Misplaced Pages

Talk:Electronic cigarette: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:09, 30 December 2014 editGw40nw (talk | contribs)49 edits →Proposal to Eliminate or Drastically Change "Health Effects" Section of Article← Previous edit Revision as of 19:14, 30 December 2014 edit undoMihaister (talk | contribs)579 edits →Two e-cigarette science articles on the top-10 list of BMC 2014 articles: new sectionNext edit →
Line 956: Line 956:


::Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. ] (]) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ::Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. ] (]) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

== Two e-cigarette science articles on the top-10 list of BMC 2014 articles ==

I found this interesting Burstyn review #2 and Farsalinos et al. cardiac function study at #10 . ] (]) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, 30 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.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 4 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.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
???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.
WikiProject iconPharmacology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
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 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.


Proposed removal of claim

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

Currently the article says this:

"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."

The evidence shows no such thing; all it shows is that some non-smokers have tried e-cigs. Trying an e-cig - which may not even contain nicotine - once does not equate to becoming a nicotine user, so this claim is inaccurate and alarmist. It should be removed.--FergusM1970 23:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note: User:FergusM1970 had been topic banned again. User:FergusM1970 is making a proposal to delete the sourced text. Paid editing like this should not be tolerated. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are off the hocker there. At that time (May) Fergus was topic-banned (six months starting april), so the payment by default couldn't be for Misplaced Pages, nor does the text state that it is for Misplaced Pages. The ban now is for payed edits but not on this article. Please do not make false accusations. --Kim D. Petersen 03:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of the claims made by User:FergusM1970 were later proven to be wrong. He has previously done work promoting e-cigs. Whether his work on Misplaced Pages to promote e-cigs was also paid we do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Has someone written a blank check to allow unbacked accusations - or just generally that we can assume bad faith? Yes, he is banned/blocked - and good riddance. But keep to what we know. --Kim D. Petersen 04:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it is technically true on the literalistic face of it (unless we assume that all the e-cigs that non-smoking youth have ever tried were nicotine-free). But I agree that the implications of the phrase after the semicolon are not supported by evidence and it therefore ought to go. Barnabypage (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is jut another ridiculous argument to promote the idea that vaping leads to smoking... This is an unsubstantiated claim. And while we are at it, let me make an unsubstantiated claim: Smoking is a gateway to vaping, not the converse. TheNorlo (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, should this claim be removed?

OK. Let's tweak it by removing everything after the semicolon.--FergusM1970 13:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's just speculation. There is no evidence that anyone has initiated "nicotine use" through e-cigs. The claim is based on a cross-sectional study which the review's own authors admit do not, and cannot, support causal inferences like the ones they immediately go on to claim.--FergusM1970 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - A new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine refutes the claim that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (this user already supported once above) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with stipulation I support removal of this text from the main article on electronic cigarettes, but strongly feel all language on usage ought to be shortened to one or two sentences at most and another article page created that deals with "information on vaping" or however editors of that page wish to title such an article. The first line in this Usage section isn't stating, with clarity, what type of electronic cigarette devices have grown in sales from 2008 to 2012. And so a claim like the one in this sub-point is also not making that distinction. Therefore this whole sub-topic is rambling and lacking coherency within the overall topic of "electronic cigarettes." I have proposed a significant split on the main article page as I believe these sub-points are side debates to the main topic of what is an electronic cigarette. Gw40nw (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support {edit 10:08 23 December 2014} Poorly unsourced speculation at this point. SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The text is clearly sourced. This is getting disruptive. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. See here. See here. According to FergusM1970: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill." We should not allowed undisclosed paid editing (or recruitment) to interfere with editing. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This is going to take time to work all this out. More editors might be banned. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/
As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "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. " How many times must I explain this? User:AlbinoFerret claims "We should remove any unsourced text." But the text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, stop mudslinging, trying to imply one editor who's failed to reveal being paid to edit some articles that may or may not include this one and has been banned means every discussion about improving the garbled state of the article is malignant. Secondly. The claim in the aha is sourced to a paper which doesn't say that. Other sources show this to be an outlier. I wasn't aware of the source for it to be honest because it's so wildly outside everything else being said. Continued use among never and long time ex smokers is negligible. Users are broadly dual users who have reduced their cigarette intake and sole users who have switched all nicotine intake to e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
After I provided verification from the review you still want it deleted? That does not make sense. QuackGuru (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually Quack, it makes perfect sense. Ignoring that my instinct is to support the opposite of your view from start to finish because all your changes make the article less informative and less readable, the majority of sources disagree with your one source which makes the claim based on a paper which doesn't support the conclusion. Did you read the 5 or 6 sources I posted? Have you read the dozens of others all of which show that this claim is misleading, does not reflect current academic consensus and should therefore be removed? Ofcourse not because your WP:ADVOCACY got in the way. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Which statement from a WP:MEDRS source contradicts this: "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." When sources disagree we use both not delete the other source according to NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It isnt just a disagreement between sources. 5 or 6 that say the opposite is a clear indication that the 1 is wrong. That leads to a question of unde weight being given and if the 1 should even be included. Just because something is sourced does not mean its automatically included. AlbinoFerret 09:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually Quack when most sources agree and a small number disagree and when the source that disagrees words a claim in a POV fashion you can only present the minority viewpoint as a minority viewpoint so it would be prefaced with "a minority believe" or such language to make it clear it's not the academic consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown which sources are MEDRS reviews and which statements from which the MEDRS reviews contradict it. QuackGuru (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Read them and learn. AlbinoFerret 10:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not a medical claim, it's a population claim. So MEDRS need not apply. However the RS's include the health surveys of two governments at least. Your plain wrong here Quack, advocating a minority POV point for no good reason. SPACKlick (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It was asked: Which statement from a WP:MEDRS source contradicts this? And on WP:MEDRS it states: Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Are Grana, Benowitz and Glantz experts in eCigs? If not, then why would their research be necessary on a page about eCigs? If they are instead scientists with own minority view on nicotine use, then this is why another page must be set up to deal specifically with the side topic that is preventing a NPOV on the eCig article page. I could go along with support for this claim if a) it were on another page and b) it were worded along lines of, "According to anti-nicotine advocates, 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." Without that context, then it appears to intentionally circumvent scientific consensus that either exists or is lacking around use of eCigs. As I observe it is lacking, I see all scientific claims around health benefits and risks associated with eCigs as not being prudent to put on page about eCigs, when such comments could be better represented on an alternate page that has to do specifically with information about vaping nicotine. Gw40nw (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Statement is adequately sourced, so I'm not understanding the argument for removal. If there are in fact high quality review articles that contradict the conclusions of the source, then it should be clarified that contradictory conclusions exist, but that's not a reason to remove. "Trying an e-cig - which may not even contain nicotine - once does not equate to becoming a nicotine user, so this claim is inaccurate and alarmist," is a fine opinion to hold, but it's just that: the opinion of an editor on the conclusions of a source, which makes it wholly irrelevant for our purposes. The only thing that matters here is what the reliable sources say, not what we think about what they say. Based on that alone, this RFC should have been a non-starter. Nformation 10:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Noformation: This is not an RFC but a discussion of an edit for a protected page. The discussion here isnt if the claim is sourced, but that of weight. If you came looking for an RFC there is one near the bottom of the talk page. AlbinoFerret 10:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks. I didn't come looking for an RFC, just had the article on my watch list and didn't carefully enough read the header. In any case, OP's reasoning isn't compatible with RS. Nformation 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The reason it is a starter NoFormation is that almost every other reliable source says
  • Regular use of electronic cigarettes ... is confined almost entirely to those who currently or have previously smoked.,
  • prevalence of current use is estimated at less than 0.1%, Among never-smokers, 0.7% were currently users (past 30 days), which indicates that few never-smokers who try e-cigarettes continue their use.,
  • Among those 11 to 18-year olds reporting they had never smoked...There were no ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ e-cigarette users among never smokers,
  • E-cigarettes are almost exclusively used by smokers and ex-smokers. Almost none of those who had never smoked cigarettes were e-cigarette users,
  • regular e-cigarette use among never smokers is negligible.
To suggest that e-cigarettes are a starting point for nicotine use in some youths is counter to current consensus and to write it as written gives the minority view undue weight. SPACKlick (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown which sources are WP:MEDRS compliant reviews. If a review contradicts another review we can included both. The source we are currently using for the sourced claim is a recent review. It is not a "paper". QuackGuru (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS is not a relevant policy, it's not a medical claim. All the sources i've provided above and the hundreds more you can find if you look are RS. Your refusal to read and listen to what any other editor says rather when it conflicts with your proposal to tout every claim against e-cigarettes even positions so minority they're practically fringe is real probelm for this article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We are currently using a higher quality MEDRS review. You cited sources that are not as good. Please provide a good source to balance the sentence rather that try to delete the text from a high quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We are currently sourcing it to a review which has been severely critiqued by several medical experts. Which sources this claim to a paper that doesn't support it. And this claim is not supported by other papers and reviews. Quack, if this claim was so uncontroversial you should be able to source it outside of Grana et al. You can't because only Grana et al makes it and they make it by misinterpreting a source. Now, ignoring my OR analysis of Grana as a pretty shaky review do you deny it's a minority claim and should be presented, if at all, as such? SPACKlick (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't question experts that write the reviews. I asked "Please provide a good source to balance the sentence rather that try to delete the text from a high quality review." You did not provide a quality review to balance the text or contradict the text. You are reaching down to lower quality evidence to delete higher quality evidence rather than try to balance the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but the experts have questioned this source and it's about the only source that says it, it's a minority viewpoint which should not be hilighted in the article per wp:weight. You haven't once engaged in that argument because your advocacy is showing. SPACKlick (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Oppose - I don't get the logic of the sources statement. How can they predict that youths who have only used an e-cig will progress to traditional cigarettes. How can they predict future behavior? Either way I oppose the inclusion of said sentence. We should be summarizing whole sources not paraphrasing cherry picked sentences that have been disputed by other sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment This wording by Keithbob strikes me as meaning this editor Supports removal rather than Opposes it. Gw40nw (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. I oppose the current statement and support its removal. I've amended my entry above to make that clear.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of claim. Hasn't anyone been seeing things like this? Now to be clear, I know everything about this topic is intensely political, billions of dollars at stake -- it's about who gets to profit from the nicotine market, how to move away from high cancer risk without giving up the per capita taxation of the poor that helps the rich get their all-important tax breaks, how big a cut the doctors can take off the top, and how to emblazon the word "CIGARETTE" on your retina in letters not less than an inch high at least three times before you get into your local supermarket ... still, no matter how muddy the political facts may be, we are still better reporting them than not. We shouldn't expect MEDRS grade sources for claims that fairly closely parallel the usual War on Drugs rhetoric that has never been scientific; yet... in this case there may actually be some good data and we should highlight it gladly when it is so, without limiting ourselves to it. Basically, anybody here who's not on somebody's payroll, please, let's allow all the data from all points of view to be heard. It's the only way we have a chance for peace. I mean... this article is protected until Spring starts? Are you kidding me? There's inclusionism, and there's endless war - pick one. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment An article in JAMA Peadiatrics finds "Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Looks like evidence to me.
  • Comment The JAMA Pediatrics article, concluding that e-cigarettes MAY encourage use of conventional cigarettes is scientific opinion, lacking evidence. Gw40nw (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This one was from Pediatrics Dec 15, 2014 "The fact that e-cigarette only users were intermediate in risk status between nonusers and dual users raises the possibility that e-cigarettes are recruiting medium-risk adolescents, who otherwise would be less susceptible to tobacco product use".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done: I don't see a consensus to remove the text at this point. Some users who wanted to the text removed said that it was unsourced, but this is incorrect: the statement is sourced to a review article that passes WP:MEDRS, and the claim in the article is an accurate representation of the claim in the source. Others who wanted the text removed tried to argue against the source's conclusions, but as Misplaced Pages editors we are not allowed to do this - all we can do is assess whether the source is reliable for the statement made, and whether the statement has due weight.

    Although there is no consensus to enact this edit request at the moment, some of the sources that SPACklick linked to may be worth further discussion. In particular, the AHA policy statement seems to satisfy MEDRS as a position statement from a nationally recognised expert body, and it puts a markedly different emphasis on the numbers. I quote: "Among never-smokers, 0.7% were currently users (past 30 days), which indicates that few never-smokers who try e-cigarettes continue their use."

    The Pediatrics sources that Doc James quotes are suggestive, but by themselves they don't satisfy MEDRS, as they are still single studies. However, they will undoubtedly be picked up by review papers in the no-too-distant future, and when they do we can talk about how we can work the review into the article. But for the moment, we should stick to working with the MEDRS-compliant sources that we have. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

New review by AHA

The American Heart Association has just released a new review on the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation. They find that "available literature suggests that the use of e-cigarettes may be an effective alternate smoking cessation method." I think this merits inclusion in the article.--FergusM1970 00:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And a new Cochrane review finds that (outdated and inefficient) e-cigs are twice as effective as patches, and that dual use does not reduce likelihood of quitting. About time this article started reflecting the actual evidence and not just "concerns".--FergusM1970 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


I propose that the following text is removed from the lede:

"The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."

  • Support - With two reviews confirming efficacy this text is no longer accurate.--FergusM1970 00:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree, although we should mention that research is still limited as mentioned by those 2 studies and should be continued.TheNorlo (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reject The data is still inclusive and unclear according to the weight of the sources. The AMA says "In conclusion, available literature suggests...". That is not conclusive when the evidence "suggests". The Cochrane review said "However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards." QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But there's also a review in Circulation, which you and your friends have spent months telling us is the best journal in the field. Make your mind up: is Circulation an RS or not? Because you can't have it both ways.--FergusM1970 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hold on a minute, a supreme amount of Grana citations have been added because at the time it was the latest available information and was published in a very well respected cardiovascular journal. Yet when that exact same cardiovascular journal and another review from Cochrane (an official partner of the WHO) comes out with newer evidence, suggesting that e-cigarettes are in fact effective as a smoking cessation of tool, those claims are apparently inadequate and should be rejected outright. Seems very odd to the say the least.Levelledout (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems Quack thinks a Circulation article saying "Stan Glantz has concerns" outweights one saying "the evidence suggests...". I disagree, and I'm pretty sure WP:MEDRS does too. Unless Quack can prove that Cochrane and the AMA aren't reliable sources I suggest we disregard this objection.--FergusM1970 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with that phrasing.TheNorlo (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we should at least say "Evidence suggests e-cigs are effective as a smoking cessation tool, although the small scale of existing trials means further study is needed."--FergusM1970 13:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have enormously strong feelings about it but I think that might be a bit too detailed for the lede - how about Evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool? Barnabypage (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I'd be happy with that.--FergusM1970 14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's play the devils advocate here, The Quack is coming and will probably quack every thing up. How about Tentative evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool although further research is warranted?TheNorlo (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we should be all that swayed by what Quack wants. He's just one editor with a bad reputation, and if he doesn't like the consensus that's just the way it goes. So far everyone except him seems to want the latest reviews to be accurately represented.--FergusM1970 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We should not automatically follow any editor. But when a review has language that limits conclusions it should be included in some form. Perhaps "E-cigarettes have been shown to be effective as a smoking cessation aid, but more study is needed." We need to come up with some specific wording. AlbinoFerret 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with either Barnabypage's wording or yours. What I wouldn't be happy with is it being excluded from the article when speculation is allowed.--FergusM1970 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - AHA and Cochrane are high quality sources. The article should take the reviews into account.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with some reservations - Yes I think the wording as it currently stands should be removed in accordance with the latest available evidence. However I think it needs to be replaced with something such as:
"The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation. Further evidence is required in order to clarify their efficacy relative to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies."
Levelledout (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That would do nicely, although the evidence is pretty unequivocal that they're much better than NRT.--FergusM1970 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If its going into the lede it should be simple language and very easy to read. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I write in a certain style and did try to make it as clear and simple as possible. But if you can simplify it further, by all means feel free to do so, I have no issue with that.
Levelledout (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Levelledout: How about "The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" ? AlbinoFerret 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that reads fine and retains all the content of the original, I support it's inclusionLevelledout (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The Cochrane review is here and concludes "There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk."
So yes there is low quality evidence that electronic cigarettes help with cessation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. So the statements about there being no evidence need to be removed.--FergusM1970 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making our point for us Doc James, I guess we have consensus then.TheNorlo (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

'Oppose See below Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support and Comment I see no reason for why an article on what is an electronic cigarette includes information regarding smoking cessation. That is a side topic. All items in the lede that are in second (third and most of the fourth) paragraph are a sub-topic and ongoing debate, or controversy, that has caused the main article to be labeled as "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Surely other pages that speak to information on vaping (benefits and risks) can contain that type of content. To include it here is visibly leading to a battle where NPOV is constantly in question because current science and medical information is lacking long term data. So, as an editor, I support removal of this content from the lede with larger concern of the entire article on electronic cigarettes. I have since proposed on this talk page a significant split of the main article's content to distinguish, for readers, between information on what an electronic cigarette is, and information on vaping (benefits and risks). Gw40nw (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific changes

The specific changes proposed are this wording be removed

"The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."

The following language replace it.

"The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" AlbinoFerret 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Levelledout (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
With the Cochrane paper to support it. That's published. I'm trying to AGF here but it looks like you're just reflexively opposing any removal of Glantz/Grana material from the article even if it's been superseded by real science. Please look at the current evidence and work from that.--FergusM1970 23:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure so Cochrane paper says "the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the phrasing The latest evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking, More data is needed to compare how effective they are... has been employed. It shows that the evidence is tentative.... but there.TheNorlo (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose See below. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per below, it's annoying that we have the same topic repeated in what appears to be four different sections now. Zad68 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support since that is what the reviews say, and it is adequately framed with caveats. --Kim D. Petersen 17:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the sentence from the lead. The lead is a summary and have a long, cherry picked quote that describes the proverbial glass as half empty instead of half full is inappropriate in the lead and creates POV. The new suggested text is an improvement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support This is something of central significance and should be in the lede.80.179.90.190 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific changes 2

How about change "The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid" to "There is low quality evidence that e-cigarettes help with stopping smoking" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unnecessarily slanting the wording to deprecate the state of the science.--FergusM1970 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I might be convinced if "low quality evidence" was replaced by "limited evidence". Something like "There is limited evidence that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking. More data is needed to compare how effective they are compared to traditional Nicotine Replacement Therapies" But as soon as the AHA statement is out of embargo it will have to be changed. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Earlier proposal What about this earlier proposal that imo encopasses pretty much what the research says: "Although further research is warranted, tentative evidence suggests e-cigs may be effective as a smoking cessation tool " (unsigned comment by TheNorlo diff)
I could live with that. AlbinoFerret 00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I could support "tentative" as suggested by AF, but would like to see the size of the effect mentioned as well. It is quite small and we should not mislead readers by suggesting otherwise. See below. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Formerly 98: I think the statement by TheNorlo is good enough, and may be a good middle ground. It may not be perfect, but I think we can all live with it. AlbinoFerret 01:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". 17 DEC 2014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
I could go with tentative or limited aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A little less black and white

I think one needs to look at the Cochrane group's own summary of the findings here and be careful not to give our readers the impression that this is the golden tool that will solve all their addiction problems. This would not be fair to them.

"About 9% of smokers who used electronic cigarettes were able to stop smoking at up to one year. This compared with around 4% of smokers who used the nicotine-free electronic cigarettes"
"When the researchers looked at the data on reducing cigarettes in people who had not quit, they found that 36% of electronic cigarette users halved the number of conventional cigarettes. This compared with 28% of users who were given the placebos."
"Only one of the trials looked at the effects of electronic cigarettes compared with patches and this suggests similar efficacy of the two treatments"

So the bottom line looks a little like this: For every 20 people who smoke nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes instead of ones that don't contain nicotine, 1 will succeed in stopping smoking. For every 17 people that take up electronic cigarettes, one will halve their consumption of regular cigarettes. In terms of quitting, they are about as effective as a nicotine patch you can buy at Walgreens for about $2.50 each. And as Doc James has pointed out, the evidence quality for all of the above is low to very low

For the Circulation meta analysis we have, "Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20" Think about what an effect size of 0.2 means. It's two tenths of a standard deviation. Critics of antidepressants ridicule them as examples of worthless, overhyped drugs because they only provide a effect size of 0.3. This is smaller than that.

I would suggest that we stay true to the source and simply state that "There is low quality evidence that electronic cigarettes may be helpful in smoking cessation and reduction, but the size of the effect is small and similar to that of nicotine patches". I don't think you can say much more than that based on these studies. Certainly broad statements that they are helpful is going to be very misleading relative to what our sources say.

We owe it to our readers to accurately convey what the sources say, and not to jump on the opportunity to make statements. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the slow down approach, while speculation filled the article wasnt listened to. I think your going to have a hard time slowing it down now that it has started to swing the other way. AlbinoFerret 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The article should reflect the conclusions in the literature, rather than the analysis of Misplaced Pages editors. We ought not to reflect on what an effect size of 0.2 means or whether it appropriate to equate 9% to 1 in 20. Either the literature does that for us or it doesn't. Formerip (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyways. I have no doubt that the claim that e-cigs are the best smoking cessation device, by a long-shot, will be substantiated by reliable sources in the next year or two, if not earlier, when they stop focusing on crappy product and actually study what vapers use. In the mean time, we have to remove the claim that there is no evidence that ecig have NRT properties as there are some. Even if the evidence is very low. "Very low" and "no" evidence are 2 different things. You guys can do what you want for now, it's just a matter of time until the unavoidable obvious fact that ecigs are better than NRT's will be well sourced.TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@FormerIP: I think your correct, unless source quantifies what the numbers mean, editors adding meaning to them is Original Research. AlbinoFerret 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the bottom line is that we have an obligation to tell our readers what reliable sources say. Its not about giving comeuppance to those who you feel have not listened to you or making a statement. Its not about "winning". It's about giving people information, that like it or not, they will use to make healthcare decisions. And its pretty clear that what these sources say is that there is tentative evidence that they are helpful, but only to a very modest extent. I hope the three of you will think about that and not try to push in some language that overpromises by mentioning the former and leaving out the latter. It will effect a lot of people. Some of you have personal experience with addiction, as do I. If I were still smoking, I'd want the article to tell the full truth, and not get a message that was prompted by people's anger about not feeling heard in the past and needing a victory. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that is false, but I do lean toward something more along the line of "tentative evidence of a very modest benefit". There are a lot of sources out there, and just because one or two said there is a low level of evidence of a modest benefit, does not make the alternative point of view "false period". The world is full of nuance. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Evidence exists that makes the statement false. It doesnt matter the percentages of proof a small amount of falsehood is still false. AlbinoFerret 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific wording 3

I suggest we remove this wording and all like it. ""The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid." AlbinoFerret 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see changing it to something using the word "tentative". But I don't see it as being something we want to push as established. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This specific wording isnt about changing anything. But the wording be removed while specific wording to replace it is worked out. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Where should we work out the new specific wording? In a new subsection?TheNorlo (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Removal I support removal while its replacement is worked out. AlbinoFerret 02:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Removal Same here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal We need to come up with wording that reflects the current state of the science.--FergusM1970 15:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have lot of disagreement among sources. Thus the summary is that we do not clearly know the answer. No one claims we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose When there is disagreement among sources one does not delete the text. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As editors, with integrity, we ought to be following this statement up with a sentiment that reads along lines of: "Because of the inconclusive nature of data regarding eCig use, Misplaced Pages has created a whole other page to explore and vet this topic more thoroughly. Please see the talk page to find out just how much we exhaustively debated all the various nuances around usage. The rest of the article you see has to do with what is an electronic cigarette. But everything having to do with vaping, usage of electronic cigarettes in society/culture and the legal issues are found on these linked pages. Thank you. Misplaced Pages editors (who are trying to co-create NPOV articles)." Gw40nw (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Working out Specific wording

>Please don't support or oppose proposition here, just make a proposition and let's discuss them in another sub-section. <--------------------------------

  • Proposition A: Although much research is still needed to establish electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, tentative evidence suggests that they could be used in such a way. ref TheNorlo (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Its a little on the long side, and could be simplified a little. Perhaps "Tentative evidence has shown that e-cigarettes can help people quit smoking, but more data is needed." AlbinoFerret 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The only point I'd add is that the "more data is needed" bit is a detail that doesn't necessarily need to be in the lede. What the reader needs to know there is that the results are tentative, so that word should absolutely be in. Exactly why they are tentative and how that might be remedied is perhaps detail for further down. Barnabypage (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

RfC closure

Hi everyone. I've just done an overdue closure of the RfC here. Formerip (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for closing that. and the conclusion that starting out with health effects is impacting the neutrality of the article. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
So does this mean we can switch to a more sensible order now?--FergusM1970 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It means there is no consensus for a change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It also means there's no consensus to apply an inappropriate medical layout to an article about a consumer product. The conclusion of the RFC does not back keeping this format and it should be changed.--FergusM1970 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC question was narrowly about whether the article should be changed to conform to MEDMOS, and there is not consensus to do that. It does not mean, though, that the structure of the article may not be changed at all. Personally, I would guess that an RfC about moving the "health effects" section might have gained consensus. I don't see any reason why an editor who wanted to couldn't try changing the order and then fall back into BRD if they encounter opposition. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. The issue is that some members of Wikiproject Medicine are reluctant to see the article as anything other than medical, despite the fact that e-cigs are not a medical product and have no known health issues. I'll certainly try rearranging it, and if there's any opposition start a new RfC.--FergusM1970 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you know there is going to be opposition maybe try to get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK then. I think we should move the Health Effects section down the article, below at least the Construction and Usage sections, because this is not a medical article. It's about a consumer product with no known health effects. Do you agree?--FergusM1970 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose. People are coming here wondering about the health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry what, are you psychic? How do you know what people are coming here to look for?--FergusM1970 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I also would like to know the source of that statement. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Look at what the media write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"Look at what the media write about" fails WP:RS so no, I won't.--FergusM1970 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well then, look at what the medical literature writes about. If you won't look at the media to decide what the popular view is of what the most important issues are, what will you use? Your own opinion. Mine happens to differ from yours. That's why we use notability standards. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I share your concern as an ex smoker, but we should not overpromise either. Look at what the studies say. An effect size of 0.2 is almost nothing. They will on average do equally well with a nicotine patch according to Cochrane. And much of what is said about e-cigarettes being helpful compare placebo e-eigarettes to nicotine ones, and so are really showing the efficacy of nicotine and not the electronic cigarette format. We have to be honest with our readers about the evidence. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
These are studies using Gen 1 cigalikes with no choice of equipment, strength or flavor, and they still work better than licensed NRT. The latest study by Polosa used Gen 2 devices and found a 36% cessation rate. My guess is that when someone works out how to do a proper study with Gen 3 equipment the cessation rate will be 75-80%. E-cigs work as a cessation tool; at this point, given 700,000 successful quitters in the UK over the last 4 years, only a fool would deny that.--FergusM1970 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Then work with the other editors instead of trying to shut things down or place language in it that is easily misunderstand by the average reader. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you all up in arms in the epipen article making the same points.... And that is clearly a medical device but the article actually describes what it's talking about before talking about it's effectiveness, which is health related.TheNorlo (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people come here seeking medical information is not valid reason to insist that the Health Effects section remains at the top of the article. We have no evidence as to what people primarily come here to look at but it is probably safe to assume that some people also come here to look at the regulation and construction sections. In any case what WP:BODY says is that we should take precedent from a similar article with regards to section order. Other articles about similar topics such as cigarette and vaporizer do not have the health section at the top. On a logical basis I really cannot understand why someone would want to force it to the top.Levelledout (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that when you are a health professional everything looks like a health issue.TheNorlo (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There does appear to be a prevalent medico-centric ethos amongst some editors. However there is no established consensus for prioritising medical information over all other information simply because it is medical information. The only established consensus is that the article should follow the structure of similar articles, we need to implement this.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As there is controversy on the medical aspect of eCigs and some readers will want to know risks and benefits from use, why wouldn't a link be made, perhaps in lede, to a separate page that deals specifically and perhaps exhaustively, with all the "maybe" suppositions that are currently permeating this debate? I observe vaping enthusiasts who wish to tout the smoking cessation claims and their adversaries who wish to dispute such findings, plus insert own POV into this type of article. I find all of this to be a distraction to the topic of what is an electronic cigarette, that presents a poorly constructed content page on Misplaced Pages. I favor splitting off the controversial items to another page (or ten) that allows those sub-topics to be vetted out with their own talk pages and separate debates. I have made a proposal on this talk page to help get this ball rolling. Gw40nw (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We have one already; Safety of electronic cigarettes. Sadly it is, like this article, an unreadable mess stuffed with duplications and tortured syntax. Feel free to help me clean it up.--FergusM1970 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sections Reorder Proposal

It has that there is no consensus to use WP:MEDMOS as a guideline to this article or to treat the article as a "medical article". Therefore section organization should follow advice at MOS:LAYOUT which states that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." The e-cigarette article is currently placed in the following categories:

Of all of these, Cigarette types would appear to be the most useful since some of them contain section headings similar/equal to the ones in the e-cigarette article. Out of these, the most similar ones to the e-cigarette article are:

  • Menthol cigarette - Section order: history, usage, regulation, health effects.
  • Lights (cigarette type) - Section order history, usage, health claims, regulation
  • Kretek - History, structure, health effects, regulation, international availability

The following article is also similar to the concept of an e-cigarette:

  • Cigarette - Section order: history, legislation, construction, ....... , usage ... , health effects

As stated there is no consensus to follow WP:MEDORDER and the only WP:MEDORDER example that comes anywhere close to being similar to the concept of an e-cigarette is "drugs, medications and devices". However key sections are missing from this example such as "construction" and other sections do not really fit the current section headings anywhere near as well as the above examples.

I therefore propose the following section order for the e-cig article:

  • History
  • Construction
  • Usage
  • Health effects
  • Society and culture (includes regulation)
  • Related technologies
  • References
  • External links

This proposal follows the advice given at MOS:LAYOUT and WP:STRUCTURE, attaining neutrality by following established examples. It also follows the advice given at WP:MEDORDER regarding "progressively developing concepts".Levelledout (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Positions

Yes there is: The fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article.--FergusM1970 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hum. We just had a RfC on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes we did, and it concluded that "there are not grounds for enforcing the section ordering detailed in WP:MEDMOS."--FergusM1970 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a specific issue with the way in which guidelines have been applied in developing the proposal? Or do you just not like it?Levelledout (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nicotine_replacement_therapy is a much better comparator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. NRT is a medical product. E-cigs are a consumer product.--FergusM1970 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You have still not explained why you think NRT is a better example. E-cigarettes are a consumer device but NRT is a medical therapy and follows WP:MEDMOS, precisely the guideline that it has just been decided there is no consensus to adhere to. Most section headings on NRT are completely different to the ones on the e-cig article. Doesn't sound like a great example.Levelledout (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
NRT expressly goes against the findings of the RFC.AlbinoFerret 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its a binary proposal, one that we have debated before and not reached consensus on. Why spend effort on this when there are other subjects we are more likely to be able to reach agreement on?
(Comment above was posted but not signed by Formerly98).
Please specifically state your concerns with the original proposal and Bluerasberry's one.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Usage
  • Construction
  • Health effects
  • History
  • Society and culture
    • Legal status
    • Economics
  • Related technologies
In my mind, these section headings have the "medical" definition. Albino Ferret probably did not have those definitions in mind. I still would support this order. I think this need not be a discussion at all about medical guidelines; for any product in any context, I think this is a good ordering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That looks entirely reasonable.--FergusM1970 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It's better than what we've got at the moment, but why have usage before construction and history near the bottom?Levelledout (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Levelledout The way in medicine, and I would argue the best way, is to first say how a product is used. Currently, this article is presenting a usage section which in a medical article would be called "frequency of use", and in medicine, that kind of information would go in "society and culture". I would like for the usage section (the first section) to say something like "e-cigarettes are plastic battery-powered electric sticks that people put in their mouths so that they can suck vapor/mist/aerosol/cigarette juice as a way to experience the stimulation of nicotine", and otherwise explain to an alien what the things do. History is interesting, but in my opinion and based on precedent of product treatment in medicine - not that I am saying this is medicine - it is most useful to say what something is functionally, then what it is materially, then go on with other topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
But that's the whole point; this is not a medical article. You're also missing the point that a large percentage of e-cigs don't contain nicotine at all, including apparently 96% of those used by Canadian never-smokers (although that's not from an RS).--FergusM1970 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
FergusM1970 No one said this is a medical article. I said the first section should describe how and why the product is used, and the second section should describe the product materially. Do you oppose that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really. How about doing that but moving History up between Construction and Health effects?--FergusM1970 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
OK Bluerasberry having heard the details of your proposal I actually mostly agree with it. The only thing I would still question is the placement of history, I think it has to accepted to a certain extent that this article will look a bit different to a medical article, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. But, bottom line, I would support Bluerasberry's proposal if we cannot get agreement on my idea.Levelledout (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Levelledout: It took quite awhile to discuss this with Bluerasberry before. I think its a good order that is better than what we have at present. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd certainly support changing to BR's proposed order. I'm not 100% happy with it, as detailed above, but it's a lot better than what we have now.--FergusM1970 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thats just the nature of agreements and compromise. You seldom get exactly what you want, but you hope to end up with progress and something everyone can live with. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, and this is something I can live with. Nobody who's taken part in the discussion seems to object, so maybe this is something we can ask for a change on.--FergusM1970 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
OK fine, there seems to be some consensus developing on this specific proposal so I will put in an edit request shortly if all is still well. A couple of issues though, we currently do not have the kind of usage section that Bluerasberry is proposing so we have two options, someone can make one in their Sandbox by extracting material from the existing text or we start out without one but with a consensus to add it in. Also, where is the existing usage/'frequency of usage' section going to go? I suggest it goes after health effects.Levelledout (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Levelledout: It was my understanding that during the conversation that came up with the order that the current Usage section was ok. I dont remember any discussion on creating sections, just reordering them. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
But I dont have any issue with the usage section BR suggests above. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we can add a few sentences to the start of the current usage section to say what BR suggests. "Electronic cigarettes are battery powered devices which release a flavoured aerosol, which often contains nicotine, that is then inhaled by the user through a mouthpiece." Something like that.--FergusM1970 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That would seem a bit strange to me, this is two entirely different sections/concepts we are talking about. I think what Bluerasberry was referring to was "medical uses" or "indications", which in the case of this article would be "general uses" since it isn't a medical product. We can say that e-cigarettes are used for harm reduction and unofficially for smoking cessation but I'm not sure what else we can add to that. I'm going to put in a request for an edit now because we need to take some action, but I'd be happy to alter it if this conversation progresses any further. For now I'm presuming there is some tentative consensus for Bluerasberry's proposal, including the adding of a uses section at some point.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't care what was explained in the RfC. What matters is what the RfC concluded, which is that there are no grounds for using MEDMOS as a guideline.--FergusM1970 20:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose NPOV has been excruciatingly challenged with content of this article that I, as editor, cannot support an article page for eCigs that insists on headings with: Usage, Health effects, Society and culture (includes regulation). Each of these feed into the other and present two opposing positions that have transformed an otherwise NPOV page of content into one with competing POV's. I understand that these type of headings are likely necessary on the main article page for eCigs, but it has clearly gotten to a point where consensus will be stagnated unless a spinoff occurs. I realize this is not desirable, but also strongly believe it is necessary. So those headings can remain, but POV forking ought to occur to bypass the POV battles and allow those to occur on separate pages. Again, this is all due to fact that science and medical communities lack long term data and so speculation or short-sighted data, with undue weight, is being allowed to hold up what is an otherwise NPOV written content article on Misplaced Pages. Gw40nw (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

With regards to why we need to change it I would have thought the need to follow appropriate guidelines was one good reason. A second good reason is that the current ordering is illogical and talks about concepts before explaining them. I have also yet to hear a genuine reason linked to actual established consensus as to why the health section must remain at the top. Stating that there's no reason to change it is hardly an answer.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC established that there's no consensus to apply MEDMOS and, as this is not a medical article, it's basically just inappropriate.--FergusM1970 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

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

(Details edited) Whilst there is still some issues to be sorted out afterwards regarding the Usage section and a possible new section called Uses, there appears to be consensus for the core of Bluerasberry's proposal (detailed in the discussion above and also below). Thus the request is to change the order of the article's sections to the following:

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

Levelledout (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for this. The RFC was just closed as no consensus. Numerous editors commented in the RFC and this edit protected request is ignoring the previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It closed as no consensus but found no grounds for the current order. This is not a medical article and it is not discussing a medical product, so the order should be changed to something appropriate.--FergusM1970 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I hate to get in the way of progress here as I see that AF and BR seem to be talking, and I think that's a great thing. But I'm not sure we can call this a consensus as BR's proposal has not been commented on yet by myself, Softlavender, Zad68, Yobol, or Cloudpkj and other contributors to the article who don't have time to spend 9 hours a day engaging in this discussion.
I don't think it needs to be unanimous, but I do think all the recent contributors should be pinged before we conclude that there is consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Softlavender isn't a contributor; all she's done is post two links to a crank site. Everyone else outside the MED group is opposed to the current order and as this is not a medical article there really isn't any reason for it to stay the way it is. However constructive comments are of course always helpful.--FergusM1970 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Softlavender is a contributor. We should not forget about all the other editors who commented in the recent RFC and the previous RFC. This has been debated for a very long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me just quote Softlavender here: "I'm not going to get involved in this article". She is not a contributor. The RfC found no grounds for MEDMOS and no consensus for the medical ordering; it also found that having health effects first does not look natural or neutral.--FergusM1970 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll note that this has been debated for a very long time because a group of MED-focused editors are insisting, for no reason that they have clearly explained, that a non-MED article be forced to comply to a MED layout. As the RfC has found that there are no grounds for doing so I would say that the burden of proof is now on advocates of the status quo to give a convincing reason why it shouldn't be changed.--FergusM1970 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done per rough consensus established above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; it was long overdue.--FergusM1970 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but MSGJ, presumably by accident the subsections "Device generations", "Atomizer", "Power" and "E-liquid" appear to have been moved out of "Construction" and into "Health effects". Could you please correct this?Levelledout (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MSGJ. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow one day. No consensus and still the edit occured. Will give User:MSGJ some time to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus to keep a layout that the RfC found had no grounds for being applied. Nobody has supplied any real reason for using the MED layout. This edit reflects that. I don't see what the problem is.--FergusM1970 06:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There were lots of reason 1) people are looking for health content most often (we see that the coverage of e-cigs is primarily focused on this) 2) so that it follows WP:MEDMOS
There should be a 66% support for changes to occur as is usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've asked you before: How do you know what people are looking for? There is no reason for this to follow MEDMOS because it is not a medical article. And was there 66% support for using the MED layout in the first place? No. There is no consensus to follow MEDMOS and no grounds to do so.--FergusM1970 08:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just undid the edit but I reverted it until discussion is done on it. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say discussion already is done on it. There was no consensus or grounds for the MED ordering in the first place. It's been discussed ad nauseum and no good reason for the MED ordering has been presented. It was all discussed again yesterday, at length and in detail - a discussion that Doc James took no constructive part in - and it's been decided. This is just disruptive editing.--FergusM1970 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been involved in an edit war. 3 reverts. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've raised this at AN/I. I'm sick of the OWN attitude Doc and others bring to this article.--FergusM1970 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also asked the locking admin to undo Doc's final edit.--FergusM1970 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So were is this clear consensus for the "construction" content going first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have looked through the whole thing and I see that User:MSGJ did decide that there was a consensus version. So I have restored that version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After 1 day and after User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus" here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Will you please stop quoting so selectively. FormerIP ruled that there were no grounds for the order you insist on and that it does not look neutral.--FergusM1970 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
One typically needs a consensus for a change. Where is that consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Where was the consensus to impose medical ordering in the first place? You need to accept the fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I have no idea why you can't come to grips with that, but it's making rational discussion with you impossible.--FergusM1970 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Useage

The next thing we need to discuss is the wording for Usage, and what to do with whats in the section now. I dont have wording for it, and perhaps Bluerasberry or someone else has an idea. I dont know what we will do with whats there now, but one option is to create a subsection, perhaps called Statistics to hold whats in Usage now. AlbinoFerret

But the thing is that Uses/Indications is a completely separate topic to Usage Statistics. I would be happy with Bluerasberry's earlier suggestion of putting Usage (statistics) in a subsection under Society and Culture. Then creating a new section titled something like Uses/General uses with whatever text is required.Levelledout (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Either of these options is fine; I prefer moving this content in a subsection under society and culture. I am not sure what source to use to populate this section, but I advocate that the usage/uses section explain fundamentally what the product does and why it is used. I think this is of broad interest to many people, but in particular, the section should explain the concept of using e-cigarettes to someone who has never seen the product and who is not familiar with the concept of inhaling the output of the device. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion, its ok if it is moved to a Statistics subsection under Society and culture. But we need wording to replace it first, empty sections are not a good idea imho. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Wording

The wording below is a rough draft based on the lede, please make suggestions so it can be improved or make a proposal.

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. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger devices that look nothing like a cigarette. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not use tobacco. In general, they all have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or in the case of automatic batteries activates it by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

AlbinoFerret 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? -

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

I think it carries the same meaning, but flows slightly better. I removed ENDS because it's really only used by a few ANTZ and certainly isn't widely recognised. It's already mentioned in the lede and I see no reason to overuse it.--FergusM1970 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think ENDS is an antis' term, specifically? IMHO it's actually rather a useful one, though obviously MHO isn't an argument for using it here. :) Barnabypage (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's basically an ANTZ term. The intent is to imply that vaping is just about getting nicotine, therefore why don't we use nice, safe (useless) patches or inhalators? There was a recent article about why vapers should oppose the term; I'll try to find it later (need to sleep now). It is nice to have an alternative to e-cig, which personally I hate but use because it's the common term. PV isn't bad. I like Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System, but that's just because I have a sick mind. I totally hate ENDS though. Vaping is our thing, not the WHO's, and they don't get to decide what stuff's called.--FergusM1970 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I like that wording, minor nitpicks. "aerosol," Should be "aerosol." and I would prefer "aerosol, commonly known as vapor." although we may need to add a source for that claim. We probably also need to specify a source for the last couple of sentences. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I spotted the comma that should have been a full stop but was too lazy to change it. Do we really need an RS to say it's commonly known as vapour? I know, the wikilawyers will be all over me for saying that, but it's not actually something that anyone with a functioning brain could dispute (see OED Word of the Year).--FergusM1970 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheng, already in the article can be used to source the last sentences as well as the "commonly called vapor", its #3. AlbinoFerret
Yeah just found the same source as the right one. I say source basically every claim in the article to begin with. It's a controversial topic there should be a source for any claim that any advocate on either side might dispute.SPACKlick (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I take your point and I agree that we should source everything as thoroughly as possible, but I doubt anyone could dispute that it's commonly called vapour with a straight face.--FergusM1970 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hayden McRobbie, #38 could source the generations and how they look. As well as #31 Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 23:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Outstanding! Sorted then. Any comments on this wording? Any suggested improvements? Anyone just not like it?--FergusM1970 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Since Bluerasberry and Levelledout have been involved in this, I think we should give them a chance to chime in. AlbinoFerret
Absolutely. We do finally seem to be seeing some progress at building consensus, rather than people just refusing to agree with edits.--FergusM1970 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It obviously repeats the lead a fair bit but I think its a decent starting point. I think we need to say something about why the device is used, we could use Public Health England for this which states that: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged, to cut down on smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, or to quit smoking".
So we could say:
Looks good. While we're at it can we agree to get rid of "to circumvent smoke-free laws"? That's pure POV, because not smoking isn't circumventing a smoke-free law; it's obeying it.--FergusM1970 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah of course, it's blatant POV, might be best to start another section to sort that out though.Levelledout (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support I like the intent here. I am going to qualify my support. I would like for this to include information about why the device is used. "The device is used for the same reasons that people would smoke tobacco or use tobacco" or "the device is used because... (it is a social custom, or whatever)". There is a sentence saying "Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine". In my opinion, if this is a minority usage (less than 10%?) then it should be noted as a minority usage, or if it is a really small percentage of sales then just included in sales figures. I wish to avoid indicating that this is a typical use if smoking/using non-nicotine solutions is uncommon. The article on drug culture comes closest to what I imagine, but right now there is no smoking culture article like there is for many other concepts in Category:Drug culture, like drinking culture, tea culture, coffee culture, kava culture, and others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with "Electronic cigarettes are used to inhale a flavoured vapour that usually contains nicotine." I'm rummaging for stats on how many vapers use nic-free, but it's definitely pretty common. I'd say that most "advanced" vapers who use drippers would use nic-free at least some of the time. The "e-shishas" that teens like are all nic-free as well.--FergusM1970 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Nic-free usage seems to differ quite a bit among countries. I suspect it's talked about more than it actually happens because it's more likely to be the more vocal, interested vapers with the more advanced tech who do it than the casual, not-particularly-interested cigalike users. Barnabypage (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we could always create an article on vaping culture :-) --FergusM1970 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  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. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This proposal is deleting parts of other sentences based on the lede. Oppose. I starting a new proposal without deleting other parts based on the lede. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposal_to_expand_the_lede_without_changing_other_sentences_in_the_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James and others disagreed with the word "emulated". There was a previous discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the lede. If you don't understand what people are talking about please ask them to explain it to you; don't start arguing with them.--FergusM1970 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The above proposal is for based on the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No. It is not. It is for the Usage section. Please DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THINGS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. You are not helping the article by blundering around like this; you are just interfering with, and annoying, everyone else.--FergusM1970 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 opposes changes to the lede for now. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You misread what I said. QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not misunderstand what you said, because what you said is blindingly obvious; you thought this discussion was about changing the lede because you either did not read, or could not understand, what had been written.--FergusM1970 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this proposal for the usage section? "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user."

  1. Cite error: The named reference Caponnetto2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cheng2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. Cite error: The named reference Weaver2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It has no advantages over the previous proposal and several issues. Vaping does not have "a similar feel to tobacco smoking". It's very different. Adding "(mist)" is a) unnecessary and b) stupid, because outside this article nobody calls it mist. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is just exactly, and pointlessly, duplicating text which is already in the article.--FergusM1970 09:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the point here is that it has a much more similar feel to smoking than, say, using a patch or chewing gum, and that is part of its appeal to some users. Feel may not be quite the right word, and it is certainly psychological feel as much as if not more than physical feel. Barnabypage (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed mist. The word "emulate" was previously rejected. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is not duplicated in the body and we should accurately summarise the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
"Emulate" was not rejected for this section because it has never been discussed in the context of this section. AF claimed that it was contrary to MEDRS so unsuitable for the lede. As this is for the Usage section, and not about health claims in any way, MEDRS is irrelevant. "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" adds nothing to this section, which is about how e-cigs are used; it is not about fluid dynamics. I do not support your proposal in its current state. I also do not think you are competent to edit this article, for the reasons I have explained at AN/I. I have no intention of having any further discussions with you about any vaping-related article, because either you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can go for WP:BOOMERANG or you are failing, at a fundamental level, to understand why your behavior is an obstacle to progress. Either way, talking to you is pointless. Closing this net; Fergus out.--FergusM1970 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose QuackGuru's version A workable one is already in progress that is only on Usage and doesnt add things that are off topic to Usage such as the word vapor is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where we are on this re-write. Is any of it in the article as yet? SPACKlick (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes in the article, because we're all too busy explaining for the millionth time why this isn't MEDMOS.--FergusM1970 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections 2

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: 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 have been ongoing disagreements regarding the ordering of sections of this article. A prior slightly different RfC was closed as "no consensus". A new discussion but not a RfC was open the next day and after a day of discussion. Might be good to have another formal RfC regarding the ordering of the first three sections.

