Talk:Electronic cigarette - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levelledout (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 24 May 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:34, 24 May 2014 by Levelledout (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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: 15 days

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Health and fitness

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Etymology of vape

This article needs to clarify for the etymology of vape. Several sources call the use of ecigs as smoking them, while the industry itself refers to the process as vaping (a word not found in any dictionary as far as I can tell). Where is consensus that we should not be using the form smoking ecigs, and why is it not even mentioned if there is a debate over naming use. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/13/smoke-from-e-cigs-still-poses-some-second-hand-risk/ - Refering to smoke from e-cigs
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/teens-are-using-e-cigs-to-quit-smoking-and-failing-miserably - Refers to e-smoking, which as a term is mentionable. WP:RS for the term.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/22/manchester-city-ban-supporter-for-smoking-electronic-cigarette-after-thinking-its-real-3555276/ - Refers to smoking e-cigs
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/ecigarettes-under-fire - Craig Youngblood (industry professional) calls them: electronic, alternative smoking devices
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zQeQdEWo Ruyan CEO calls the use guilt-free smoking

Using the term smoking e-cigs is not unheard of, and should be represented in the article. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So we should because of journalists not familiar with the topic area use incorrect terms? Smoke is incorrect, while Vapor is correct - by the definition of the terms. Strangely all of your articles specify that they are not referring to smoking, but to (scare-quote)"smoking", emissions, vaping or specify that (WebMD)"E-cigarettes don't make real smoke". The headlines of articles are generally not reliable, since they are written after editorial review for promoting the article.

I'm not against an etymology section, or a section explaining the difference between smoke and vapor - but using an incorrect term, because some media is unfamiliar with the topic they write about, is silly. --Kim D. Petersen 16:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been through this already with CFCF. The argument he/she used then was that we should say "smoking" because "vaping" was just industry propaganda. I disagree. YOu cannot smoke something that produces no smoke and to argue otherwise is ridiculous.--FergusM1970 18:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

But things on which you disagree with can still be of value for a reader. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Trouble here is that you appear to be starting from a faulty position. The mentions of "smoking" e-cigs only exists because journalists haven't (or hadn't) a clue about the topic they were writing about. What comes out of an e-cigarette is vapor, not smoke. The liquid is evaporated, not combusted. etc. Thus smoke is simply wrong.

With regards to your mention of "industry"... i don't really know what to do with that, since i can't see that there is an "industry" creating such terms - i do see that there is quite a large subculture thing going, where such terms come from.

Finally i can't really see that we can make an etymology section without resorting to WP:OR, at this point. --Kim D. Petersen 11:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I see only one remotely usable secondary etymology source here. In turn, it cites (and questions) a scarce magazine source at New Society, Volumes 65-66 (1983) New Society Ltd. with neither issue nor page number given. I will inqure at wp:RX to see if anyone can locate that primary source. That Wordspy entry may, however, be indirectly derived from this wiktionary citation by wikt:user:Equinox. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the early article cited was Rob Stepney "Why Do People Smoke", New Society at Google Books, Volume 65, Number 1080 (28 July 1983) New Society Ltd. pp. 126-128. That piece is snippet view, but it clearly backs the text quoted by Wordspy (and by Wiktionary). LeadSongDog come howl! 19:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to call it smoking just because some journalists calls it smoking, why not call it what it actually is aswell is since tons of journalist calls it vaping as you can see here, here, here, here, here and here.... Oh... and here, here and here as well.TheNorlo (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Inhaling "air" ist breathing, inhaling "tobaccosmoke" is smoking, inhaling an asthma aerosol is "using an asthma inhaler"! So: Inhaling a non-combustible vaporized liquid with nicotine is not "breathing" or "smoking" - It is "vaping"! The Etymology "vaping" is established since 1980 (have a look)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Systematic Review not accepted?

So... you're not accepting this systematic review?Why? It's a published, peer-reviewed secondary source! --Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that their are a couple of issues. One was it was a copyright violation. We must paraphrase.

The other is that it is not pubmed indexed. Will need to look at the whole article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My university carries it. Should be usable with appropriate wording. It does say "Riccardo Polosa is a Professor of Medicine and is supported by the University of Catania, Italy. He has received lecture fees and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl (Milano, Italy), the distributor of Categoria™ e-Cigarettes. His research on electronic cigarettes is currently supported by LIAF (Lega Italiana AntiFumo)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed it due to lack of MEDLINE indexing. We have plenty of secondary sources, no need to use sub-optimal ones. Yobol (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure... I can already see what happens here... This is WP, right? Not a political webpage, is'nt it?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement for sources to be either PubMed or MEDLINE indexed.--FergusM1970 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We have better sources on this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Better" in what way?--FergusM1970 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll second Fergus here, and add the comment that we actually do not have "plenty of secondary sources", Pubmed search coughs up 70 reviews, where most are non-related (papers such as "Impact of diet and exercise on lipid management in the modern era.") or so old that they are basically useless. --Kim D. Petersen 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Yobol, it has been a while since I have read WP:MEDRS, but is that really something that is supported by policy? MEDLINE indexing isn't the be-all and end-all. This article is listed in EMBASE, as a quick search shows me, and there is only a 34% overlap between those two databases (doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098). NW (Talk) 17:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Under "Biomedical journals" in WP:MEDRS, "Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE..." This has been a necessary addition to MEDRS due to the proliferation of genuinely bad journals out there. MEDLINE indexing seems to be a fairly low bar to hurdle (crap journals like Homeopathy are MEDLINE indexed, after all). Yobol (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: Thanks for the quote. This is a conversation for a different page, WT:MEDRS or WT:MED, but briefly: I disagree with that statement. Nearly every bit of systematic review writing advice, including PRISMA, stress that relying on just one database, even MEDLINE, will lead to biased results. Now that is less of an issue for Misplaced Pages than writers of systematic reviews, but the principles are similar. Journals that aren't listed in PubMed but do show up in EMBASE or Web of Science Science Citation Index aren't necessarily unreliable. NW (Talk) 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take it to either of the aforementioned talk pages to discuss further. Yobol (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FDA

Is the FDA website a reliable source? See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This would be a position statement from a internationally recognised expert body. So yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If I suspected that might be the case then I would not have removed it but clearly the "Adverse Event Reports for e-Cigarettes" section of the FDA page is not a position statement. The section is merely a relaying of information that happens to consist of a summarisation of anecdotal reports. The FDA themselves state that "Whether e-cigarettes caused these reported adverse events is unknown. Some of the adverse events could be related to a pre-existing medical condition or to other causes that were not reported to FDA."

There are various anecdotal yet compelling reports out there of how e-cigarettes have had a positive impact on a person's health, yet obviously we should not introduce those due to their very nature. It is therefore impossible to balance these unconfirmed side-effects with any opposing views due to the fact that firm evidence of either simply does not exist. Whilst I am not saying that absence of an opposing valid source invalidates the original source I do think that we have to be careful to maintain a NPOV. In this case I find it hard to justify alarming, unproven medical reports that would likely remain unchallenged.Levelledout (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, the FDA is a reliable source. However, that particular piece of information is a voluntary reporting of possible adverse events (possible form of selection bias) and the FDA has not confirmed any of those events were actually caused by e-cigarettes. I'm not sure it deserves to be included given the tentative nature of the data; if it is included, we have to be sure to note that it is unknown if these events are actually caused by the e-cigarettes (which would argue against even putting it in in the first place). Yobol (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to work out what the point of it is. Right now the article basically says "E-cigs cause all sorts of diseases. Except we're just saying that; there's no evidence."--FergusM1970 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"The FDA has received voluntary reports of adverse events involving e-cigarettes which include hospitalization for illnesses such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, disorientation, seizure, hypotension, and other health problems but it is unknown whether e-cigarettes caused these adverse events."

As long we are using a reliable source and the text is neutrally written I think it is okay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

But what's the point of it? All it really says is "some people who use e-cigs got ill." Great. Some people who don't use e-cigs got ill too. I honestly can't see what it adds to the article.--FergusM1970 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to remove it, since it is A) A primary source for this info per WP:MEDRS B) per WP:MEDASSESS this is just about as poor information as is possible. Without analysis these are simply anecdotal. --Kim D. Petersen 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, what I don't get is how the information got back there in the first place. In the middle of a dispute, it seems to have reappeared like magic. Anyone know where the diff is? Combined with other things I am beginning to think that there are some genuine issues occurring regarding this article.Levelledout (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Was reintroduced here. --Kim D. Petersen 23:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article, and I don't think the other sentence, "Although some people have a desire to quit smoking by using e-cigarettes, other common explanations for the use of these products are to evade smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes, which may reinforce delaying or deterring to quit smoking." should be there either. That's incredibly POV, as well as making claims - delaying or deterring smoking cessation - that have been thoroughly disproven.--FergusM1970 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New review in Circulation

Not sure if anyone has seen this review yet, but it looks pretty good. Ian Furst (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not pretty good. It is biased and according to Prof. Dr. M. Siegel: "this article is little more than a hatchet job on e-cigarettes." and:

"To illustrate this, let's consider the five studies which the authors cite as providing evidence that electronic cigarettes inhibit smoking cessation. Presumably, these five studies examined the rate of quitting among smokers who used electronic cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking. Question: Of these five studies, how many examined the rate of smoking cessation among smokers who were trying to quit using electronic cigarettes?"

Answer: "The rest of the story is that none of these studies examined quit rates among smokers who were trying to quit using e-cigarettes. None of these studies were in fact designed to examine the role of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation in the first place." Source: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Circulation is a well respected journal. It is a recent review article. Good find. We can definately use this as a source. Now the blog we can definately not use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the "review" Doc James? I find the paper questionable, even without looking at Dr. Siegel's blog... First thing that strikes me is: It reads more like policy advice/advocacy than a review, Second thing is how far the "narative" in the paper is from the other reviews that we've examined, Third thing is that the references in the paper seems both incestrous and picked to toe a line (cherry-picking may be too far, but not that far), Fourth the summary of some of the papers do not match well with the description in the papers, and finally the primary authors affiliation is a bit problematic. Now after reading Siegel's commentary, i'm even more critical.

Yep, it is a WP:MEDRS... but frankly i wouldn't use it for the problems mentioned above, and if using it, then i would say that the weight given to the paper must be small considering these observations. Not everything in RS or MEDRS is good. --Kim D. Petersen 21:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just glanced at it. Read a lot of circulation. It is the journal of the AHA and is very well respected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Even good journals sometimes print dodgy papers... i'm not questioning the journal at all. --Kim D. Petersen 23:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of the language in the "review" doesn't belong in this article. For example: "Although research is limited, it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed." Research is actually extensive - Glantz just won't acknowledge it unless it matches his views - and the way the sentence is phrased practically accuses e-cig manufacturers and harm reduction advocates of lying.--FergusM1970 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some fairly opinionated assertions in there such as "E-cigarette advertising on television and radio is mass marketing of an addictive nicotine product". At the same time this is somewhat odd because under the disclosures section it states that "Dr Benowitz is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications".

I also wonder whether a cardiovascular journal is an appropriate place for this review. Very little of the review appears to focus on cardiovascular issues. As an example would the peer reviewers have expert knowledge and experience of propylene glycol breaking down due to heat and forming toxic substances such as acrolein? Levelledout (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This review is written by tobacco experts, and reviewed in an appropriate journal (smoking cessation clearly falls under the purview of a cardiovascular journal as a topic). If it is incorrect, there will be plenty of other reviews that will come to the opposite conclusion and we can add those if/when they are published. That specific editors disagrees with the conclusion or specific tone of the source is not a valid reason to rule a source unreliable. Yobol (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually reviewing sources and assessing their individual merit is exactly what we should do. Considering the tone of a source as well as compare it to other reviews, is one of the things that we as editors are supposed to do, no matter whether it is science, medicine, history or politics. In this particular case, the review is written by anti-tobacco advocates, and that tone can be detected in both their conclusions and their tone.

Let me state an example from the paper that i don't think has been commented upon by others: In the review they refer to a study by Dr. Farsalinos regarding the cytotoxicity of flavored e-cig concentrates, and give some results as if these were actual e-liquid for consumption... they weren't (i noticed this because i myself was thinking that i should keep away from cinnamon flavor based on a quick reading at the time), in fact these were the basic food-flavoring (in 100 and 50% solution) that were cytotoxic at concentrate level but not at e-liquid levels (typically with contrate dissolved at 6-20% in PG/VG mix).

So i'd be very careful in using this review as gospel. --Kim D. Petersen 23:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it? At least one of the authors is an aeronautical engineer. This is the third study he's produced this year that's attracted ferocious criticism from within the tobacco control community, up to and including accusations of intentional dishonesty, because the conclusions it draws aren't supported by the data. He's making claims about the effectiveness of e-cigs as a quit aid based on studies that didn't ask people if they were using e-cigs as a quit aid. That's activism, not science.--FergusM1970 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the MEDRS compliant source has no weight in the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fergus is entitled to their opinion and has explained their reasoning. Whether the source has taken a neutral approach or is a biased position paper is actually relevant in determining whether it is WP:MEDRS compliant. On the other hand stating that it is WP:MEDRS compliant without providing a reason is insufficient in accordance with WP:CON.

I have tried to think of a compromise to address some of the grievances discussed here and there is only one that I can think of at the moment that would keep personal opinions and unreliable sources out of the actual article. This would be that if this source is used then the disclosures should also be added to the article. For example:

++info about study++ One of the authors of the study "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies"Levelledout (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Cessation Study That Has Been Added

See . The New York Times has been used as the source which obviously does not really conform with WP:MEDRS, the article is I believe based on this press release in the peer-reviewed Addiction journal: ] The study is not actually published until tomorrow (midnight tonight UK time, which is a couple of hours away). It is not a systematic review but it has been peer-reviewed and renowned UK organisations like University College London and Cancer Research are involved. It also seemingly directly addresses the issue of e-cigarettes and smoking cessation in an area where data in general is lacking at present. Although 6000 people took part, I'm not sure of the quality of the methodology of the study, maybe others can comment here and more will obviously become apparent when its published. The question is should we wait for this to be reviewed or should we keep it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus so far has been not to use non-WP:MEDRS sources (and non-reviews) for information such as this. NYT is certainly not a valid source for this. --Kim D. Petersen 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not reliable? This is not an article about Medicine, and the article is not attempting to diagnose or treat a disease. Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The survey and the results are medical data - NYT is not a reliable source for interpreting science. It is a reliable source for many other things though. --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes we need high quality secondary sources and position statements of major organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a very narrow interpretation of policies, and I respectfully disagree with your assessments. Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There certainly are some narrow interpretations going on here, such as the utterly baseless claim that to be WP:MEDRS a source has to be PubMed-indexed, but in this case it's reasonable to ask for a better source. Like this one.--FergusM1970 00:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to follow WP:CON and wait until a consensus has developed on this matter rather than descend into a mini-edit war after almost every post. Levelledout (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The NYT article, and the primary journal article are not WP:MEDRS compliant. When this study is reviewed and placed in context by a MEDRS compliant secondary source like a review article, we can include said information. Yobol (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My previous post was not a complaint that it had been removed, it was a complaint that the information had been reverted back and forth 4 times in the last 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This approach to argue for WP:MEDRS is totally stupid. This is a survey reported in reliable secondary sources, not an assertion of a cure or a medicine. Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you have come to the determination that the NYT is a reliable source for medical claims. It is not. Yobol (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've asked several times for someone to show me where MEDRS says primary sources can't be used. Zip. Yes, I know it says they can't be used to rebut secondary sources, but MEDRS does not say they can't be used at all.--FergusM1970 03:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You should stop asking. Everyone knows primary sources are generally not acceptable. Claiming "MEDRS does not say they can't be used at all" is not the point. We got plenty of good sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the issue is that primary sources are allowed, but they are generally considered worse as they are less reliable than secondary sources. Therefore they should only be used when there is a lack of secondary sources concerning a topic, and in this case there is no lack. Any perceived lack due to secondary sources only pointing in one direction should be telling for the stance of the medical community at large. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But the secondary sources aren't all pointing in one direction. I know that's the accepted version here, where WHO FAQs are counted as secondary sources and the Smoking Toolkit Survey isn't, but the evidence is in fact quite conclusive that e-cigs are not an obstacle to smoking cessation. Even Glantz seems to acknowledge this; his latest utterance is very revealing.--FergusM1970 12:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I quote from the WP e-cigarette article, "The review found no studies that directly measured the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes in smoking cessation". Levelledout (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been several. The Bullen study, for example, or the Italian one. They consistently find that e-cigs - even cigalikes - are at least as effective as licensed NRT.--FergusM1970 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the review from my previous quote was published in 2011 so that information may be outdated to some extent. My point was as much intended to illustrate the fact that there is a lack of systematic reviews using direct studies on cessation. So other than position statements which echo this decent primary sources are (mainly) all we have. In fact we already have several primary sources in the article's cessation section.Levelledout (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well here is the study anyway which has now been published: ]Levelledout (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand the arguments made here. This study is a survey, not a medical treatment or a quack, or any other medicine-related study. So why are folks here referring to WP:MEDRS???? Enlighten me, please. Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the survey you are referring to, is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, it is classified as science. And as such a summary from a non-science source wouldn't be reliable, regardless of the general reliability of the non-science source, thus the requirement for WP:MEDRS on such info. Newspapers and other such media are generally very poor at summarizing science and interpreting the results. Other than that, the information is interesting, and hopefully will be covered in a review within a short while, and thus end up being written about here. --Kim D. Petersen 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So the policy you are then invoking is WP:PRIMARY? I am still confused, sorry. Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why we can't quote directly from a peer-reviewed article? Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You can use the peer-reviewed paper as a source. What you can't do is use a newspaper article about the peer-reviewed paper.--FergusM1970 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OMG, all this discussion for just saying that the NYT article can't be used, but the peer reviewed article can? This is nuts. Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this edit we can't use the peer-reviewed article. User:FergusM1970, you should not delete the peer-reviewed source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether removal of the information was right or wrong in this particular case, it must be admitted that WP:CON and WP:NPOV were not adhered to in the first place. WP:CON was not followed due to editing (adding information) during a dispute before a consensus had been reached (same as the FDA information). WP:NPOV, well that one is obvious to a greater extent but included:

Opinions were stated as facts in Misplaced Pages's voice
Judgemental, biased language was used, e.g. "to evade smoke-free laws"
No attempt was made to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views

Levelledout (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

CON was not followed and this was the result. Questioning reliable sources again is not productive. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of commenting on slurs on other editors. However, I politely ask you to consider why these policies might not be being implemented and to respond as they are very important policies, NPOV for example is a "core policy". I am not trying to get into an argument, I am simply trying to improve the article and to do that it is pretty much vital that we are all agreed on following these policies.Levelledout (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as the implementor of that block, it was a special circumstance that reflected a long standing issue not fully relevant to this conversation. However, that does not mean that your position is incorrect. Levelledout, rather than arguing about whether procedure was followed, can you concisely state what your objections are with the current state of the article? Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that edits were being made during disputes ( for example where an edit was made which disregarded both the FDA and the Circulation Study disputes) is an important issue to raise and sort out and I still think that there is a case to answer.

However, on the separate issue yes I am quite prepared to clearly define all of my general present objections to the article. Unfortunately I don't have time to right now but I will do this when I get this chance, possibly in a new section as it would probably be more appropriate there.Levelledout (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Edits

Hello, I have made some edits to the lead to try to improve on NPOV. I was going to provide a long list of everything that I thought could be improved with the article but I thought it would just be easier to go ahead and start making some changes to see if people agreed that they were suitable. I have not added any new sources here, just done some rewording, removed a couple of things and moved/copied a couple of others around. It's pretty much all listed below anyway.

My main problems with the content of the article are that opinions are commonly stated as facts, the prominence of opposing views of often not represented and on a minority of occasions content is simply plain biased and partial. All of that obviously comes under the umbrella of WP:NPOV.

If you have a problem with any of what has been done below please reply so we can discuss the issue.

"They carry a risk of nicotine addiction *to non-smokers*".

Changed (added "to non-smokers") to reflect obvious reality and the actual findings of the study.

"There are concerns that these products should be adequately regulated, mainly to protect users, while avoiding unintended consequences caused by excessive or inappropriate regulation."

Removed because, in order to reflect the actual conclusions of the study, I would have to change this to something like: "One study stated that the products should be adequately regulated but that this should be done on the basis of an "enabling framework" This would have represented a minority opinion within the medical/academic establishment too prominently, particularly in the lead of the article.

"while some young people who have never smoked cigarettes have tried electronic cigarettes at least once."

Removed because the scenario is so inevitable that it is statistically meaningless. Of course at least one young person in the world somewhere who has never smoked a cigarette has used an electronic cigarette at least once, at least one young person somewhere in the world who has never smoked a cigarette has used every single other drug in existence at least once and done everything else you could possibly imagine. It doesn't add anything to the article, it just creates a vague impression that there is a problem with e-cigarettes and non-smoking young people, which is not proven, particularly internationally.

"One study found that frequency of use has increased with up to 10% of American high school students having ever used electronic cigarettes as of 2012 and around 3.4% of American adults as of 2011."

Removed because they are tabloid statistics, that is the highest, most exaggerated ("ever use"), most shocking (children involved) statistics have been selected. Replaced with an opinion from the same study and an opposing opinion from ASH UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A review article is not a tabloid Thus reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Frequency of use is correlated in that text with ever-use - that is tabloid usage of statistics. What are your comments on the other changes? And how do you propose solving the perceived POV problem? Reverting back didn't resolve that - did it? --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone is already a smoker, they can maintain their addition by using e-cigs thus "to non-smokers" is not really needed. You are correct that the WHO ref didn't support it entirely thus added another ref which supports in those already smoking.
This is a 2014 review article and is not just the conclusions of "One study"
There are primary sources that state it is fairly frequent. This second source sees it as notable enough to mention thus there is no concern with us doing the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

When stating "risk of addiction" then it begs the question "to whom" and "by what". This is not written for medical professionals.
So read that as "one review stated" - we have several reviews here, who do not agree with each other.
Of course there is a concern, particularly because other reviews state that it isn't a concern for instance the Saitta et al(2014) that you mention in your second bullet. I quote "Regulatory authorities have expressed concern about e-cigarette use by youngsters or by never smokers, with e-cigarettes becoming a gateway to smoking or becoming a new form of addiction. However, such concerns are unsubstantiated by existing data that e-cigarette use by youngsters is virtually nonexistent unless they are smokers and in fact the use of e-cigarettes may serve as a gateway ‘out’ of smoking ." add to this that the British large scale population study finds no statistically significant usage amongst non-smokers (including adolecents)

What you aren't doing here is addressing the weight of the literature which we have to do when writing in an WP:NPOV manner. Reviews aren't agreeing - thus there is a significant discordance amongst scholars on some of these issues (for instance usage amongst youth, and the "gateway idea"), and we can't just use whatever fact we find in a review as being gospel. --Kim D. Petersen 17:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me summerize my comment into: Having a secondary sources stating something does not mean that you can uncritically add that information, a secondary source is only the first tier for making content available for use, you still have to address the weight of the literature, and balance between views based on that. --Kim D. Petersen 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, please explain why you felt it necessary to revert the whole edit without keeping any of it? You could also have discussed the situation here first to seek a compromise but you didn't. To be honest you seem to miss the whole point that I am trying to improve the NPOV of the article, you seem more interested in justifying a certain POV instead of engaging in this discussion, I hope I am wrong.

With regards to the contents, yes the usage statistics were selected in and presented in a tabloid manner which is why they were removed. If we are going to put those statistics there, then why choose those ones from the Usage Statistics section and not the ones that say "among non-smokers under 18, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice," 0% reported continuing use, and 0% intended to try them in the future" (which of course would be equally biased as your proposal)?

"A risk of nicotine addiction" is not the same thing as "maintaining a nicotine addiction which already exists" and this should be made clear if we are the slightest bit interested in presenting the article in an impartial way.

With regards to the review article, great if you found a valid source, I have no problem with that. Now you found a source, how about we represent the opposing minority point of view as of WP:NPOV in the original source somewhere in the article which states:

‘there is place for regulation, but it should be to create an “enabling framework” for these new, much less risky, alternatives to smoking to enter the market in a way that gives consumers confidence in switching from smoking’

I propose we revert back to my edit eventually with whatever compromises are necessary because I think the revert by Doc James was unjustified.Levelledout (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

per WP:BRD let us finish the discussion first. You were bold, Doc James reverted, and now we'll discuss it for a bit :) --Kim D. Petersen 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We state "They carry a risk of nicotine addiction" to what is obviously "nicotine". Have clarified to "They carry a risk of nicotine addiction in those who do not already smoke, and possibly continue addition in those who already smoke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*"Who do not already smoke"? That would indicate that you believe that vaping is smoking. Should be rewritten - non-smokers is significantly more clear.

Do they really carry such an "addition"? What refs are you using for that. (for instance the Saitta et al(2014) states that such concerns seem to be unfounded). What is the weight?
Do we have such concerns mentioned in the lede on other nicotine replacement products? Why not? Iirc the Cochrane review states that such is a concern for NRTs. Is it because they are medical products?

I have tried a compromise, now changed to

"There is also a possible risk of continued addiction to nicotine in people who substitute tobacco for electronic cigarettes."

I have also removed (again)

while some young people who have never smoked cigarettes have tried electronic cigarettes at least once.

If anybody thinks that this should still be in there please clearly justify why. I have given my reasons at the top of this section and nobody has countered them.

The only thing I have a major problem with now is the usage statistics which are still substantially biased IMO. I really don't think we can justify keeping them in there unless we include some other ones that illustrate an alternative POV. Even if you don't agree with all of the other points raised about them, these are US statistics if I'm not mistaken and Misplaced Pages is not supposed to give special focus to one country. In the UK, completely different conclusions have been reached.

I also think we need to include something positive about e-cigarettes in the paragraph we have been editing because there is nothing in there whatsoever, only neutral and negative opinions. Something along the lines of "e-cigarettes are considered likely to be safer than tobacco according to SO&SO", backed up with a valid source of course. Anyone got any objections to that?

--Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This "among non-smokers under 18, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice," 0% reported continuing use, and 0% intended to try them in the future" (which of course would be equally biased as your proposal)?" is from a primary source. Should really be removed from the article but definately should not be in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that in the lede, but in the usage statistics section. And it is a secondary source from a major British health organization (ASH). --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal seems to be to put it in the lead and it is a single survey done by ASH. It is not published in a journal. And major, I'm not so sure. This article does comment on it though Am happy to see it continue to be used as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
Cite error: The named reference WHO2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Categories: