelledout. The current statement is misleading to the reader since WHO has removed it from their website. We can include WHO's new statement when it is published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Previous text: "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

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

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

Please read: "The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112"

The disagreement at the time was it did not have in-text attribution. It was controversial to exclude it at the time because the disagreement was with writing it in Misplaced Pages's voice. The consensus could be in-text attribution. So rather than delete it, I am proposing in-text attribution. The change I (and others) made is sourced using a 2014 MEDRS compliant review. I summarised the source. For example, I wrote "The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013." The source says "These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013". The text is relevant for the Electronic cigarette#Legal status section. There is another statement in the same section that is also an opinion: "Pharmaceutical manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson have lobbied the US government, the FDA, and the EU parliament for stricter regulation of e-cigarettes which compete with their products Nicorette gum and nicotine patches." It is reasonable to include completing interests. I think it is also reasonable to include statements specifically on activates of tobacco and e-cigarette companies that used strategies that were successfully deployed in Europe to lesson the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. Although there is no dispute among other sources, sources with opinions are considered reliable according to content guideline. The impact factor for Circulation is 15.20. A good compromise can be in-text attribution and tweaking the text if there are concerns with the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on proposed compromise

• Comment In my opinion, this text is a reasonable attempt at a content addition which passes WP:RS, WP:NPOV, does not fail WP:UNDUE, and should not be dismissed without an explanation. I will not say that I feel strongly that this text must be added to this article, but I do feel that the text should not be dismissed without explanation. Someone may have argued against including it, but if that happened, I have been unable to see where that argument is. The suggestion that I have seen is that this text should go to Legal status of electronic cigarettes, and I agree that this issue should be there, but without some explanation, I would expect that the default action would be to include this content. The source from which this comes is a review which pulled this idea from JAMA and BMJ articles on this topic.

I am sure that people who oppose this content have reasons for opposing it - briefly, what are those reasons? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate the effort to discuss and promote consensus here. I really do. However, I still think this unsupported opinion of conflicted authors goes against WP:WEIGHT. Such extraordinary claims, attempting to portray tens of millions of consumers as industry shills, require extraordinary evidence per WP:REDFLAG.

  As to the validity of this unsubstantiated opinion in the Grana publication, we already know the authors are involved with Pharma, and that Pharma has been aggressively lobbying against vapor products (, ). Big Pharma's approach of hiring ghost writers to promote their interests using high-profile "reviews" is well documented () as is the COIs pharma funding creates for so-called "public health" NGOs (). In the absence of hard, verifiable evidence from multiple independent sources, this inflammatory opinion is nothing more that pharma industry lobbying and does not belong on Misplaced Pages. Mihaister (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the statement of Mihaister and to save space I will not repeat it. What I will add is that the source is reliable for medical claims, it is not reliable for legal claims or claims about people addressing their government. It is beyond the scope of the medical journal and is opinion in another field that the authors are not experts in. Its like trying to use a journal article written by auto mechanics to write health claims on WP. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal....or that reports material in a different field." AlbinoFerret 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• weak Oppose pending more sources. This is an improvement over the original however I would need to see more sources discussing this issue to be convinced on weight grounds. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the sources exist. Some vape companies, particularly those linked to tobacco companies are definitely keen to make advocates of consumers. As for whether the comparison with Tobacco companies of old holds, as I said, I'd need to see better attribution for the claim. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  The trouble is also a Chicken&Egg one - do vapers support the e-cig manufacturers view because they want to vape - or because the e-cig manufacturers enticed them... --Kim D. Petersen 22:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yes I mean a lot of this stuff is just a mountain made out of a molehill. "E-cigarette businesses use marketing", surprise surprise. "E-cigarette businesses use social media for marketing", surprise surprise. "Both e-cigarette users AND the manufacturers oppose banning vaping indoors", once again surprise surprise.Levelledout (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, may support if the issues that I have raised below are addressed.Levelledout (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Some people doubt the validity of the source due to it being from a public health perspective rather than a legal policy perspective. The source cited is based directly on these sources:

• Andrade, M. d.; Hastings, G.; Angus, K. (2013). "Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?". BMJ. 347 (dec20 1): f7473–f7473. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7473. ISSN 1756-1833.
• Grana, R. A.; Glantz, S. A.; Ling, P. M. (2011). "Electronic nicotine delivery systems in the hands of Hollywood". Tobacco Control. 20 (6): 425–426. doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043778. ISSN 0964-4563.
• Rooke, C.; Amos, A. (2013). "News media representations of electronic cigarettes: an analysis of newspaper coverage in the UK and Scotland". Tobacco Control. 23 (6): 507–512. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051043. ISSN 0964-4563.
• Kim, A. E.; Lee, Y. O.; Shafer, P.; Nonnemaker, J.; Makarenko, O. (2013). "Adult smokers' receptivity to a television advert for electronic nicotine delivery systems". Tobacco Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051130. ISSN 0964-4563.
• Samuels, B; Glantz, SA (16 October 1991). "The politics of local tobacco control". JAMA. 266 (15): 2110–7. PMID 1920699. (about tobacco industry, not e-cigarettes)
• Fallin, A.; Grana, R.; Glantz, S. A. (2013). "'To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts': the tobacco industry and the Tea Party". Tobacco Control. 23 (4): 322–331. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815. ISSN 0964-4563.

Each of these papers cite more papers, and going down another level, I think it would be fair to estimate that not fewer than 30 sources with a total of not fewer than 30 authors are available to back this information. If more of these sources confirm the same information then I think that would establish appropriate weight and relevance for this content to go somewhere, assuming that these papers are authoritative, which may not be so.

The allegations of bias and lack of authority in this space are a separate issue. Considering these sources together, except for the historical JAMA article, this is from BMJ's journal Tobacco Control journal. Obviously that journal has a bias against nicotine use. Most or all of the sources in this thread are from the perspective of public health industry. If researchers in public health policy are a point of view to have representation in the legal section of this article, then something here might be part of the message they present. It might be a valid point to say that public health policy should not be included in a legal section; I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They are still out of their field of expertise, and if other claims have sources of this type for legal claims, they need to be removed of other sources found that are not medical. AlbinoFerret 21:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I would tend to agree that medical professionals are generally not experts on marketing strategies.Levelledout (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition I find it disturbing that the Grana review reviewed studies by its authors. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of the six sources cited three come from one man, a known anti-e-cig activist; that should raise some questions about how widely held the view actually is. Another is from a notorious Marxist who hates all businesses and all marketing, tobacco-related or not, and regularly publishes excruciating poetry about the wonders of collectivization. Perhaps a WP:FRINGE issue?--FergusM1970 22:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep personal political opinions on the "wonders of collectivization" out of this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sadly Gerald Hastings doesn't. It's quite pitiful to read. He's even worse at poetry than he is at research.--FergusM1970 23:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mihaister & Albinoferret. This is policy, sociology and history, not medicine. It would be possible to cite this as the view of the authors, but not without presenting the opposing political views. And as the authors here are non-authoritative, and non-experts, i do not really see their views as carrying much weight. Furthermore i would note that the citations given above by Blue Raspberry are mostly presenting the view of Glanz (3 papers), and from my spot-checks of the other 3 sources, i can't see the support for the rather broad claims made. To quote Pf. Hajek: "Books will be written about this conflict", but until these books have been written, this is representing nothing more than opinions, and the bias of the opinion-holders. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The content of specified websites, social media, and marketing is not a matter of opinion; it is fact. A reliable source is reporting that fact. And I appreciate Blue Rasperry's summary of the depth of the research record behind it. The proposed attribution works for me, and sure seems to address objections. Where exactly it should be placed -- that we can discuss. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that Glantz et al claim the social media activity is organised by e-cig companies. The overwhelming majority of it isn't; it's organised by a loose collection of vapers who are worried about the prospect of knee-jerk legislation that isn't supported by the science. The sources are an RS for what their authors think, but they're just opinions. They're definitely not facts.--FergusM1970 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is reporting on company use of social media, not others' use of social media. Indeed, what you're saying is completely consistent with what the source says. The fact that lots of people use social media does not change the facts of how certain companies have used social media. What companies put on their websites, in their marketing, and in social media, is a fact, and in general a pretty public fact. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Vaping companies use social media to advertise their products. So does every other company. That has nothing to do with opposing stupid legislation, which with very few exceptions vaping companies have not been doing. Some have even supported restrictions - TVECA members in Europe, and RJ Reynolds in the USA - to protect their own cigalike products from competition. This is just part of the process of smearing vapers as industry shills, which is widespread in academia. Martin McKee is a particularly egregious offender, but Grana and Glantz aren't far behind.--FergusM1970 02:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous comments. This appears to be a minority opinion without any real evidence behind it. The fact is that e-cig companies have been, with a few exceptions like Totally Wicked on one side and TVECA's members on the other, very reluctant to get involved in campaigning. The opposition to the EU TPD was driven by individual activists; the same applies to California, where businesses were disinterested and activists led the charge.--FergusM1970 01:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Legal actions and policies of corporations have nothing to do with medical content. -A1candidate (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the comments from several others above. We don't quote newspapers on their interpretation of health benefits and research so we would not likewise quote the opinions of medical researchers on socio-political trends. Additionally I'm concerned about undue weight. If this point is notable we should be able to find it in other, more appropriate sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable summary, in text attributed, to a high quality source. Yobol (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have a couple of issues with the proposed compromise. I think the proposal is still too partisan and sounds like a coercive conspiracy is taking place (which is not really conveyed in the source). The text is also not fully attributed. I think we need to stick to the relevant facts and to convey the text neutrally and accurately. I would prefer something like: "A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette companies interact with consumers in order to promote their policies. The review also stated that the companies use social media for marketing purposes and encourage consumers to take action against laws that ban indoor e-cigarette use. According to the review, e-cigarette companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the effects of the October 2013 EU Tobacco Product Directive on e-cigarettes.".Levelledout (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Actually the picture is a lot less clear than that. One of the major trade organisations - TVECA - wanted the TPD made more restrictive, to protect their members' cigalike market. The opposition to the TPD rules came from grassroots activists like Lorien Jollye, Dave Dorn and RHFOS.--FergusM1970 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that I personally agree with what Grana said which I don't particularly. However our personal opinions and own research are irrelevant. I was simply suggesting how we could cite the source in a non-judgemental, neutral manner.Levelledout (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! No, I've read your comments and know that you see Grana/Glantz for what it is. I'm trying to think of a source that would show the real situation, to balance their claims.--FergusM1970 22:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that the history/story won't be written, or have a consensus view on what happened until books are written about it in the future. As such we shouldn't "jump the shark", and present a narrative that really only presents one view of what happened. --Kim D. Petersen 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Especially when it appears to be very much a minority view. Even most TC people acknowledge that the opposition to the TPD e-cig rules was led by the grassroots campaigners.--FergusM1970 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears Quack is canvassing and trying to pull uninvolved editors into the page. link link2AlbinoFerret 03:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time he canvassed an uninvolved editor and certainly won't be his last. A1candidate (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think QuackGuru was canvassing, he was replying to on his talk page. The discussion on QuackGuru's talk page was started by John after a request from myself.Levelledout (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yobol has brought a question being discussed here to WP:RS/N

Here is a link to the discussion. link 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

He should have informed the editors here before canvassing other forums. -A1candidate (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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