Option 1

  • Health effects
  • Construction
  • Usage

Option 2

  • Usage
  • Construction
  • Health effects

Option 3

  • Usage
  • Health effects
  • Construction

Positions

  • Option 1 (second choice is Option 3). If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily. The weight we give within our articles should be similar to the weight given in the literature. Also per WP:MEDMOS we discuss "health effects" before we discuss construction or chemical composition of medical devices or medications. As e-cigs are a type of nicotine replacement therapy follow MEDMOS is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:
  • Health: 23 Articles
  • Regulations: 22 Articles
  • Usage: 10 Articles
  • Other: 25 Articles
I don't see this "one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily" claim your making to be valid. TheNorlo (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake. MEDMOS is not relevant here because these are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I might be more easily persuaded if there were some actual health effects to include, but what you are demanding is that speculation about potential health effects comes before any information about the actual subject of the article. No. This is not a medical article, Doc. Please just accept that and move on.--FergusM1970 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Further to that, e-cigs are not a type of nicotine replacement therapy. They are not licensed as such anywhere. They are not intended as such. Many of them don't even contain nicotine. By this point I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't realize this. The RfC found no grounds to use MEDMOS and as you well know there is not a majority in favour of doing so. You're verging on deliberate dishonesty now.--FergusM1970 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It is the standard layout in most journal articles. The Health effects first leads to a POV slanted article as found in the closing of the last RFC on this topic. The previous RFC found no consensus for a medical order with Health effects first. AlbinoFerret
  • Option 3. Information about what it is and how it is used is probably the reason most people come to the article, probably because they saw an advert somewhere and were curious about it. Information about what impact it has on health, the risks/benefits, what research has been done on safety etc is probably the second most common reason people come to the article. The minute details of their construction (which could probably be trimmed considerably with no loss to article quality) would seem to be of interest to a much smaller subset of enthusiasts, so it makes sense to bury it later in the article. The Wordsmith 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2, the standard order for articles about consumer products. Option 3, with extreme reluctance, if someone can present a very compelling reason. Not option 1 because it is inappropriate. Doc still witters on about how articles on medical devices should be written. Sorry, that's just WP:IDHT. These are not medical devices and he should stop pushing this bizarre POV.--FergusM1970 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Contrary to the inaccurate wording of the RFC, the majority of editors (7/11) supported the change. The 4 editors that opposed the change either provided inadequate reasons (i.e. "this is a better example") or basically no reasons whatsoever (i.e. "it isn't necessary"). Conversely, detailed discussions, a compromise and a consensus developed between the rest of the editors. Some editors appear to be refusing to accept this consensus. Firstly, a discussion was started on the talk page of the admin that made the protected edit to try and persuade them to revert the edit. That didn't go to plan, so attempts were made to simply edit war the previous order back into the article in spite of consensus. Finally we have this RFC, I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to see this as anything but WP:IDHT.
    Edit: I also refer you to my previous argument which details how the previous RFC found that there were no grounds for enforcing WP:MEDMOS, how the article must consequently follow WP:MOS and subsequently should follow the page order of similar articles, hence my continued support for Option 2.

Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would that be the same majority of literature which generally starts off by explaining construction before moving on and looking at the health effects?Levelledout (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Kim nailed it anyway. This is a medical topic, because the majority of the reliable sources focus on health, because the reliable sources we use are medical journals, because this is a medical topic. It's a circular argument.--FergusM1970 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 3 would be a nice compromise from my POV, and failing that, Option 1 as a second choice. I agree with Doc James that most of what one sees in published sources is about health (Yes, Norlo, the reason are regulated is because of health concerns). But I also see the arguments of those who think some description of what these things are for belongs upfront. I don't like option 2 in part because the "

Construction section is so long and detailed, putting it up front turns this article into a buyer's guide, and that's not what we do here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, we definitely should right a separate article about the construction section. Maybe that we could call this new article that details electronic cigarettes "Electronic Cigarette". TheNorlo (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Or possibly, "Aspects of Electronic Cigarettes Other Than Those Discussed in the Press and Academic Literature" Formerly 98 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Or we could create an article called "What the press and academic literature say about electronic cigarettes" and make this one about, you know, Electronic cigarettes.--FergusM1970 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • None of these Options See Expanded Options. If Doc James wants to emphasize the medical aspect of e-cigs, we could maybe direct the readers, in the leed, to the (medical) article that actually talks about the subject, i.e. Safety of electronic cigarettes. But he has to understand that this article here is mainly about the devices themselves not about the health hazards related to these devices. Should we talk about the health issues of these devices here, yes, but it should not be at the forefront TheNorlo (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per review of sourcing, health effects as a topic make up the plurality (if not majority) of reliable sources. It is likely that readers come to the article to look for that information, given the frequency of discussion of that topic in reliable sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV policy to reduce the emphasis of the health effects topic. Zad68 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The analysis of search results given above would seem to disagree.--FergusM1970 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Option 2 isn't appropriate, or do you just not like it?--FergusM1970 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be the one you favour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. Anyway, never mind. By all means, don't give any reason for your position. You don't have to if you don't want to; I was just suggesting it. Feel free to ignore me.--FergusM1970 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, it doesn't. Practically every source describes electronic cigarettes first then discusses health issues. That's exactly what the article does with the current layout - it describes what they are and what they are used for before moving on to discuss other aspects. Also non-medical articles have their own MOS, so MEDMOS is inappropriate.--FergusM1970 12:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 second choice Option 3 Agree with Zad, Doc James. This is not just another consumer product like cheese or ping pong balls. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2 This is the most logical layout, and the layout that is closest to how WP:MEDRS reviews take on this topic. You need an understanding of what a product is before you get to the description of how/what its physiological effects may or may not be. Assertions that people come here for health information is afaict based on gut-feelings rather than facts. To be encyclopedic we need to describe what it is, before we get to its effects. . (second choice option 3, option 1 is simply silly) --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure I just advocated for the article to be ordered like option 2 because I wanted the article to match Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_medications_and_devices. I will think more about this. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • None of these Options Or really, only 1 of them is warranted at this point: Construction. The other two are creating visible violations of NPOV. As headings they ought to stay, but with content, they ought to be forked to other pages where the controversy that is visible here on talk page and represented on article page as hemming and hawing, ought to not be on the main article page for eCigs. Again, this is due to the fact that the medical and scientific data is currently inconclusive, and lacking long term evidence. As long as that is the case, an eCig article within context of 2 competing views (enthusiasts and antis) are not going to reach a workable consensus. I'd love to be proven wrong about this, but I currently observe a Misplaced Pages article that is locked for 3 months because of these competing POV's. Gw40nw (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is clearly the best choice. Option 3 is a good compromise. Putting the Construction section close to the top seems to be turning this page into a buyer guide, and that is a no-no. It is primary a medical related product. It is reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as this product is like caffeine. It contains nicotine. Nicotine is a drug. Far more coverage exists on the health effects of electronic cigarettes than the actual construction of the product. If one reviews the sources available such as a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, the majority of the sources are health related. If one searches Google using the word e-cigarette along with the name of any major media outlet one will get the same result as Google Scholar. NPOV requires that Misplaced Pages pages emphasize the WP:WEIGHT of what reliable sources are emphasizing. Of course, that's the health related claims. One cannot argue against that in WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS) the health aspect is by far the most significant aspect of the e-cig topic, and so it should be prominently treated in this page; doing otherwise would damage the fundamental Neutral Point Of View we are required to follow. Given what society knows about the health effects of tobacco, and the perception that e-cigs are probably safer than traditional cigarettes, it is presumable (over even evident) that the majority of readers want to learn more about the health effects of e-cigs than any other aspect. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that putting Health effects as the first section is the most appropriate option. QuackGuru (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2. "I am about to describe a device. Which would you like me to tell you first: what it does, how it works, or whether it harms the health of the user?" Maproom (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

That's exactly it: He refuses to accept what happened. The impression I get is he's just going to do this over and over and over again until we all get fed up and give him what he wants. It is not collaborative or helpful. He has no support whatsoever for his claim that these are medical devices and it's time he accepted that.--FergusM1970 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have never claimed these are "medical devices". I have said it is a drug. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Doc, what I am holding in my hand right now is a six-inch-long stainless steel cylinder with a whacking great industrial battery inside. Are you seriously telling me that it's a drug?--FergusM1970 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, stop focusing on trivia and address the point. This is not about whether you are falsely calling e-cigs a medical device or falsely calling e-cigs a drug. It is about your IDHT issue and refusal to help build consensus.--FergusM1970 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay so no dif than for "medical devices". So you are saying that e-cigs are not drugs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
E-cigs are not drugs. --FergusM1970 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
More precisely, an electronic cigarette may (or may not) contain a drug, in exactly the same way that a needle and syringe may (or may not) contain a drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree, really.--FergusM1970 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
File:2014-Nemesis.jpg
Does this look like a drug?FergusM1970 * Is that cocaine? I think it looks like cocaine. TheNorlo (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Come on DJ, is a syringe a drug? It can be filled with something infused with drugs and used to deliver drugs, with different attachments it can be used as a one shot water pistol. E-cigs are a consumer product which is most commonly used to deliver nicotine recreationally just like espresso cups are a container most commonly used to contain and deliver caffeine recreationally SPACKlick (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Doc, I added a photo of the device I'm using right now. Please explain to me how that's a drug. That will give us a baseline for further, and hopefully more productive, discussion.--FergusM1970 02:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: when all you know how to uses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When all your training is medical, everything looks like a drug or medical device. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
But that's Doc's problem and he should stop trying to make it ours. He needs to accept that there is no consensus to adopt MEDMOS, that the RfC did not go his way and that progress was being made until he started edit-warring and IDHT. Ideally he needs to walk away from the article. If it's drugs he's interested in he should go edit Nicotine.--FergusM1970 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

An e-cig is a drug in the same way that a bottle is a drug. You can use a bottle to drink water (which btw is not a drug) or you can use a bottle to drink a hefty amount of GHB before going dancing at your favorite electro-douche rave. That does not mean that a bottle is a drug. TheNorlo (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I seriously can't believe that after the progress we were making yesterday he's managed to reduce things to this mess. Article locked again, pointless RfC taking up everyone's attention and Doc, having been confronted with the thorny problem of explaining why a device that's 90% identical to a flashlight (and might actually have been made from one) is actually a drug, nowhere to be seen.--FergusM1970 03:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
For fuck sakes!!! Where's this rfc page thing.... What a waste of fucking time TheNorlo (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I confused it, sorry. You should state your preferred order above, under Positions.--FergusM1970 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I thought it was on one of those special wiki pages. Got it. But I have to say that I preffer the 6 possible arrangement table below. TheNorlo (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if people would make some attempt to improve the article instead of spouting nonsense. "E-cigs are a drug similar to caffeine." Jesus.--FergusM1970 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when did "Not needed" mean "Not true"?--FergusM1970 04:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I have concerns that there is an efforts to de-emphasize the discussion of health effects even though this is what the majority of the popular press concentrates on and thus our readers are likely looking for. The evidence for health benefits are not nearly as positive as those within this billion dollar industry would like so maybe this is not surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Go look at the article on Cigarettes. Health effects is in section 11, despite being what the majority of the popular press concentrates on. Can you give a reason why e-cigs, which carry maybe 1% of the risk associated with smoking, should be so radically different?--FergusM1970 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, it is equally possible that people would be looking for info on the many aspects of e-cigs that aren't covered in the popular press, for precisely that reason. If someone has read about "mods" and wants to know what they are, they're not going to find the answer in their newspaper or on TV. Barnabypage (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Its always best to understand exactly what makes up a device before going into issues with it. There is no way to tell what a general reader is looking for. Its just as possible that some people are interested in the construction of the device because they like hardware and how things work. Those looking for health effects will easily find it in the contents box. Since its a consumer device it should follow the listing of other consumer devices like it, like Cigarette that place construction above health effects. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, WP users (like myself) are likely to come to this page to broadly answer, "what exactly are e-cigarettes?" which includes how they work, how people use them, how prevalent/popular they are, how safe they are, whatever wasn't satisfactorily covered after a conversation or media mention or news report or blog post. As a general encyclopedia article, it should provide all of this information, just as it would for any other device: intro, history, how it works, usage, problems with, the usual. Why not put History first, that is common, and a well-written history section is frequently extremely helpful in WP articles. Otherwise, Option 2 2 or 3 seem...normal. Putting Health Effects first isn't functionally terrible as long as there aren't too many sections to scan in the menu, but seems to be emphasizing that Health is the most important aspect (if so, um, NPOV...), when it is really just one aspect of this mechanical device. To make sure health effects get their due, making sure the section is at all readable is probably the most important thing, not where the link goes in the menu. In all seriousness, take a look at jackhammer, clear and straightforward. --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The 5-4 against statistic in the wording of the RFC is innacurate:
  • Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
  • Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)
Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a vote. We do not determine consensus based on raw vote counts. Zad68 14:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Tell Doc that; he's the one who (falsely) claimed there was a majority in support of the MED order.--FergusM1970 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to abstain from this RFC because my preferred option isn't there (Option 2 is closest) I prefer Construction, Health effects, Usage. I believe that telling people what the thing they're reading an article about is first makes sense. Then most people will want to know the effects of it and fewer people will want to know how they're used. Using current heading titles I strongly favour Construction, Health Effects, Usage, Society and Culture, History, Related Technologies. SPACKlick (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think this RfC is frivolous. It seems to be based on nothing more than Doc's belief that e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine", which is manifestly wrong. I just had a quick scan through the first five RS used in the article. Caponnetto et al refer to them as "devices". O'Connor refers to them as "devices". Cheng refers to them as "devices". Saitta et al refers to them as "devices." Even Grana/Glantz, which is a very controversial paper indeed, calls them "devices". I do not recall seeing them referred to as "drugs" in any source, either general or medical, ever. Doc's argument for applying MEDMOS is wrong. That's really all we need to know.--FergusM1970 19:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument that a plurality of sources discuss health therefore health goes first spurious. The plurality of articles being about health means we should give more weight, and therefore likely more article words to the health discussion found in RS on e-cigs. It doesn't mean we should make the article less informative by talking about the effects of them before describing them. Also, as others have pointed out, most sources that discuss the health describe the devices first.

Expanded Options

There are 6 options for the order of three sections, it seems silly to consider only 3. It might be best for consensus to see what order people rate them in. Please add to the relevant column your initial, linked to you as a user, for each of the 6 options SPACKlick (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


Option Preferred 2 3 4 5 6 Oppose
Construction, Health effects, Usage S TN A F Ts K
Construction, Usage, Health effects F TN A Ts K S
Health effects, Construction, Usage S TN A Ts F K
Health effects, Usage, Construction S TN A Ts F K
Usage, Construction, Health effects F TN A Ts K S
Usage, Health effects, Construction F A TN S Ts K
Wow. My question here is, why are we limited to three section heads, and these three in particular? In my opinion, Construction isn't very useful a section, what makes more sense is a Types section organized like this:
Types (with one para overview: various generations, basic similarities and diffs)
Basic components (or Operating principles, or Basic technology, or similar)
Generation 1
Generation 2
Generation 3
Related technologies
That set-up is more functional for this topic, at a glance it informs: "there are several types/generations sharing common technology, plus other technologies doing similar things." It also clearly perpares for breakout articles, for example, when Basic components has a dozen subsections, it's probable time for a separate article on components. --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree but for the purpose of this RFC I wouldn't want to propose changing the section. The construction section is intended to deliver the above information, we can deliver it differently but for the above table consider it those chunks of information, however they end up formatted. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand. My real compound question, then, is, does this painful process actually ever work? Does this series of convoluted arguments and RfCs and invoking of past consensus actually produce results? In three months, with spring in the air, will page protection be removed from a briskly written and informative, conflict-free e-cigs article? Is there any real value for me to stick around in the process, as someone who came to here for info, was disappointed, and stayed to try and help? I have no doubt that the people who have contributed to this page in the last couple of days could turn out a fantastic article in just few hours if they chose to actually collaborate...but will they? In the next weeks? Months? This is the question... --Tsavage (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not really so far because the time of protection has been to short. It has a better chance than people just doing what they want, that wont last till sundown. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In the interests of honesty I'll remind everyone that the majority are not opposed to this change. Let's not stoop to making up our own facts, eh?--FergusM1970 01:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I went to sleep and then came back to realize that WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TheNorlo (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Its Groundhog day!!! AlbinoFerret 03:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
We were working yesterday on making the construction section better.... I guess that will have to wait until this ridiculous waste of time is settled. No point in talking reorganizing the construction section now..... You know, the section that actually explain what Electronic Cigarettes are!!! Funny how Electronic Cigarette sounds like the name of this article. Or am I dilusional and the article is actually called Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes TheNorlo (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@TheNorlo: The section will need to be improved regardless of the order. This RFC should not get in the way of us improving the articles content. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But see how I am not working on improving this section right now because of this rfc? Doc James is disruptive. TheNorlo (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
He is, but unfortunately nobody at AN/I seems interested in looking at him.--FergusM1970 04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Italic text

I would like to make one comment on my responses in the table. While I would prefer one order, its not always possible. This article needs to be edited as a group and we as editors should make reasonable compromises for the sake of getting things done if the choices are both good. Thats why in the RFC I said I would prefer #2. Sometimes its best to have something that you can live with instead of fighting for your ultimate goal so that progress can be made. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree Formerly 98 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrap this RfC

Doc James has put forward this RfC because he claims e-cigs come under MEDMOS. His justification for this claim, stated here and at AN/I, is that e-cigs are "a drug, similar to caffeine." Devices made of metal, plastic and glass are not drugs, so his claim is clearly invalid. However he attempts to get round this by claiming that "A cup of drug is a drug, A atomizer full of drug is a drug, A syringe full of drug is a drug". This leads to his position that an e-cig does not actually become an e-cig until it's filled with nicotine-containing liquid. If it's filled with nicotine-free liquid, according to Doc, it does not become an e-cig.

Extended content

This is utterly bizarre and leads to only two possible conclusions. Firstly, Doc believes in sympathetic magic and thinks a steel tube becomes a drug if you put a drug in it. Or secondly, Doc is deliberately misrepresenting what an e-cig is in order to claim that the devices themselves, rather than only any nicotine content, are drugs.

This is simply a crude use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, by claiming that any e-cig that doesn't have the characteristics he wants it to have isn't an e-cig at all. In reality E-cigs are not medical devices, as has been clearly stated by the EU, FDA, WHO and Health Canada. Nor are they drugs, because they are manufactured objects made of plastic, glass and metal. These manufactured objects are not mystically formless things that only become e-cigs when filled with nicotine-containing liquid; they are e-cigs from the moment they are assembled. Just as a rifle remains a rifle with the magazine removed and the chamber clear, an e-cig remains an e-cig even if the tank is empty. The devices are not drugs, similar to caffeine or otherwise. They are recreational products that can be (but are not necessarily) used to deliver recreational drugs, and they do not belong under MEDMOS any more than a Meerschaum pipe does. Doc should accept the facts and work to improve the article as it is, instead of trying to force his preferred rules on it by using misrepresentation, stonewalling and WP:IDHT.--FergusM1970 07:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support Of course. What is mind boggling is that we are not saying that the Electronic Cigarette article should be free of an extensive health section. No one is saying that. But since there is no consensus to treat this article has a medical one..... It should not be treated as one. It should be treated has a regular article. TheNorlo (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Just simply weight in and walk away to give others a chance to do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you rephrase that I don't understand. thanks TheNorlo (talk)
That's OK. Neither did anyone else.--FergusM1970 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support An RfC on the order of three of the six current article sections I find...bizarre. If the reason is to put health first, I think Health Issues as the first section would be confusing to readers by giving it unusual and unwarranted emphasis. And if it's relevant here, e-cigarettes are clearly not drugs, they are little machines, electromechanical devices, whatever: health issues are one aspect because of their usual nicotine use, but their design and operating principles are independent of any drug use. IMO, this RfC doesn't make sense and is a time-waster. --Tsavage (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
One can even ask the question; is wasting time the main goal of this RfC? TheNorlo (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly not seeing any determination to improve the article, given how he started an edit war that was pretty much guaranteed to get it locked again.--FergusM1970 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
But the thing is we did have a vote, and it didn't support Doc's MED template. So now he wants to have another vote, on exactly the same thing. Is this like the EU, where we keep having referendums on the new treaty until everyone gets fed up and votes Yes?--FergusM1970 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As for what I'm trying to accomplish, it's to knock this pointless time-wasting on the head and bury it behind the chicken coop so we can get on with the urgent task of making the article comprehensible.--FergusM1970 18:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, this vote was done already. We already recently had a no consensus vote for basically the same reasons. Are we really to expect a different outcome? The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie. TheNorlo (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for closure So far Docjames has wrongly claimed that a majority of editors opposed the original change (the minority of users that did in fact oppose it mostly did so with WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments), tried to persuade the editor that made the protected change to revert it, attempted to edit war the original order back into the article. Then when all of that failed, still refused to accept consensus and started an RFC in yet another attempt to get the change reverted. This of course involved notifying WP:MED of the RFC in an attempt to get backing for having the Health Effects section at the top of the article. Seeing as this is a clear-cut example of WP:IDHT, I think the only reasonable thing to do would be to close this RFC.Levelledout (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Starting an RfC on (almost) the same issue as a just closed RfC, because the results do not fit what you want, is an attempt at WP:FILIBUSTER. Now instead of progress based upon the earlier RfC, we have to wait (considering the time the last RfC lasted) more than a month to get on with improving the article. There was no consensus for a WP:MEDMOS approach - deal with it, and let the editors discuss first what the sensible approach is instead of this bureaucratic nonsense. This is not what RfC's are for. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I might as well note my own support, in case anyone's counting. This RfC is basically a rerun of the one that just closed. That RfC found no grounds, and no consensus, for the order Doc wants. There is no reason to suppose that this has changed, and nobody has presented any evidence that it might have. Given that, asking the question yet again is pointless. Kill the RfC and let's do something constructive instead.--FergusM1970 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest folks The "last RFC on this subject was closed 24 hours after it opened, and this early closure appears to have been a deliberate strategy to declare a "consensus" before most of the editors who would oppose it became aware of it. The fact is that we have a large number of advocates working on this article who are here 6 or more hours a day fighting for their cause, while more typical editors drop by once or twice a day tops, because this isn't the only article they work on. This is not a healthy thing. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: Lets not be dishonest the RfC i was talking about is Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Ordering_of_sections, which i think you know well, and it was closed on the 17th of December and started on the 26th of October - which is more than a month. --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just not true. The last RfC was open for nearly eight weeks and concluded that there were no grounds for using the MEDMOS layout and that it does not look neutral. What is not a healthy thing is the obsession with applying MEDMOS to an article about a consumer product, and the willingness to obstruct progress to achieve it. The article is currently locked again because Doc, for the second time in three days, started an edit war over a change he didn't like. There is no consensus for MEDMOS so let's just put it to bed and get on with rewriting this festering mass of repetitive, turgid prose.--FergusM1970 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This RFC is an attempt to wear down the opposition, successive RFC's hoping the other side will get fed up and not respond. Not responding is the goal and so win when the other side forgets to respond while arguing against the RFC. Everyone who thinks this RFC should end still needs to comment on one of the choices. AlbinoFerret 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT A VOTE

  • I'd like to remind editors that we do not determine consensus on the basis of raw vote counts. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments based in Misplaced Pages content policy and sourcing. Theoretically a vote result of 100-to-1 against a suggestion where the 100 votes are "I don't like it" and the 1 vote is a well-reasoned argument based in sourcing should be decided as consensus in favor of that one vote. Due to the level of contentiousness on this page, we will have to get experienced uninvolved outside editors to review the arguments and determine consensus, we cannot trust ourselves to do it. Vote-count charts of "7 for, 6 against..." are singularly unhelpful. Zad68 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you! That's just what we have here; the last RfC on exactly this question found there were no grounds for having the health section first and that it looked neither natural nor neutral to do so. The admin who made the change pointed out that the only argument against the change was "I don't like it."--FergusM1970 16:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zad. Thank you. Everyone needs to comment on the RFC based on logic and WP guidelines/policy. The table above while nice is not a comment. Those that have comments will be weighed in the RFC, those that do not, will not. Everyone who has a opinion must comment if they want to be involved in the decision. Simple yes, no, or a number without reasoning behind it is a vote and will likely be discounted by whoever closes this. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, to explain my reason for inserting the table, I wanted to see if there were enough other editors preferring the other three options that it was worth broadening the discussion. Yes discussion is key to consensus but in an issue like this where ultimately the order is going to be, at least in part, stylistic preference, seeing where people prefer in a clear fashion can only improve the consensus building. SPACKlick (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of POV text

Currently the article describes e-cigarettes, in two places (the first paragraph of Usage and the image beside that section, as being used to "circumvent" smoke-free laws. The OED gives the following definitions for "circumvent":

Find a way around (an obstacle):
‘if you come to an obstruction in a road you can seek to circumvent it’
Overcome (a problem or difficulty) in a clever and surreptitious way:
‘it was always possible to circumvent the regulations’
archaic Deceive; outwit:
‘he’s circumvented her with some of his stories’

In my opinion this is slanted language, implying that e-cig users are somehow violating either the letter or spirit of smoke-free laws. In fact by not smoking e-cig users are complying with smoke-free laws. I'd suggest that either "circumvent" is changed to "comply with" or that these statements are removed.--FergusM1970 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: This appears to be a bad sourcing issue not a wording issue, as the cited source is misrepresented in the article: the "circumvent" findings refer to e-cig advertising, not user response (they're from a study "To describe the main advertising claims made on branded e-cigarette retail websites). Just check the cited source. --Tsavage (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
One source, Grana, uses the word "circumvent", another source puts it in a far more impartial way: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged".Levelledout (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Quack, do you actually know what OR means?--FergusM1970 07:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
What you proposed to replace it with is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. If your response to a no-smoking law is to not smoke you are not circumventing the law. You are complying with it. That is not OR. It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language.--FergusM1970 07:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
We are not discussing not smoking. The source does not say "comply with" the laws by using e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The law says I can't smoke. I am not smoking. Am I complying with the law?--FergusM1970 07:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Your personal opinion is not RS. QuackGuru (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not my personal opinion, Quack. OK, let's try another example. The law says don't murder people. I haven't murdered anyone. Have I broken that law, circumvented it or complied with it? The issue here is that "circumvent", whether sourced or not, is slanted language. It is POV. It is inherently loaded with negative connotations. If a law says "don't smoke" and you are not smoking, you are not circumventing the law. You are complying with it.--FergusM1970 08:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact here's a more exact analogy. There is a law against drinking and driving. If someone goes to the pub, drinks nine pints of beer then gets a taxi home, do we say he is circumventing the drink-driving law? No, we do not. We say he is complying with the law by not drinking and driving. The same goes for someone who vapes in a no-smoking area. He is not circumventing the law; he is complying with the law by not smoking. Is this clear enough?--FergusM1970 09:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question for you Quack; do you think that vaping and smoking are the same thing? TheNorlo (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is irrelevant. Do you think we should follow the sources or delete text if editors think the source is wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So if you're not smoking you're complying with the law?--FergusM1970 10:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Answer my question please. The law/policy requires not smoking. So if you are not smoking you are complying with it, correct?--FergusM1970 10:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So, another analogy. The drink-driving law does not require drinking Coke; it requires not drinking alcohol. If someone drives to the pub, drinks only Coke then drives home is he circumventing the drink-driving law or complying with it?--FergusM1970 10:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think vaping produces a form of smoke called aerosol? The source says "other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws..." QuackGuru (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I Doubt It's Objectively True.--FergusM1970 10:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No I do not think that "vaping produces a form of smoke called aerosol" and it is disruptive to assert something as truth without understanding the basic scientific principles involved. For your information smoke is a product of combustion and consists of solid particles. "Mist" (e-cig aerosol) is an entirely different type of aerosol that is the product of condensation and consists of liquid particles. Bottom line: Smoke and mist (from e-cigs) are completely separate types of aerosol. Therefore mist is not a form a smoke. There are plenty of places where you can confirm this information, such as here. Levelledout (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I took Quack to AN/I on the grounds that he is not WP:COMPETENT to edit. This is a perfect example of what I mean.--FergusM1970 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the idea but would prefer a different wording. Circumvent may be in the source, but it is unambiguously inaccurate and implies wrongdoing. Comply isn't great wording either, and not entirely accurate. Maybe something neutral that is still supported by the source, like other common explanations for the use of these products are to use nicotine in places that have smoke-free laws.... This is a close paraphrase from the source itself, section called Prevalence, "the most common reasons given for trying e-cigarettes are for use in places where smoking is restricted, to cut down on smoking, and for help with quitting smoking" The Wordsmith 20:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that; it's neutral and accurate.--FergusM1970 22:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that as well. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Electronic Cigarette - .22circumvent smoke-free laws.22

... let's try to avoid having yet another instance of having the same topic discussed in more than one place at a time. Zad68 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting." How many times must I explain this? There is also more details in the source about this. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No its not "Well sourced" The source used says nothing of the kind in the body, and then twists it around to users in the end. It make it unreliable. Its a pure twisting of who said what. Anyone who can read and comprehend can tell its not in the source originally. The users never said these things. Since its unreliable it needs to be removed. I am going to do a search for who placed it in the article and twisted it into a POV edit. AlbinoFerret 05:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I provided a quote from the source showing it is sourced and not ambiguously worded, yet you claim it is "unreliable". QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Find it in the body of the source, not the end that is opinion. You wont be able to. Thats because in the body it is not the users speaking, but advertisers. This is an error in the source. Proving it unreliable. AlbinoFerret 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You claim its not "Well sourced" but the source is a review. There was no error in the source. After I provided verification you are still questioning the experts who wrote the review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Then point out in the body of the review where it reviews anything to come to those opinions. AlbinoFerret

Notification of Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard that relates to the discussion in this section: Link
Levelledout (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Mist

The edit request has been enacted, and further debate on the same points won't change my decision. New discussions about using "mist" in the lead should go in a new section, and discussion about my decision should go on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Per the RFC above;

  1. Remove (mist) from lede
  2. Change all four instances of mist to vapor in Construction: Atomizer
  3. Change mist to Vapor in Construction: E-liquid
  4. Change mist to Aerosol in Harm Reduction
  5. Change mist to Aerosol in Safety
  6. Change mist to Vapor in Related Technologies

SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC linked to above is now in the archives and can be found here. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support this edit, it is how it was before the "mist" insanity took hold. and follows the RFC. The RFC found that editors want to reduce the usage of mist. The closers note below says we should only use it by consensus. There is no consensus, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS the edits should remove mist. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Mist" is not a term anyone uses. Academic literature uses "aerosol" or "vapour". Non-academic ANTZ say "smoke", which can obviously be ignored. Everyone else says "vapour". "Mist" just makes Misplaced Pages look clueless. It's as if we couldn't decide between "alpha particle" and "helium nucleus" and unilaterally decided it's now called "pixie dust".--FergusM1970 13:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Just for other editors note. I used Vapor where it was discussing what was produced at the atomiser and aerosol for the emissions. The specific usage in each instance is less critical, IMHO, than removing Mist, we can discuss the 9 uses of the word vapor and the 4 uses of aerosol in some other place. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. "Vapour" and "aerosol" are both fine, but "mist" has to go.--FergusM1970 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
And by the way the fact that Jimbo has been notified about me is irrelevant, so you can stop name-dropping now. He hasn't been notified because I object to you giving WP:UNDUE to "mist", has he?--FergusM1970 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT. "Mist" is not in common use and the vast majority of sources do not use it. So why should Misplaced Pages?--FergusM1970 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Please respect the conclusion of the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, respect the RFC, it said to use Aerosol and Vapor. This proposed edit brings the page back to the point before you started changing everything to mist without consensus. The finding were "The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist"." So the word mist needs to be reduced. If its used at all it will be by consensus. AlbinoFerret 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You support paid editing? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This edit protected request should be denied. More editors may be banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Paid editing is actually allowed, Quack. Check WP:COI.--FergusM1970 03:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And what's all this "More editors may be banned" stuff? Do you and Doc seriously think I control a vast network of paid infiltrators? Because if you do you're off your trolley. I've been a freelance writer for two years, and maybe 1.5% of my work has involved Misplaced Pages. When I joined Misplaced Pages I was a Sergeant in the Army. Who do you think I was shilling for then? Big War?--FergusM1970 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He supports this proposed edit, not paid editing Quack. Stop misrepresenting things. The edit was proposed by SPACKlick following the closing of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. This proposal goes against the RFC. The RFC did not say totally eliminate mist. And you should know about this. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. It appears editors may have been recruiting to Misplaced Pages. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ This is getting way out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Read the bloody conversation, would you? "I'm going to hell." "So am I." "Looks like VMS will be joining us." Reading that, where do you think she would be joining us? You know, based on the two sentences that come before it?--FergusM1970 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Quack it says the preferred words are Aerosol and Vapor. Stop trying to twist things. This follows the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support (amended) the specific editorial changes above, with the exception of leaving an explanatory reference in the lead (which is not "banning" the use of the word "mist" in this article anywhere, ever). "Vapor" is the popular term in the media and in scientific literature and "aerosol" is the technically accurate term (easily verified by a few quick searches: Google, PubMed, etc). A mist is an aerosol, so calling e-cig emission a mist is correct, but for editorial clarity, vapor and aerosol together are is the logical choice based on common usage. As a good example of usage, Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage uses both aerosol and vapor throughout, aerosol for technical stuff like phase change, vapor as a general reference. --Tsavage (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: In trying to move this forward, and not having participated in the initial vapor/aerosol/mist RfC, I hastily assumed "mist" was entirely secondary, which after a closer look no longer seems the case. As in my (unreplied to) question and comment below, from the evidence of popular usage and scientific sources, e-cig emission has been referred to as a "mist" in popular media and the aerosol is formally referred to as mist in scientific research, as in, "Electronic cigarettes ... deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece" 1. How "mist" fits as an e-cig term ("an aerosol and a less-used term than vapor") is part of any thorough discussion. We can't be removing - RfCing out - good information just because people don't like the way it was added. --Tsavage (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's dealt with. I'm getting permabanned. And if you expect to find a network of puppets controlled from my secret lair you're going to end up being very frustrated.--FergusM1970 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Doc James:Oh for god sakes!!! STOP STALLING THE PROGRESS OF THIS ARTICLE!!!! This has nothing to do with it. Ferguss did not start this RfC. At least give us a valid reason for opposing. Oppose because gnagna is not a good reason. TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused about how "meat puppet / paid editing issues" relate to this. I'm a few days new to this page, and it's been locked except for a few hours, and apparently the only way to edit is through consensus and getting an admin to commit the changes piecemeal. It's an excruciatingly inefficient way, still, I'm willing to stick around a bit on that basis. This "mist" issue is one actionable specific, I don't understand how that relates to particular editors? --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems an odd argument. I mean, even if it turns out that Quack and Cloudjpk have secretly been in league with me to sabotage the article all along, "Vapour" and "Aerosol" are still going to be the terms in widespread use and "mist" is still going to be wrong.--FergusM1970 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Because it's not a synonym of aerosol but misleadingly implies a high water content. Wheras consensus is that neither vapor nor aerosol are misleading. SPACKlick (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with leaving mist in the lead only, as it is worded now if that moves things forward. The reasonable and balanced idea is to convey once that e-cig emission is "commonly called a vapor, which is technically an aerosol or mist," as mist is in use as well. That explains all uses cleanly and quickly, and the rest of the de-misting allows the article to conform to popular and correct usage that readers will be familiar with. (Related note, for future debates: "but inaccurately" is chidingly unnecessary, as if we're trying to school every media organization, vaper, and scientist who uses the word). --Tsavage (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure would be happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Same here TheNorlo (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Neither of the sources used refer to it as a "mist", this equating is OR. AlbinoFerret 08:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose keeping the lede as written with mist. Mist, almost exclusively, refers to an aerosol mostly composed of water. The last thing we want to do is have this article imply that e-cig vapor is water vapor. SPACKlick (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what the objection is. The aerosol produced by e-cigs is technically NOT a mist? The point is, mist is out there (I'm looking at Forbes, LA Times, National Post, various e-cig company sites, etc), less commonly than vapor, but still used. From the general encyclopedia user perspective, if I'd seen mist along with other terms, I'd likely expect that to be explained when reading up on e-cigs. Also, "mist" is used in some scientific literature, like "Electronic cigarettes ... deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece" Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patch for smoking cessation via PubMed, where there are other examples. So I am confused? This doesn't seem controversial, it's acknowledging e-cig mist and explaining usage as an alternative word (constrained Google search for "electronic cigarette vapor" and "electronic cigarette mist" is about 3.3:1 vapor to mist, so mist usage is lesser but not minuscule). Am I still missing something? --Tsavage (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:S Marshall wrote "The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist" The RFC did not conclude to remove "mist" from the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The rest of us can all read Quack.
Q: Should we use mist? A: The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". ...
We should use the term that best fits the rhythm and flow of the sentence, provided that term does not mislead the reader. The consensus is that neither "vapour" nor "aerosol" are misleading.
I believe that in those 9 instances aerosol and vapor both fit the rhythms of the sentences better and are less misleading. Do you have any actual argument for Mist's inclusion or are you just not liking and not hearing what other editors have to say? SPACKlick (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC is over yet you disagree with the using mist at all. Your disagreement is with User:S Marshall. QuackGuru (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with using mist at all, I just disagree with using it in these specific 9 instances. My disagreement is with you. Which case of removing mist do you disagree with and why quack?SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Quack No, the closer was very clear, and most people can easily understand his comments and reasoning. You appear to have a problem with the clear words he used or you just dont like it, or are refusing to hear it. AlbinoFerret 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: I was asked on my talk page to reply here. I carefully wrote "reduce", and not "eliminate", because editors have occasionally been known to follow a rule off a cliff, so I wanted to leave a little wiggle room in case there was ever some good reason to say "mist". However, the consensus is that the default words should be "aerosol" or "vapour". If editors cannot agree about whether to say "mist" in an e-cig related article, then they should not.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We often explain complicated words with more simple ones. Thus there is nothing wrong with explaining in the lead that an aerosol is similar to a mist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Except that it isn't one. Most things people refer to as mists are water based aerosols. Most things people refer to as vapours are aerosols. This thing is an aerosol but it isn't water based. This isn't controversial Doc. Aerosol, commonly referred to as Vapor sums up the position of the sources. SPACKlick (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is also discounting the RFC on this topic to use Mist. It ran a long time, everyone had a say. Only using Mist where everyone agrees was the consensus. I'm in agreement with the RFC, if , in the future, we can all agree that mist is the right word, it will be included. But this isnt that time, there is no agreement, so mist is out. It detracts nothing from the claim to remove it, and including as one equating the other it is not supported by the source. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, since this was the result of the RfC. If there is a later reason to use "mist" in a descriptive way, then it should be used, but the current usage is not such. I'm not sure why we actually have a !vote on this. --Kim D. Petersen 16:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC) - Nb: I dislike the apparent attitude of "lets start an RfC - but if the results do not fit our agenda, then we just start yet another discussion/RfC until we get the result we like..."... if consensus or lack of consensus is there - then please accept it. --Kim D. Petersen 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There's still consensus, only the two sore thumb editors have voted against this change and their reasoning has been
  1. Some sources use mist (which was considered during the RFC)
  2. The RFC said reduce not eliminate (Which the closer has clarified was to allow mist where it was clearly, overwhelmingly correct)
  3. Per the RFC (see 2)
  4. Because more editors might be banned...
  5. Because what's wrong with having mist there?
None of which are compelling arguments to ignore the result of an RFC.
I amended my opinion above with what I believe is a compelling and sourced argument: Mist is used in popular and a proper scientific term for e-cig aerosol and therefore should be accounted for in a clearly accessible way for general interest readers who may well have encountered mist and vapor both. Terminology section would be one place, but there is none. The lead as a summary shouldn't have material that doesn't come from the body of the article, but since there is no such explanatory mention, considering that all that is required is "e-cig produces an aerosol mist commonly referred to as vapor", and that is awkwardly but essentially currently already there, how can we remove significant, valid content based on editor preference for how it was added? --Tsavage (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Mist is used so infrequently it is closer to not used. It is an inaccurate term that describes atmospheric water like clouds and fog. Per the closers note on the RFC a few posts above, mist is only to be used with total agreement, that doesnt exist here. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret "used so infrequently it is closer to not used" - what does that even mean? This is the age of the Internet, everything lives forever. If I see e-cig "mist" on prominent sites like Forbes, New York Times, LA Times, and e-cig brands like Mistic and Clearmist and Mist E, do you think it's highly unlikely that anyone looking into e-cigs online (which is where WP lives) runs into "mist"? And (and I'm seriously literally curious here), do you have a source that says "mist" is not the "type" of aerosol that e-cig vapor is? It really seems like you just want to make a point here, not serve the article. The other changes of aerosol and vapor are ridiculous, but, accidentally, perhaps, the one in the lead incrementally pushes the article forward. --Tsavage (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Your handful of sources that say mist vs the perhaps 75-100 I have read that dont may be the problem. But it doesnt matter. The RFC is done, the findings are clear, complete agreement to use mist. Citing 6 or so sources that use one word will not make me agree that Mist is the words to use. If there is a claim that uses mist, and the word is appropriate I will agree to it, but popping it in because a minority of sources use it is wrong. Its not used in the source for this claim. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret Unfortunately, your argument here has become inflexible and circular. We are supposed to be writing to serve a general audience, and if it can be reasonably shown that a piece of information should included, it should be without creating an obstacle course. Mist vs vapor vs aerosol for e-cigs is something readers may wonder about. Here are only three examples from NYT, which I hope you would agree is widely consulted, indexed, searched. The example is not to show a massive use of the term, simply that it is something that merits explanation. I can fill pages like this, so it is hardly "closer to not used":
  • "This electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, contains a small reservoir of liquid nicotine solution that is vaporized to form an aerosol mist." "A Tool to Quit Smoking Has Some Unlikely Critics", Science section, New York Times (2011) 1
  • "E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine that is vaporized to form an aerosol mist." "Rise Is Seen in Students Who Use E-Cigarettes", Health section, New York Times (2013) 2
  • "Clouds of mist curled upward and vanished." and "When you draw on an electronic cigarette (or push a button on the fancier versions), a sensor activates a battery that causes a heating element to vaporize the nicotine solution in a cartridge, emitting a fine mist." "E-Cigarette Shops Open Even as City Cracks Down" N.Y./Region section, New York Times (2014) 3
--Tsavage (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree on use of Mist in the lede, its common usage is water vapor in the atmosphere like a cloud or fog. Its confusing and adding confusion is something I think is best avoided. AlbinoFerret 00:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That "mist" is wrong and properly refers to clouds is your personal opinion, or based on some more authoritative source? And, what is confusing about answering the basic question: "with e-cigs, what's the difference between vapor, mist, and aerosol, I've seen all three terms used?" Aren't we supposed to be answering likely questions from a general audience? --Tsavage (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And from word-happy The Economist, Dec 20th 2014: "Electronic cigarettes ... use a small electric heater to vaporise a mix of glycerine and propylene glycol (two fairly inoffensive chemicals) in which nicotine has been dissolved, turning it into a breathable mist that can be savoured much as cigarette smoke is." from "Vapour trail", Electronic cigarettes and health section 1 --Tsavage (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Websters dictionary, first example is the most common. mist - water in the form of very small drops floating in the air or falling as rain. WP's article on mist. I could find others by copying references in the Mist article. We should not add to confusion. AlbinoFerret 00:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You are conflating technical definitions with common usage. I've just established common usage for "mist" in connection to e-cigs, we are not creating confusion, if confusion has been created, it is by the New York Times, the Economist, et al, and we're here, properly, to clear that up. You don't turn to Websters for technical definitions. I thing the basics are, aerosol is the general class of particles suspended in air or other gas, and the three major subtypes are dust (solid particles), mist (liquid particles), and fumes (residue from combustion). So, yeah, mist as droplets in air has become also a common term like clouds, but as a technical term it appears to apply to e-cigs as in "deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece"... Bit we shouldn't have to be...arguing this far into areas in which we are not experts, Misplaced Pages editing is simpler than that, it is done best when anonymous, uncredentialed people are being reasonable. --Tsavage (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, we should not use mist. AlbinoFerret 01:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So there we are: in this case, at least, it comes down to your personal opinion, since it's you against someone reading the latest issue of the Economist, wondering where the mist has gone? Should we be searching the Journal of Aerosol Science? How do you expect to move ahead by inflexibly basing positions on personal opinion? --Tsavage (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite frankly: Mist is extremely seldom used in the literature that your rehash of the RfC is misplaced. Only 5 papers on PubMed about electronic cigarettes use the wording "mist" anywhere. And we have had an RfC on this. --Kim D. Petersen 02:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I think this metric is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since you are concerned with my searched proofs, look at your own: at least one of your PubMed finds is a review, and it cites a healthy 124 other papers, and mentions "mist" several times, each occurrence citing a different paper, so the "only 5 papers on PubMed" is suddenly 8, 9, 10 papers, maybe more. Where does this end, arguing that the other papers aren't in PubMed so somehow unworthy, even though they entirely form the basis of the PubMed accepted review? This is crazy. :) --Tsavage (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Nb: The examples you give are subject to confirmation bias on your part, since you actively sought these out, instead of looking at the literature as a whole. --Kim D. Petersen 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To demonstrate: Go to Google and search for '+("electronic cigarette" OR 'e-cigarette")' and compare the number of results to '+("electronic cigarette" OR 'e-cigarette") +mist' - again the usage of "mist" is extremely rare, just as in the medical literature. (same results apply when using Google news) --Kim D. Petersen 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This argument is so off-point, the criterion here is not popularity, and we are not talking about confirming a feature of or medical claim about e-cigs, we are talking about including information in an article that may be of interest to the general reader. That is our primary mission. All that I was illustrating with NY Times/Economist is that there is some significant use of "mist" in popular media, like these extremely popular and respected outlets, so it is reasonable to assume that a percentage of readers would be curious about the various terms, vapor vs aerosol vs mist, after reading about them. My small illustrations show that if I were a regular NY Times reader or perusing the latest issue of the Economist, for example, I might well wonder about aerosol, vapor and mist, and I might go to the #1 Google selection on the topic to try and find out. I only need this length explanation because of the crazily overdetailed arguments going on here. Normally, reasonable editors would say, "yeah, mist is out there, too, let's handle it," and add the 4-5 words it takes, instead of launching into convoluted RfCs and arguing confirmation bias and the like.
Since this information is already in the lead (at the very least, you can conclude, "oh yeah, aerosol is mist") why are we going to REMOVE USEFUL INFO? Confirmation bias is irrelevant here. This isn't a popularity poll, we don't only cover information because it's at the top of some popularity chart. Don't forget, I am only talking about the brief mention in the lead, since there is no explanation of mist elsewhere. --Tsavage (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Tsavage, the word "mist" being from all Wikpedia pages. Adding a synonym benefits the reading. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It only adds to the confusion. We have had a RFC on it and it can only be added by consensus. AlbinoFerret 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret We're discussing a point and trying to reach agreement, I've replied to every concrete objection you've mentioned, it's all there in writing, and now you aren't replying in kind, instead, repeating personal opinion ("it only adds to the confusion") and citing previous proceedings (RfC). I can try to help:
  • Is it confusing because it would be too unfamiliar to readers who have not seen mist used in reference to e-cigs, they can't handle knowing that an aerosol can be called a mist, or that somewhere unseen to them (like in the New York Times over the years, or in the current issue of the Economist), "mist" may have been used in place of "vapor"? (We have a Simple English Misplaced Pages version if language confusion is the problem (and it has an interesting ingredients table)).
  • Where does it say in the RfC that the way forward is to remove every instance of mist, or every instance that was changed at some designated previous point in time? I don't see that it does, yet that is what you are arguing.
If you have no real replies, only opinion and invoking of authority, perhaps your position, on closer examination, is not really supportable? If you admitted that, or showed me the error of my position, we'd be getting somewhere towards consensus! As far as I can see, Misplaced Pages is quite inclusive of relevant pieces of information within an article, and I believe I have established relevance for mist. (BTW, happy holidays! :) --Tsavage (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to read the "Closer's note" above in this section if the closers findings for question A in the RFC leave questions in your mind about the use of mist. (You also, have a Happy Hoilday's and enjoy some time with family and friends.)AlbinoFerret 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this seems like an arguing tactic to me: rather than saying anything concrete, you direct me to other places it should be obvious I've already been, and suggest I look for your answers there. Still, again, I'll try to be helpful:
  • The RfC in question is closed with the finding that No consensus is reached on this point, and there is no requirement always to use the least ambiguous term. That's unequivocally clear, and everything else in the closer's summary is consistent with that. So, nothing there about removing "mist" from the lead.
  • You refer me to the first sub-finding: Should we use mist? A: The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". There is no argument that the preferred terms, by common usage, are vapor and aerosol. And it's clear to me that some editors want to reduce the use of mist. Nothing there on removing "mist" from the lead.
  • In the "Closer's note" above, in the opinion of User:S Marshall, the closer now speaking as a regular editor, '...the consensus is that the default words should be "aerosol" or "vapour". If editors cannot agree about whether to say "mist" in an e-cig related article, then they should not.' That's an opinion and a suggestion from an editor, it doesn't modify the actual RfC closing summary, referred to in the previous two points, because the RfC is...closed. Still in deference to S Marshall...
  • ...and to be thorough by continuing to re-examine and re-frame the RfC (as citing the Closer's note does), the in the RfC's initial statement is the claim, "No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist". While there is some discussion in the RfC of whether "mist" is technically accurate, there is also much commenting on a sort of non-notability of "mist" because it's not found in a lot a places. Meanwhile, "No one ... describes it as mist" (minus the personalization) is incorrect as I made clear with examples above. I've also made a reasoned case for a particular, specific occurrence of mist in the article, differentiating vapor, aerosol, and mist, by showing that "mist" is used currently and enough that it is reasonable to assume there are readers who will want to know about it (ongoing and current use in New York Times and Economist are two notable examples of that). This aspect of usefulness to the readership is germane to the discussion, yet not properly addressed or discussed in the RfC, simply tossed off as "no one uses it" and "confusing" (the latter circularly based on the incorrect former). So, I'd argue that the RfC is not only closed (which really is the final word) but also incomplete, and if the Closer wishes to actually amend the closing after the fact, that should take into account any new input like mine, we can't be traveling back in time, tweaking closed items, can we?
Currently the lead reads, "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor." This does a passable job of explaining aerosol/mist/vapor, so why should we remove it? --Tsavage (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The whole RFC was on the insertion of mist everywhere. The findings are clear. Editors want to reduce the usage of mist, it should only be used by consensus. Now that the RFC is over we are going back to those edits that were the reason for the RFC in the first place. There is no consensus for it to stay. As a result WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. Since the RFC was to gauge consensus for "mist" a finding of no consensus means they are removed. This is a major problem with this page, even after RFC findings editors argue against those findings. AlbinoFerret 00:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC wasn't about reverting the article to undo the mists, it was about how to use the three terms moving forward. Since the mist changes were already made, that's where we're moving forward from. If the RfC was about reversion, it should have said so, like, "The replacement of every instance of 'vapor' and 'aerosol' with 'mist' is essentially vandalism and should be reverted." But, it didn't say that, it was about the relative weight of the terms, and no consensus was reached, except that "vapor" and "aerosol" were more used than "mist," "and there is no requirement always to use the least ambiguous term". If you insist on citing the RfC, you should at least be clear on what it says. Inflexibility isn't helpful in the...process. --Tsavage (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Im sorry that it isnt obvious to someone new to the article. But the first few lines show it was about the changing of the words over and over. The use of mist in the leade is one of those that was changed over and over. The RFC stopped that while it was ongoing and one of its purposes was to show what the article should look like and if those bold edits should stay. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS after a discussion on bold edits if there is no consensus they are removed. The comments also show this as it was discussed over and over that Quack had broken the previous limited consensus by adding "mist" all over opening the RFC to all usage in the article. AlbinoFerret 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
"Im sorry that it isnt obvious to someone new to the article" is not helping your point, because the RfC should be obvious to newcomers, isn't that the idea, to get fresh eyes from far and wide?! You're right, I came to the article just as that RfC was getting underway, I read it, it seemed too complex and ultimately restrictive to be practical, and I wasn't sure of the underlying history. Like I said before, it should have been an RfC on mist insertion as vandalism, because it IS ridiculous to have changed every instance of a more common terms for a less common one, with absolutely no support.
The problem here is, you seem to be the principal person against a solution that could revert mist, except for the instance in the lead which is poorly worded at present, but helpful (can you argue that the current presence in the lead could not be at the very least a little helpful to someone, somewhere, not 100% devoid of value?). Can't you see, you are your own worst enemy on this one, because you have an outcome you absolutely want and will not reevaluate.
Also, look back at older versions of this article, in 2011 a PubMed-indexed study actually footnoted the Misplaced Pages e-cig article, quoting the lead verbatim, which mentioned mist... Do you want the citation? --Tsavage (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think its best that we just agree to disagree. I dont think the use of mist in the lead is helpful to the general reader. Mist is defined as water vapor in the atmosphere. Its against the RFC. Its present form is to try and work around another finding of the RFC because it was not to long ago mist with a wikilink to the Aerosol page. Right now its off the edit proposal. I will say that if mist is retained aerosol should be removed, we dont need two words in one place. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing to disagree in a case like this really means, let's agree that we will never come to a mutually acceptable solution, which sounds like you only want to push your own POV. I supported this particular proposal, and then I amended it in light of opposition, not just to get along, but also because the opposition made me reconsider. It wouldn't have been the end of the world to remove all mists as you and the original proposal wanted, but upon further reflection, I realized it would be incrementally better to leave mist in the lead. I adjusted.
If you say mist is only defined as water vapor in the atmosphere, I better head over to oil mist lubrication and look for some references before you propose that page fro speedy deletion. And maybe you should fire off an email to Exxon and the gang for this crazy patent application: "Mist oil lubricant (US5756430 A): A mist oil lubricating composition distributes fine droplets of oil compositions in aerosol form to the areas of various machine elements to be lubricated. Many oil particles form an aerosol with particle diameters in the range of 0.1 to 20 microns." And be sure to ignore this handy chart in Aerosol Science: Technology and Applications, illustrating a mist as a liquid-particle aerosol, ranging from 0.01 microns to around 9 microns, the definition merges with spray, up to 1000 microns. Liquid distinguises it from solid particle aerosols in the fume to dust particle size range. Health-related characteristics of a mist include ihalability and respirability. (Figure 1.3)
Something here should tell you, this whole way of editing by argument and random citation is wrongheaded... We should just agree on simple things! :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am done arguing, I disagree on the use of mist. 5000000 more words are not likely to change my mind. I have laid out my reasoning above.AlbinoFerret 01:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I've replied to everything you've had to say and now you have no more. Everyone is entitled to be wrong and stick with it. --Tsavage (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing mist from the article but at this point, I don't care, it is trivial considering the work that this article needs. The lead is in extremely bad shape, the construction section should be refined and cleaned out, the medical part of this article could use a bit of work to. This huge ass RfC about whether or not we should use "Yep" instead of "Yeah" is a little ridiculous at this point. Anyways, sorry for being off topic but I had to say it. TheNorlo (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was on the wholesale replacement of Vapor with mist. We had the RFC, now after we have the results its discounted and the arguing goes on. We need to follow the results of the RFC. Because it shows where consensus lies and we should be following consensus. By discounting the RFC we discount consensus, and thats not how WP articles should be created. AlbinoFerret 11:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am now convinced, Mist should stay in the lede. It is common enough that it might be what a reader knows the vapour as. I think a reword is in order but I'm happy have that fight another day. Something like; They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is commonly referred to as vapor and infrequently as mist.. Thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The part "infrequently as "mist" is not supported by the source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: I would remove the strikeout if I were you. A compromise isnt possible, we have the RFC findings and the closers note. There is no consensus for including it, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS it should be removed. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You read this comment thoroughly? The findings of the RFC was to reduce not eliminate the word mist. Therefore, the consensus is to use it less often. After the RFC is over you are still trying to eliminate mist when it has been demonstrated it is a synonym. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring the Closers comment in this very section where he expanded on it. If there is no consensus, it should not be used. There is no consensus here. It should be removed. AlbinoFerret 13:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC closing statements made no such argument. After the RFC closed the editor was commenting as a regular editor. This was previously explained. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect, he was explaining his comments in closing the RFC, what they mean. As such they explain how the RFC comments should be applied. They are clarifying the comments and part of those comments. AlbinoFerret 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Done As this is basically a request for implementation of the RfC result, I have given the RfC result the most weight in deciding what should be implemented here. Although there were some users against points 2-6 in this discussion, the RfC result indicates that they should be enacted, and there was also a rough consensus for them here. I didn't see a consensus in this discussion for point 1, but as the RfC result indicates that "vapor" and "aerosol" are to be preferred over "mist", I have removed it from the lead until a consensus can be found on whether to include it. There was some discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lead for the word "mist" - this may be a useful avenue for future discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to remove mist from the lede against the RFC

User:Mr. Stradivarius, the edit request protection did not involve removing "mist" from the lede.
  1. Remove (mist) from lede The proposal to remove "mist" from the lede was stricken. The closing of the RFC was to reduce mist not eliminate it. There was no discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lead for the word "mist". Some editors were disagreeing with using mist in the lede. You should not remove "mist" from the lede until a consensus can be found to remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Another classic misrepresenting from you Quack. The RFC expressly said the consensus was to reduce the usage of mist. The closers note diff clarified the closers comments that if there was no consensus that mist should not be used. There is no consensus in the above discussion to keep mist in the lede, there doesnt need to be consensus to keep, but consensus to use it. Thats the only way mist will be used from now on, per the RFC. Even if one editor struck the edit, there were arguments that it should not be struck. If you want alternative wording, then gain consensus for the edit. Propose the wording and see if there is agreement. We should not go backwards, or ignore the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is misrepresenting the situation. User:S Marshall, the closer was speaking as a regular editor after the RFC was over. The lede said "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor." This does a passable job of explaining aerosol/mist/vapor, so why should we remove it? Please read the comments by User:Tsavage.. User:AlbinoFerret has never given a logical reason how removing mist from the lede improves the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No quack, you are misrepresenting the closers comments. The closers is explaining his closing, not as an editor, but as the closer. The RFC with the comments of the editors has spoken, listen to it. AlbinoFerret 03:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was not specifically about removing mist form the lede anyway. The RFC never said eliminate mist form the lede. After the RFC User:S Marshall was only giving suggestions as a general editor because the RFC was closed. User:Tsavage made a lot of good points. What is the harm in including the synonym mist in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus to have mist in the lede. Per the RFC, if there is no consensus, its removed. AlbinoFerret 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't really care if we call it mist, vapor, or aerosol, but as a point of order you have it backwards AF. The word "mist" was present, and there needs to be a consensus to change it. In the absence of consensus policy is that the status quo prevails. Of course for any article content, one can point to a time before the content existed and say "oh, there was no consensus to add it in the first place". But that's not really how we do things here. If it has been in place for a while, you need consensus to remove it. There has been far too much of this argument "I don't agree with it = there was no consensus to add it however many weeks it has been there, therefore it must be removed. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the lede.

As an effort in making the lede more readable, I'm attempting a rewrite. This is in no way a final version as no sources have been added to the text. I am trying to summarize the contradictory information that makes the reading of the present lede extremely laborious. I believe that this attempt at a rewrite is neutral and does not diminish the medical importance of this subject by redirecting the reader to the proper articles.

I am sincerely trying be as neutral as I can here, so please refrain from attacking me for being biased, I have already recognized my bias toward e-cigs but I am working toward collaboration. I would appreciate your input.

I have not rewritten the usage part of the lede yet but I think that we could summarize it better than what it is in the present state.

You can find the rewrite attempt here. TheNorlo (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nitpicky comments.
  1. If we are to keep "Aerosol(mist)" it should be "Aerosol (mist)"
  2. Liquid Solution is a redlink "Liquid Solution" may be better.
  3. i think the tense "has increased" is odd in the third para. Possibly just "increased" or with different sourcing "is increasing"

Other than that a great improvement on readability. I approve. SPACKlick (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I should mention that I am not, in any ways, an English wordsmith as it is my second language, I am for better or worst a native French speaker, feel free to correct any syntax, grammatical or spelling mistakes. TheNorlo (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion on an edit to work op a possible replacement and is not the final form, your jumping the gun Quack. AlbinoFerret 10:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a final version Quack... What are you opposing exactly? That we should not rewite the lede or that my attempt is a bad start? TheNorlo (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What is this lede lenght policy anyways? Do you have a link? TheNorlo (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also Quack, removing some of the unreadable text in no way goes against any policy or manual of style. WP:Leadlength suggests 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article this length. and says The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. (Emphasis Added)
This lede is too long and difficult to read, it needs a trim, everyone but you seems to agree. SPACKlick (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, this article is currently around 37,000 characters. Several of which are stubs of daughter articles. Once some of the repetition is trimmed it will likely be borderline 30,000 which is where 2or3 paragraphs meets 3or4 paragraphs. The lede should be 3, concisely written, easy to read, paragraphs summarising the article content. To me, that's exactly what TheNorlo has written. SPACKlick (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It over shortens the current lead. There is nothing wrong with 4 paragraphs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, could you specify what removed information you think should be maintained that isn't by the current proposal? SPACKlick (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please try to be specific and constructive in your comments in order to work this out. Simply saying that the lede is to short or that "there is nothing wrong with 4 paragraphs" adds very little to the conversation . user:TheNorlo

Oppose I don't see what the proposal is apart from wanting to shorten something that isn't especially long to begin with. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is about making the readability of the lede easier. TheNorlo (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we leave the lede the way it is?

I believe that the lede of this article as it stands right now is excruciatingly painful to read, it is filled with different review articles more or less contradicting each other and I don't think that citing specific medical reviews in the lead is helpful or interesting to the reader. I believe that we can summarize it in a more efficient way by redirecting the readers to specific articles that talks extensively about subjects like Safety of electronic cigarettes or Legal status of electronic cigarettes, which is what I am trying to accomplish here with the participation of interested editors. My goal is not necessarily to shorten the lede but to simplify it, the final version will probably be longer than this draft. I am sensing a lot of resistance to change from some editors and so I ask the question:

  • Should the lede stay the way it is right now or should we work together in making it more readable and accessible to the readers that are unfamiliar with the topic by summerazing it in the way that I've explained above? Of course, it's not my way or the highway here, if you have a better way of enhancing the readability of the lead, please share. TheNorlo (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh god no. You're right; it's awful. It urgently needs rewritten, ideally by someone who can write.--FergusM1970 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I agree the lede is to needs to be rewritten.80.179.90.190 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

*Support rewrite Of course, as explained above. TheNorlo (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize to the editors who I insulted here and at WP:ANI over the past three months. I see now that they were up against paid advocacy editors, with whom I unintentionally aligned myself because I wasn't aware of the depth of shilling on the topic. I know firsthand how stressful working against paid advocates can be, and I'm sorry I piled on. EllenCT (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

May I say, handsomely done EllenCT Cloudjpk (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Who has been a paid advocate here? And what is the depth of the shilling? And why should you be sorry to have an opinion, even if that opinion may align yourself with something that you dislike? I can't see anything that you have to apologize about. Merry christmas. --Kim D. Petersen 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think she's talking about Ferguss because somebody asked him to right about e-cigs for them on their website I believe. I don't think that he was paid to write anything here, from what I gathered he was writing on this article on his own time... I might be wrong I didn't read the entire thing. But I agree that I don't see why you apologize. Your opinions are yours, regardless of who you agree with. I don't accept your apologies but Merry Christmas! TheNorlo (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've never insulted you. EllenCT (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Your right, I didn't express myself properly. TheNorlo (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It is possible that it is Fergus that he/she is talking about, but there is no evidence there at all. He was paid to work on other stuff on Misplaced Pages, but not (according to the current data), anything here. And because one person is a lier, doesn't make everyone else liers. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You might want to review the ANI thread about him. Kim, of all the editors here, I think you've been the most honorable and accurate, and I'm sorry about the paid advocacy on both sides, because there is plenty of it, and it hurts the people who are trying to do a good job without any conflicts the most. I'm happy with the current fully protected state, glad that it's been protected for so long, and I don't intend to ever edit it again. I look forward to reading the literature reviews in a few years when they have had time to report on all the cessation and harm reduction primary studies recently published and presently in the works. EllenCT (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've read the ANI thread, and i agree that he should be banned for what he did, but there is no evidence that he acted here as a payed editor or shill here. And i rather dislike that people (not you btw), who cast aspersions and accusations that aren't based upon evidence... we may speculate - but we should do so privately unless evidence is at hand :) I hope that no editors are doing paid advocacy - and i'm going to assume good faith towards people unless there is explicit proof of the opposite. That people have opinions, that align them with certain interests, doesn't make them wrong, advocates, shills or payed, no matter if they directly or indirectly align themselves with medical corps, tobacco corps, or any other corporation, government or NGO's. What matters is what is written in secondary sources, and how we adhere to these. I'm sad that this particular instance of one (or more) editors behaviour makes you give up, and not argue what you think/read. But in all eventualities - have a happy holiday and a merry christmas :) --Kim D. Petersen 04:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Its sad whenever an editor with opinions on a subject gives up and stops editing. The system works best when there are more people involved. I know all the endless conflict can lead to disinterest. I know that the paid editing is a problem, I dont like it, and if its done it has to be clearly noted and the parties working on the article notified. But I still would rather it not be done. But there is no such thing as a lost cause imho. Its just a matter of time before the studies you mention are reviewed. Please consider just taking a break and coming back. AlbinoFerret 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Eliminate or Drastically Change "Health Effects" Section of Article

I preface this proposal for drastically editing the Health Effects section with the following:

  • I strongly believe and/or observe that this section, among 3 total in the current article, are precisely what is constantly challenging the NPOV of this article. I therefore argue for elimination, though recognize other editors are unlikely to consider that for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I would argue that "Health Effects" ought to be its own separate page and that one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page as POV is clearly biased in literally everything that currently appears in this section. It is furthermore disputed by competing interests on Talk Page (and found extensively in Archives) and ultimately resides in a vague category summarized by "not enough evidence to determine" one way or the other.
  • I have reviewed Archived pages on "Health Effects" before writing this proposal. I have not thoroughly reviewed them because I find the subject either disorganized on the Talk Page (and Archives) or an extension of the "not enough evidence" variety, and thus, in essence, stating very little of importance.
  • Perhaps restating the first point, but I believe as long as the inconclusive, and rather biased data is allowed to stay in "Health Effects" section as necessary part of main article page on Electronic Cigarettes, that Misplaced Pages, at best, will be caught up in a NPOV battle for as long as that data is determined, by all parties, as inconclusive or lacking evidence (read as many years to come). And at worst, Misplaced Pages shows up as lacking credibility, even integrity, on the topic of Electronic Cigarettes. I do not make this last assertion lightly. I feel this reflects very poorly on editorial decisions on this topic.

Clearly, the competing interests regarding health effects of Electronic Cigarettes (eCigs) and the topic of eCigs in general, are between tobacco control advocates and vaping enthusiasts. Tobacco control advocates hold an inherent conflict of interest as eCigs are not currently (at end of 2014) a tobacco product, and yet are routinely framed in that light to serve the goals of tobacco control advocates. Vaping enthusiasts hold a conflict of interest because many, or vast majority of eCig users are ex-smokers who are prone to make claims or support positions that seek to establish eCigs as a (wonderful) smoking cessation device. Though, not all vaping enthusiasts have made this claim, and thus a prominent bias is established which just so happens to be the chief competing interest on the Electronic Cigarette page, second only to those who support or tout the Tobacco Control advocacy position.

The 2009 Judge Leon ruling, which is only briefly mentioned on the Legality page and surprisingly not mentioned at all on the main article page, states that the FDA cannot regulate eCigs as drug-delivery devices. Yet, some Misplaced Pages editors hold to that position as to how to process all usage data on eCigs. Moreover, the Leon ruling stated that "absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer" the FDA lacks authority to regulate these products at all (at that time). It does state that FDA could (conceivably) regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA (Tobacco Control Act). At end of 2014, and thru entire duration of this main article on eCigs, the US has not deemed eCigs a tobacco product.

The WHO report, as sourced in the Health Effects section, strongly appears to hold to the position that eCig manufacturers are still making therapeutic claims of smoking cessation. While in 2011 and before this may have in fact been the case, to varying degrees, it is no longer possible to find a majority or substantial amount of manufacturers making this claim. Thus, it comes back to vaping enthusiasts who may, or may not, proffer such a position. Thus POV regarding bias of what an eCig is. And to be sure that vaping enthusiasts are not advancing that position to far, the tobacco control advocacy groups counter this rhetoric with their own bias around 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which again Leon ruled (or explained) that eCig manufacturers are best to avoid.

Even the information mentioned in the main article from the WHO report is biased. It states: found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods.

This is made in around the 21st point of 44 total points. The 2nd point of the report is: (eCigs) are the subject of a public health dispute among bona fide tobacco-control advocates that has become more divisive as their use has increased. This is not mentioned on the main article page, even while it is clearly permeating the talk page on Misplaced Pages and currently leading to the label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The WHO report, also has fueled that divisiveness in many ways, not the least of which is scientific review that has addressed, or clarified, several points of mischaracterization in the WHO report. But, of course we don't mention this on the main article page because of "undue weight" and yet let stand the rather biased position of the WHO report. Neither is there mention of the 20th point in the report that states (in part): At this level of efficacy, the use of ENDS is likely to help some smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

I write all this to convey the inherent bias that is prevalent both on the main article page and in many of the discussions, comments, RFC's found on the talk page. As I've stated before, the whole topic, as presented on main article page, is straining NPOV constantly. Moreover, it comes off as disorganized (which is yet another dispute on current talk page) and presents usage data that is, in reality, outdated.

Because I fully believe a NPOV article can be presented as the main article on eCigs, I write this proposal. I strongly believe usage information is the primary culprit for the dispute, and that it takes two (sides) to tango. While I too have my own bias, I would urge that as long as data is inconclusive on eCigs (as noted in 2nd paragraph of the lede) that usage information (includes all Health Effects data) be shortened and spun off to other pages, with explanation that represents honest disagreement found on the talk page. This is clearly a situation warranting a "controversy" spinoff on Misplaced Pages, as I have seen with other topics. I do not believe, nor observe, a resolution toward consensus on these controversies occurring any time soon (highly unlikely in 2015, very unlikely in next 5 years), or maybe around 2030 Misplaced Pages editors will have more substantial information to present a consensus approach to use type information on eCigs.

I propose drastically shortened text blocks under each sub-heading in the Health Effects section, including elimination of some headings that are likely better served on other pages as "see also" links. In my view, Smoking Cessation, Harm Reduction and Safety could all be eliminated from main article page, yet still appear on Misplaced Pages and linked as a "See Also." This would leave the WHO information, but I strongly believe this ought to be shortened as it is clearly not NPOV either in its relevant data, or in what was cherry-picked from this report. Currently, it is just another form of "smoking cessation" as lead of Health Effects. Addiction is currently the only one that I can think of leaving in there in much the same form it is now. Though I expect that information will likely change over time (read around 2030, when Misplaced Pages editors are actually able to reach reasonable consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw40nw (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose We are obligated by WP:NPOV to present viewpoints as they are represented among reliable sources on the topic. The WHO is specifically called out as a reliable source for medical information in WP:MEDRS, which is an established policy of Misplaced Pages. Furthermore there is a specific policy against WP:POVFORKs. The policy states that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Formerly 98 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Disagree with obligation you cite. Not disagreeing with WP:NOV which I linked to (first), but with your understanding that this is a relevant resource on topic of eCigs, as it is precisely what is creating biased perspective. This article is not medical, and has not been established as such. I also noted that the WHO report data has been cherry picked, and that the 2nd of 44 points was not selected, nor the 20th of 44 points, but only a point that supports those who's end goal is to keep people using 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which clearly represents a conflict of interest either within this debate, and is visible on talk page, or within an editor on an eCig article page.
You also cite POV Forking as is your POV bias. From the page on forking it states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
The spinoff that I suggested is not to deliberately create a content article that avoids neutral point of view guidelines. It is not me, as editor saying, let's put all the pro-vaping items on one page and all the anti-vaping items on another. That would be POV forking. Instead, it would be a spinoff of the Health Effects section (and related information) which is currently challenging the neutrality status of the eCig main article. That spinoff ought to include all sides editors of that page wish to include. You mischaracterize my proposal for a spinoff, because either you misunderstand my intent or you have POV bias at work, and is perhaps one of several reasons why the eCig article currently shows up with neutrality label for eCig article is questionable.
As the Health Effects information for eCigs is a) controversial, b) inconclusive and c) that which is challenging the neutrality status of the main article on eCigs, then the words found on WP:SS very much seem to apply here: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article.
Again, this is not POV forking as I am not proposing that a particular POV be conveyed in the spinoff. I do care what is put in the spinoff page and may be one of the editors on that page, but believe all relevant and important POV's ought to occur in the spinoff, or in essence that the anti-vaping and pro-vaping factions can vet the "Health Effects of eCigs" on a page that is different than what is the main article for eCigs as clearly this section is what is causing questionable neutrality for the eCig main article. Gw40nw (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is fair length given the ongoing and exhaustively lengthy discussions on this talk page which have thus far amounted to a main article with questionable neutrality. I bolded the most important parts to clue anyone with short attention span in to key points for this proposal. The background, or preface, is necessary because it explains how editors got to where the article is today and why I, as editor, don't see neutrality for main article ever changing (or for at least 5 years) unless the proposed suggestion to spinoff the Health Effects section occurs thereby eliminating and/or drastically shortening that content on the main article page for eCigs. Gw40nw (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely the difference of opinion between e cig advocates and long term Misplaced Pages editors on the weight to give health issues described in your comments that is the POV difference that this poposal seeks to fork. In fact your own rationale for why this split is desirable us the best evidence that doing so would violate Misplaced Pages policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with Formerly here, even if i think that the current weight in the health sections is somewhat scewed towards a quit-perspective as opposed to a balanced one between harm-reduction and quit. POV-forks are never valid, and you can't just remove things from this top level summary article... you can split off sections that have expanded beyond a reasonable size, and summarize them... but you can't just remove the info because you don't like what it says. The Neutral POV requires that all major and minor views be presented in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. If you feel that a section/part of the article is unbalanced then provide the reliable sources to support your view, and argum that the merit of these sources demand that we change the text - it may (actually is) not be easy, but time and patience will win out, if your arguments are solid, and based on strong sources. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Formerly 98, that editors who do not like the medical pov on the article are advocates, the forking of the health section at this point in time isnt a good idea. It would be a POVFORK, moving a section with problems off the main page so it can be avoided. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't have the energy to read the endless rows here and on related pages, but the suggestion that, with article at 90K bytes long, for the health aspects "one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page" seems utterly wrong. I'm rather amazed that anyone can believe this. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You don't even get the idea. We shouldn't be throwing out well-crafted paragraphs that tie together reliable sources to provide information. That's not what Misplaced Pages does. If you would propose to split the article into several sections, covering each in WP:summary style, not for the purpose of destroying any data but to make it easier to read an overview and dive into the desired aspect in an article with less restriction on length, that I can support, if I believe that goal is sincere. But don't highlight the advantages of not telling the reader about what is known - even when it is sketchy. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional Editor Commentary. Currently these well crafted paragraphs of which you write are precisely that which questions the neutrality of the provided information. So, in this case, it is precisely what Misplaced Pages is doing. I have not once advocated for destroying or censoring data. The usage information on eCigs is the battle being had. I observe very little consensus occurring on the smallest of disputes, and none on the major disputes. In reality, the scientific community is still weighing in and has repeatedly noted that long term data is necessary. That won't occur in next year, or likely in next 5. So, on Misplaced Pages, spin will be what editors are to agree on with what goes where on main article page. The WHO report has criticisms from within scientific community, but that doesn't get mentioned on main article page because of a) lack of consensus to mention it and b) POV bias on what makes for reliable source or due weight. Therefore, it is nonsense to say we "tie together reliable sources to provide information" when our talk page makes clear that we are not allowing that tie together to occur, and are cherry-picking the data that some of us think is most relevant to usage.
As long as "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is posted, I feel vindicated in the proposal I am making. Tells me and any reader that Misplaced Pages is not able to present the information without influence from people with agendas (aka biased POVs). I realize that goes at least two ways, and suggest that for the time that scientific community is only focussed on short term data, that editors move that biased information to other pages, or risk a long term label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Gw40nw (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic "those who disagree with me are biased and pushing a POV" argument. But many of those who disagree with you have demonstrated their committment to building an encylopedia by editing hundreds of articles over many years. You, on the other hand, showed up a few months ago and have contributed almost exclusively to POV related discussions on this single article. To an outsider, you might look like a better candidate for these labels than those you so casually accuse. I'd recommend keeping such accusations to yourself. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have stated that I have bias as well, and would participate on other pages where those biases are warranted. I am trying to overcome the neutrality issue on this page. So to try and say that my position is other people have bias whereas I do not, is nonsense. I recognize that my bias would come into play in much the same way as it has with all other editors on this page. But unlike many of them, I do not wish to continue the spin on "inconclusive data" which would just continue to challenge the neutrality of this article. But, of course, you need to make this about the person rather than the points up for discussion cause heaven forbid we consider moving what is clearly partial tone on eCigs to some other page where we would vet the info more thoroughly while science continues to do its part.
WP:IMPARTIALITY states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. Gw40nw (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Two e-cigarette science articles on the top-10 list of BMC 2014 articles

I found this interesting Burstyn review #2 and Farsalinos et al. cardiac function study at #10 . Mihaister (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories: