Talk:Electronic cigarette - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 28 October 2014 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:11, 28 October 2014 by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) (→Support)(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: 7 days

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

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

Medicine Mid‑importance

	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.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

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

Archives

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

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

Lead too detailed

I absolutely agree that the lead of this article is to heavy. Some authors seems more interested in describing the negative effects of the e CIG rather than describing the actual device. The bulk of the intro should be transferred into the health section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.161 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2014

Vapor

Technically, e-cigarettes do not emit vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Prey tell how the emissions from e-cigarettes technically isn't Vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, we have a liquid that is heated to its gaseous form (vapor), with a visible cloud (aerosol) from droplets condensing from the vapor cooling down in the surrounding atmosphere. I would technically call that vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentance of the article lays it out "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol" A Vaporizer is a device that creates Vapor. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas" Cloudjpk (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How may secondary sources (reviews) do you want to have that state that it vaporizes liquid? Short list: Brown et al(2014), Pub.Health England(2014), Caponnetto et al(2012), O'Conner et al(2012), Farsalinos(2014) ... just the first 5 papers that were in my personal folder on E-Cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Nb: To be entirely correct both aerosol and vapor are relevant, since the visible part of the emissions definitively is an aerosol, but the process itself is an evaporation one. You evaporate (to vapor) a liquid, that later condenses in the air to make a visible cloud(aerosol). But what we have to go by here under all circumstances is WP:COMMONNAME, and that gives us vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The gist is basically the same - there is a common way of referring to this: Vaping/Vaporizing/Vapor - most e-cigarette reviews use this particular way to describe it, that a single source exists that claim otherwise, doesn't really change it. It is vaporizing - not creating an aerosol, vapor not aerosol etc.

Or in short: The significant majority of WP:MEDRS sources call it vapor - thus we call it vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very simply: The significant majority of the most reliable sources on this topic call it vapor => We call it vapor. Please see WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" don't you understand? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So demonstrate that the prevalence reliable sources (that means not just one), conclude that it is incorrect. What you are basically saying is that your source is correct, every other very reliable source is incorrect. That is why we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRUTH, to solve that kind of problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly; these are standard terms: Vapor and Aerosol. The source cited merely explains which term is the accurate one here. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the prevalence in reliable sources is what Misplaced Pages goes by. Not by what some editors consider the WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We can go by what the 2014 source says that clarifies the matter and not what some editors think. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the majority of sources are incorrect, and the one source must be correct, because it "clarifies the matter" to your liking? Can you spell WP:POV? --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What other source clarified the matter and explained the issue in detail? QuackGuru (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you even reading these threads? Or are you simply being disruptive? I've cited 5 studies that specify that an e-cigarette vaporizes/turns liquid into vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 08:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Those studies don't clarify the difference. QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

They dont need to clarify the difference, thats the point. Even if they did we are supposed to use the common words for a general audience per WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are mossing is that WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article, not WP:COMMONNAME which is about the articles Title or name. But even looking at WP:COMMONNAME it shows what WP:MEDMOS says that we should use normal general words, not Jargon. Per WP:MEDMOS "Misplaced Pages is written for the general reader" and it says to avoid jargon. The article isnt called ENDS but E-cigarette so plain English is preferred. Vapor is plain English. Aerosol sounds like something coming out of a spray can to most common people. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an opportunity for the article to provide that info! What are commonly used terms, what are accurate terms, etc. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thant would go against the clear wording of WP:MEDMOS of writing to a general audience. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still a problem in the article about the inaccurate name. See WP:COMMONNAME: Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

...and if you'd read the rest of this section in wp:COMMONNAME...
"Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.
My bolding so you don't miss it again.TMCk (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You got sucked into a bait and switch. They are not arguing against the name of the article, but words used in the article and using wikipedia guidelines for the name of the article to prove their point which is wrong. WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I'm following this article & talkpage for quite a while. I was just pointing out QuackGuru's unsurprisingly selective reading.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that explains the wording is obviously inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if its inaccurate its in general usage that the General reader understands. Read WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite there not being a consensus on this, several editors now are inserting this into the article as fact (example ). Please desist unless a consensus has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviews that do not agree with Cheng:

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) provide nicotine via a vapour that is drawn into the mouth, upper airways and possibly lungs . (Brown et al 2014)
Drawing air through the e-cigarette triggers the heater to create vapour which contains nicotine and is inhaled (Public Health England 2014)
powered by a lithium-ion rechargeable battery that is designed to vaporize nicotine to be inhaled (Caponnetto et al 2012)
work by vaporizing a solution containing nicotine dissolved with flavorants in a carrier medium (usually propylene glycol (O'Connor 2012)
They are battery-operated devices, used to vaporise a liquid that may or may not contain nicotine. )(Farsalinos et al. 2014)
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems) are battery-operated devices designed to vaporize a liquid solution of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine which also contains water and flavourings and may or may not contain nicotine (Saitta 2014)

I can find loads more. So relying entirely on Cheng is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edditing is even being done without reading the sentence and comprehending what it says. It looks like someone is searching for a word and just changes it. here is a diff with an example. I originally made the edit to say "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper" using a common word to describe someone using a vaporizer. Someone changed it to "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the aerosol". AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references; your second reference agrees with Cheng:

affects levels of nicotine transferred from a cartridge into aerosol...dose and speed of absorption of nicotine from the aerosol (Public Health England 2014)
Your other sources hardly contradict Cheng; e.g. Farsilanos never uses "vapor" merely "vaporise"; the liquid is indeed vaporized, that does not mean vapor is what is inhaled. This is clarified by Hajek

Other sources using aerosol:

We need not rely entirely on Cheng. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And what amount of those are reviews? (ie. secondary sources) - i can do an indiscriminate search on Google Scholar as well, especially if i can load the question with what i want to hear. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk WE? Can everyone say Meatpuppet?? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO and Grana. Another is yours: Public Health England 2014. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Once more you are confusing usage of a word (aerosol) with the process, where both vapor and aerosol is produced. To give you an example of a similar situation: Above boiling water, you have both vapor (water vapor), and aerosol (the droplets that condense, and which we see as the white steam), the same is the case here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

By checking each, only 2 of your sources are secondary: Hajek and WHO - and the WHO report uses vapour. (example: "especially where smoking is banned until exhaled vapour is proven to be not harmful to bystanders") So, most are unusable as references. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And since you appear to be hard on understanding: There is both vapor and aerosol. You evaporate the liquid (liquid -> gas), and later it cools down and generates a vapor with aerosol drops, because it condenses. . So, No, they do not agree with you. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another secondary source: "While the word vapor is used to describe what e-cigarettes produce, and vaping is a term used to describe the process of inhaling from an e-cigarette, the emissions out of the mouthpiece are not actually a vapor, which is a gas, but rather they are primarily an aerosol. This aerosol consists of submicron particles of the condensed vapor of glycols containing the nicotine and flavorants." Cloudjpk (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a WP:MEDRS source. As far as i can tell it is (possibly) an engineering journal? Difficult to tell what it really is --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources Cloudjpk (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE describes itself as: "ASHRAE advances the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world. With more than 53,000 members from over 132 nations, ASHRAE is a diverse organization representing building system design and industrial processes professionals around the world." - so Not a source usable here. --Kim D. Petersen 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Cloudjpk (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That you really should know by now. Please see WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources. --Kim D. Petersen 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether "aerosol" or "vapor" is the accurate term here is a question of physics, not health or medicine. WP:MEDRS does not apply. Please see WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It dosent matter if its 100% accurate, the articles are written to a general audience using words in general usage whenever possible. Since this issue is style related WP:MEDMOS controls since ists about the body of the article. You want to start pulling links for general usage? I have thousands, maybe even ten thousand for vapor and none of them will use aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for the article explaining how a common usage is inaccurate. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is this based upon trying to fix the misunderstanding that the emissions from an e-cigarette should be water vapor? Because if so, you are going about this wrong. Any gas can be a vapor. The vapor generated from an e-cigarette, is a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerine, some water vapor, and nicotine, and the visible "smoke-like" emission is the condensing of PG and VG. --Kim D. Petersen 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this below, but its also fitting here, so I am copying it in.

The problem is that the common term is a vaporizer and an aerosol is only part of the vapor.

Per Merriam Webster (a common source of definitions for use when writing for a general audience)

aero·sol : a substance (such as hair spray or medicine) that is kept in a container under pressure and that is released as a fine spray when a button is pressed

Full Definition of AEROSOL

1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol <stratospheric aerosols>

2: a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

As this shows the inaccurate term for what is coming out of a ecigarette is aerosol, not vapor. Vapor is an aerosol. It is inaccurate to call it by its generic description because it also could mean mist, fog, smoke, etc. Not only that the most common usage is a spray can, thats what the general reader is going to think we are talking about, something under pressure, only ecigarettes dont work that way, they are not emitting a pressurized vapor. As a side note for the rest of the article, in the context of second hand exposure its not pressurized coming from the users mouth.

This whole discussion is based on its accuracy, but as shown above, its aerosol that is the inaccurate term for the general reader, our target audience per WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The only particulate that I've notice in the "vapor" are from the coatings on the heating element or other parts of the hardware (using Aspire DBC) crumbling and having tiny black junk go into my mouth. If there were true particulates then I would be coughing up junk after chain-vaping, as has happened when I used to smoke cigs. This is just my observations, not based on any sources. Perhaps some cheaper disposable types have particulates (I've seen aluminum compounds mentioned) however when using a tank system I'm not sure there's anything but "vape".~Technophant (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The conversation above and its companion below is incredibly.. fucking... stupid. And what is more stupid is that the article is disrupted by tags on every instance of particle. Infantile. SOLVE THE PROBLEM; DO NOT DISRUPT THE ARTICLE Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Jytdog here. The WP:POINTY and obnoxious tagging of every instance of "particle" was ridiculous. Yobol (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No more stupid than calling fog "particulates" and linking to atmospheric pollution. Some editors in this discussion refuse to realize that we're exposed to many type of particles daily and that some present a health risk, while others are harmless. And it's not particle size that makes for the risk, but rather chemical composition: eg, PAHs in diesel exhaust soot particulates may pose a health hazard, whereas the "particulates" wafting above your pasta are absolutely no cause for concern. Mihaister (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The sheer number of "particles" in the section is staggering. The campaign to remove the word vapor from the article is insane. As pointed out numerous times, the article is written for the general reader and the general term used to describe what comes out of a e-cigarette is vapor. Its even used in MEDRS. The insanity is that the word "mist" was used in its place in a lot of areas. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusing

This is confusing "They; however, produce an aerosol rather than smoke. The aerosol from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor. It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid."

Per our aerosol article smoke is an aerosol. So it is not really a vaporizer but an aerosolizer. And we can use the term "airborne particles" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to simplify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the common term is a vaporizer and an aerosol is only part of the vapor.

Per Merriam Webster (a common source of definitions for use when writing for a general audience)

aero·sol : a substance (such as hair spray or medicine) that is kept in a container under pressure and that is released as a fine spray when a button is pressed

Full Definition of AEROSOL

1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol <stratospheric aerosols>

2: a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

As this shows the inaccurate term for what is coming out of a ecigarette is aerosol, not vapor. Vapor is an aerosol, but its not the only one. It is confusing to call it by its generic description that also applies to fog, mist, and smoke to name a few. Not only that the most common usage is a spray can, thats what the general reader is going to think we are talking about, something under pressure, only ecigarettes dont work that way, they are not emitting a pressurized vapor. As a side note for the rest of the article, in the context of second hand exposure its not pressurized coming from the users mouth. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it helps, but here's what I get: The vapor pressure of propylene glycol (which I assume to be the major component) is about 10 mm (0.013 atmospheres) at 75 degrees C. Applying the ideal gas law PV=nRT and rearranging gives n (the number of moles) = PV/RT. Filling in P = 0.013 atm, assuming an inspired volume of 25 mL, a vaporization temperature of 75 degrees (248 kelvin) and the gas constant R = 0.082 Atm L / mole K, I get 1.1 x 10^-5 moles of gas phase propylene glycol per inspiration, which is 0.9 mg. From various sources I get an average of about 150 puffs of per mL of liquid, so about 6.5 mgs/ puff. So back of the envelop, the propylene glycol that is inhaled is at most 15% in the gas phase with the rest being suspended liquid droplets. This is likely an overestimate as condensation will begin as soon as the mixture leaves the vicinity of the vaporizer.

The other components have roughly similar boiling points and proportion of the dose that is in the gas vs the liquid state should be similar for those as well. (otherwise the composition of the remaining liquid, and thus that of the vapor generated, would change as the liquid was consumed).

Hows that for a little WP:OR??

Not sure its relevant, but to a chemist the definition of a vapor is definitely that of the gaseous phase of a substance that exists predominantly as a liquid at standard temperature and pressure (25 degrees and one atmosphere). Atmospheric scientists use the word aerosol to describe suspended particles of any sort, as here. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

Formerly 98 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It helped me understand it a lot, and shows that it really is a vapor, or droplets in a gas.It helps in its usage in the article in that there is a difference in the mixture coming from the e cigarette and of that exhaled by the user. Since we are mostly talking about second hand exposure in the article, when its in the air, the scientific usage by Atmospheric scientists is also helpful. Calling the exhaled vapor aerosol would be inaccurate. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can easily get to an answer to that, as the mechanics are complicated. In the case of steroid inhalers for asthma, 90% of an administered "puff" is swallowed. (Which is why steroids incorporated into inhalers are designed to have very poor oral bioavailability). There has also been a lot of work on asbestos particles, for which a certain size range is especially carcinogenic, due to the interplay of size effects on how much gets exhaled, how much gets into the lung but gets cleared by macrophages, and how much gets into the lung but doesn't get cleared easily. Overall, its pretty much rocket science stuff (which is why the U.S. still does not have generics for Advair) and my WP:OR perspective would be that we don't even try to sort it out. I don't think its possible to know without doing the experiment, and even the experimental result may be inconsistent across different brands of e cig. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The atmospheric sciences example is particularly relevant. Here they have both smoke and fog being classified as aerosol, but the language they use never makes these notions confusing. In the case of e-cigarettes, we have to explain that the aerosol is like fog rather than smoke. Mihaister (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 I am already on the side of making this article more easy to read and I dont think we could do that and go into what you wrote. But its good information for the editors when making decisions on where to put the information they have and what it should be called. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"They; however, produce airborne particles rather than smoke or a vapor." is the c/e.

They cannot produce both vapor and airborne particles at the same time. The sources that clarify this state e-cigarettes produce aerosol/airborne particles. Claiming e-cigarettes produces vapor is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference Cheng2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cheng is a primary source, it should not be used. I recommend you find another secondary source before its removed. But Cheng says the description of aerosol as vapor is inaccurate, not that its wrong or false. Vapor is made up of gas and particles, like a fog, They are both aerosols. So describing particles as an aerosol is false because there is also the gas in it. Read the definition I copied in at the top. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Read another source (PMID 24267765) used in the article that explains e-cigarettes produce aerosol. The source (PMID 24732157) is a review. See "To review the available evidence evaluating the chemicals in refill solutions, cartridges, aerosols and environmental emissions of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes)." and see "Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify research related to e-cigarettes and chemistry using 5 reference databases and 11 search terms. The search date range was January 2007 to September 2013. The search yielded 36 articles, of which 29 were deemed relevant for analysis."

The review does say the description of aerosol as a vapor is inaccurate. So the lede can clarify this. I adjusted the wording in the lede. I also added "No smoke is emitted". QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No the lede cant explain this, its a small general section that is supposed to be the easiest to read. Its not the place for primary sources because of WP:WEIGHT. It is not WRONG to call it vapor, but inaccurate. Cheng did not say its false, wrong, or anything but inaccurate. Inaccurate means not exact, but exact for who? The GENERAL READER or a health professional? You are writing like a medical journal. Read WP:MEDMOS if you can understand English. Secondly Cheng is a PRIMARY source and as such is not a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(PMID 24732157) does not use the word vapor. (PMID 24267765) is in French. The abstract dosnt use the word vapor. Neither source says that the term Vapor is wrong. Vapor is the more common term to a General Reader. Next. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think anyone really cares if what e-cigs produce is technically a vapor or an aerosol. I for one am not clear on the difference between the two and I would imagine this is true for most others. Basically IMO this content should NOT be in the lead. We can discuss it in the body of the article but it is a minucia. Giving it nearly half the first paragraph is excessive and WP:UNDUE weight.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think anything that is from Cheng or other primary sources be removed from lede per WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. If anything remains it might go into the health section since its dealing with particulates. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to this as a primary source? It isn't per the methods "Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify research related to e-cigarettes" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I did. But the part QuackGuru is using, about inaccuracy isnt part of a review of something, but opinion. Cheng says its inaccurate, not exact, but doenst say its wrong. Per Websters vapor "a substance that is in the form of a gas or that consists of very small drops or particles mixed with the air". AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Offerman explains "While the word vapor is used to describe what e-cigarettes produce, and vaping is a term used to describe the process of inhaling from an e-cigarette, the emissions out of the mouthpiece are not actually a vapor, which is a gas, but rather they are primarily an aerosol. This aerosol consists of submicron particles of the condensed vapor of glycols containing the nicotine and flavorants" Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So the common usage, most likely understood by the General reader should not be used but one from medical journal articles? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Offerman 2014 isn't a medical journal. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dictonary? By the way, fix your indents, when replying you need to add one more space than the person above you are replying to. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Better summary

I think a better wording might be: They produce airborne particles and no smoke is emitted. I will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that less easy to read than "They produce airborne particles rather than smoke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate to say "They produce airborne particles rather than cigarette smoke." Will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the article on smoke and the sources used in this article. I thought it can be deemed original research to just say smoke rather than cigarette smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally i don't like the word particles, while correct, it seems to me to indicate solids rather than droplets. --Kim D. Petersen 09:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not care either way. What do the refs say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources are mostly calling it a vapor, with some calling it an aerosol. Common term (outside medical sources) is vapor. You basically need to cherry-pick to find sources that call it particulates, and those will still call it vapor/aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 10:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets formulate it another way: If i was to describe rain as "Particles falling from the sky", then i would be writing something that most people would consider to be wrong, even if technically correct. And for the same reason i think we shouldn't write it this way in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be a great analogy if raindrops were 50 nm in diameter and stayed suspended in air for hours before reaching the ground. But the properties of 50 nM particles formed from liquids vs solids are more alike than the properties of either are similar to solid or liquid macroparticles/droplets. On the other hand, I see your point that some will think of particles as solids.

Overall, I am not clear that this is an important issue unless there is some discussion of differing physiological effects of aerosols vs nicotine/propylene glycol in the gas phase. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

physiological effects of aerosols vs gases: Cloudjpk (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So do the comparison with a tap-water ultrasonic humidifier, that creates a dust of water droplets, calling those particles would confuse most regular people, despite that it is correct. It is also btw. quite comparable to the vapor particle sizes that are generated from an e-cigarette - at least if we go by the Grana (fig 3).. The thing here is that a regular reader will think that we're talking about solids, and not droplets/mist of PG,VG,nicotine and water. --Kim D. Petersen 13:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The graph you cite excludes the larger particles: "The humidifier generated visible fog (micro-sized water droplets) and submicro-sized residuals; however, because the SMA-CPC system could detect particles with diameter 10–410 nm, we characterized only the residuals as particles but not obtain size distribution data of the primary water droplets of the humidifier." Cloudjpk (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

However thanks for the source which says "The health effect of airborne particles is one of the main issues in environmental toxicology...Even if the water has no contamination by microorganisms or pathogens, ultrasonic humidifiers may exert some effects on human health. Previous studies showed that ultrasonic humidifiers may release dissolved minerals as an aerosol" Cloudjpk (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that source might be useful if you wanted to write about humidifiers (assuming that they'd accept this as a secondary source), but using it here would be WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no plans to use it here, thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the neutrality is off using particle as the General Reader will use the common definition of a fragment, a solid. I have marked each instance with a tag. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording suggests they only produce particles, which is incorrect. They produce particles and gas, a vapor. Grana says smoke has particles. What the sentence is doing is original research in that it is comparing some of the contents from the vapor against smoke. If the wording is to be improved the original sentences should be provided so other editors dont have to track them down. How about we use this sentence from Grana "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol..." and use vapor because Grana says its commonly called that. Common wording should be used WP:MEDMOS WP:MTAU in the lede which should be the easiest section to read. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

"They produce particles and gas". is incorrect. "They produce particles in a gas". The term aerosol is also frequently used and is easy to understand. I don't think we should introduce known inaccurate wording to the lede or body and I don't think we should add the unnecessary quote. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody would call fog an "environmental aerosol" even though it's technically correct.

The current emphasis on “particles” in this article, supported by non-MEDRS primary sources, is a transparent attempt to manufacture a spurious similarity between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke. As has been shown before , the smallest ultrafine “particles” to which people are routinely exposed are created when boiling water. Common sense is all that’s needed to understand that water vapor particles are not a health hazard. The discussion of particle size for e-cigarette vapor is thus completely irrelevant here and illustrates marked bias on the part of the editors who keep emphasizing this discussion. The NPOV approach would be to focus on describing the chemical makeup of e-cigarette vapor, not particle size distributions, as done by this review . Mihaister (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The only place "aerosol" is common imedical journals. Publications aimed at health professionals, But the article here is aimed at the common reader. The common deffinition of aerosol is a spray can. Using aerosol when writing for the common reader is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a news article (and there are more news articles you can find): What the aerosol spews is not water vapour. We know brands market it as "water vapor". It is not simply vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay so Grana says "Electronic cigarettes are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol..."

ANY liquid can be made into a vapor, not just water. That you found one news article that calls it aerosol is not significant, I could find thousands that call it vapor. Here is a Google news search for ecigarettes and vapor, all 34 pages of links. Wnat to start listing to see which is more common in the general press? Secondly, you are quoting a english version of a news site from India, that does not reflect how the words are used or meant in the English speaking world. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An aerosol is fine liquid droplets or fine solid particles in air. As it sounds like it is liquid in this case we should be able to use "mist". Sounds similar to a fog machine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Mist would be fine by me as its a common term tha t a general reader would understand AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think any general reader would easily understand the term "aerosol mist". QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the common reader will take away from that wording "Spray can mist". AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

Proposal: "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke."

I think we can compromise and include both words in the lede. Will discuss first. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another proposal: "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol mist (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke." Discussing first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep missing the points or ignoring them. I want you to address all of these.

1. WP:MEDMOS says that we are to write to a General reader. The page also says your writing to the wrong audience because you are using terms (jargon) from medical journals.
2. The majority (all except 1)of links you have are from medicals journals, written for medical professionals not the general reader. Why should we disregard the clear wording of the WP:MEDMOS a Wikipdia guideline that covers pages in the medical category (see #1)? Especially since the page is about a consumer product?
3. Websters Dictionary, a source of common usage for the General reader, says the #1 definition for aerosol is a spray can.
4. WP:MTAU says "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible." Do you want the General reader to think the ecigarette produces a spray can (see #3)?
5. Other that one news article from a foreign news agency in its english language version there are only Google only has 3 pages of news sites, if we remove www.medscape.com a site for health professionals and the word vapor, that use aerosol. But Google has 34 pages of news results for vapor. Which use is more common and more likely to be understood, the way a a foreign news site or 3 pages describes things or 34 pages of links?

As to your proposal, aerosol should not be in the lede in any of its paragraphs because of the points listed above and others.AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead needs to be kept simple. We need something like "They produce X rather than cigarette smoke". X should be a simple word like mist. This is simpler than aerosol which I guess we could also use per . What it is technically can be hashed out in the body of the article.

This is a too complicated of a sentence "They produce airborne particles in a gas as an aerosol (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke"

I guess we could go with "They produce airborne particles (commonly known as vapor) rather than cigarette smoke.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do like mist, its even easier to read than vapor. But the end sentence is just to complicated. I like your suggestion of so much that we should replace aerosol with mist, back to the particles, like "They produce airborne particles in mist rather than cigarette smoke". But unless the 5 points are addressed I'm likely to remove aerosol completely. {{WP:MEDMOS]] applies to the entire article. Secondly, I will be removing the Aerosol section from the Components section or marking it as original research. Components is a hardware section, its about the physical makeup of the device. The Aerosol section doesn't belong in Components and placing it there is Original Research as no study or site says that aerosol is hardware. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I think the word aerosol is ok if wikilinked. If a user doesn't know the meaning of a word then they can click on the wlink and find out more. However for the purpose of Medmos and using common language in the lead the word "mist" is effective and accurate. The word aerosol is usually used to describe the output of spray cans and negative connotations of being hazardous (as in bug spray or Lysol).~Technophant (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you just pointed out a prime reason it should be removed. The wording is completely negative, including helping to destroy the ozone layer, and goes against WP:NPOV as well as other guidelines. WP:NOTJOURNAL also says we should write without relying on links to give understanding, especially in the lede. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the term wikilinked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If wikilinking the term to aerosol solves the issue then that is fine with me. QuackGuru (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the sentence stays in the "They produce a mist rather than smoke." form its ok by me. The link isnt needed to understand what was written as WP:NOTJOURNAL advises against. As said below the mist page isnt the best one to link to in explaining whats going on as it doesnt deal with this usage so a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold compromise

More than two editors suggest we use the term "mist". I think we can reach a compromise and I went ahead and made the change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not agree that it should be placed alongside aerosol. You still do not have consensus and you have still ignored the points above. You are making edits without consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem with particles, and we now have another problem: Despite being described in the majority of the secondary literature as vapor, and almost exclusively being called vapor in the public... there is no mention of vapor in the lede. --Kim D. Petersen 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You also didnt give enough time for other editors to chime in, giving 4 hours from proposal to edit and jumping at it when you had 2 others said mist. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, 3 editors said mist is okay and you don't want aerosol to dominate the entire article. I tried a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, I replaced the term aerosol with the common term vapor in the lede. Does this help for the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Despite being described in the majority of the secondary literature as vapor" <- do you think yourself that you've addressed my concern? (hint: you addressed the public part, not the secondary source one). And you didn't address particles at all. --Kim D. Petersen 05:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a bit too wordy what I tried to add to the lede. The part about the particles was deleted from the lede. Is there anything you want me to add to the body about the particles? QuackGuru (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "They produce a mist rather than smoke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Its short, easy to read, and the mist page doesnt really talk about it like its used in the sentence so a wikilink to another page isnt bad. Another good point is the link isnt really needed to understand what the sentence says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that we now haven't got vapor in the lead, and that we've transported ourselves away from what it is actually called. I would have little trouble with "a vapor or aerosol" but mist is simply too far from what either the public or secondary sources call it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a link to vaporizer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The compromise I agreed with above is with is only for that one sentence. I do not agree with replacing every instance of vapor with mist. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are we relying on primary sources?

Why are we relying on primary sources? In the lead alone there are several, as well as a key statement attributed to the WHO, which at the present is "on hold" (read: not active/retracted/under consideration/..). It seems as if primary sources are OK, when they are presented by editors on one side of the argument, while they are unusable when presented by editors on the other.

So what is the actual consensus on sources? Are we going with WP:MEDRS secondary sources or are the floodgates suddenly open?

I for one suggest that we stick to the old consensus version where sources have to be WP:MEDRS secondary sources, but i'll leave the floor open. --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If primary sources are in the lede of all places they should be removed. At most they might be used as "Someone said...." links in very rare situations in the body of the article. If the WHO is reconsidering a statement, it should be removed until it has been either fixed or ok'd. Medical references should be secondary sources. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

While reading the article space, I had same one. But I guess they can be will be removed once you have gathered secondary ones. VandVictory (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources in the lead are primary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter which? The question is rather generic for the entire article. Do we, or do we not, adhere to the previous consensus of solely relying on WP:MEDRS secondary source? (but in case you are wondering: the Cheng paper is primary, as is the Chapman&Wu paper the first two i fell over. But again: This is not about the sources, but the question of secondary only or not). --Kim D. Petersen 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I made the comment "especially in the lede" I will clarify it for others. Its bad that they are in the article at all, and should be removed in any location in the article. That they are in the lede is especially worrisome in that it does not go into depth (and should not) and if someone only reads the lede (a very common practice) they may come away with information that is possibly inaccurate and incomplete. I only mentioned it as that would be a good starting point to remove them. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Agree. Primary sources should rarely be used. I am; however, fine with using the ASH surveys as this is the best available data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, now there is one more: Bertholon(2013). Keeps piling up. --Kim D. Petersen 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

~~Chapman&Wu(2014) is cited no less than 7 times by now~~... ~~Cheng(2014) is cited 3 times~~, Bertholon et al(2013) cited 2 times, CDC "Notes from the Field" (2 different ones) cited 6 times.

All of these are primary sources, and none of these sources were used a couple of weeks ago.... --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They are mostly if not all being added by QuackGuru. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bertholon primary source, removed
Chapman is a review article "we searched Google Scholar and Pubmed in July of 2013 using keywords"
Cheng also a review article per "Systematic literature searches were conducted"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, i was a bit quick there. I checked the PubMed record for "review" which is missing for both. But you missed the CDC "Notes from the Field" - which is definitively a primary source. --Kim D. Petersen 04:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the "Notes from the Field" sort of fall between the position of a nationally recognized organization (the CDC) and a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: No, the "Notes from the Field" is as primary as sources can get. They do not even remotely come close to position statements. Here is the description for authors for "Notes from the Field":

D. Notes from the Field

Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.

If that is even remotely close to a position statement - then i'm really curious as to the value of a position statement. --Kim D. Petersen 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Keywords: Unconfirmed, preliminary, hypotheses, incomplete. <--- Those should be completely unacceptable for medical information according to WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 04:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is to technical, it reads like a Journal

I just placed a tag. The article is to complicated and goes against WP:NOTJOURNAL WP:MEDMOS and WP:MTAU. The lede is ok, but the Health effects down to Components is hard to read. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. --Kim D. Petersen 06:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to the section below which their are concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved the article POV tag back up. --Kim D. Petersen 04:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wish it up, please explain the problems with the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tags are supposed to be on the article top Doc James. It kinda says so in the text: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." - as for description of the problems, there is a whole thread about it here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We have removed the primary sources from the body of the text mostly. I have changed it to POV-section Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Say what? You haven't even been active on the POV thread... and despite that you seem to feel that you know better? May i suggest that you do not make up our minds for us. The Grana WP:UNDUE problem is in the lede as well! --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is page is a disaster to edit. You will not provide justification for the tag on the whole article but are happy to edit war it back into place. Which text in the lead do you have problems with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: What are you talking about? I've described the problems on the thread Talk:Electronic_cigarette#POV_tag. May i suggest that you read it? There are several problems with the article, that get reflected in the lead, because the lead, as it is supposed to, is a summary of the body. --Kim D. Petersen 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure I will start a RfC to get wider input. The fact that you do not like the review published in Circulation is not justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the word Vapor from the article

QuackGuru has started removing the word vapor from the article. This is done without any agreement of other editors even though it is a hotly contested issue on the talk pages. This is more evidence of edit waring and not working withother editors. I am very close to filing a complain on his actions. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Agree. This continued disruptive editing is making it impossible to create an encyclopedic entry on this topic. This talk page demonstrates we've exhausted every opportunity for constructive discussion and consensus building, but QuackGuru refuses to listen. I support escalating this to WP:ANI. Mihaister (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the case that it's without any agreement of other editors. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You and QuackGuru are in the minority. Changing things without agreement, and repeatedly doing it, is an edit war. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad we can agree that "without any agreement of other editors" is untrue Cloudjpk (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with your view on that. The agreement does not exist with all editors that have commented on the changes Quackguru has made, so there is no agreement. AlbinoFerret (talk)

No one said "all". Lose the straw man, please. It's not helpful. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your selective interpretation is the same here as when you and QuackGuru discuss topics, yours and yours alone. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not helpful either; please lose it too. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Using vapor is important, since that is the word almost exclusively used amongst users, and it is the word used in the majority of secondary WP:MEDRS sources. Mist can be used (as explanatory), but it isn't something that any source uses. --Kim D. Petersen 06:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is lots of disruptive editing on this topic. Appears everything needs to be decided by a RfC going forwards. A number of topics end up like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed

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 list:

Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed? We have three options:

No POV tag
POV tag at the top
POV-section tag for the health section

14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Positions

Support 1 or 3. Do not support 2. Clearly defined issues with the lead are not supported. Just because one editor does not like a review article by Grana published in one of the most reputable journals in the world, Circulation does not mean we need to tag the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
2 since general POV problems in an article, by its very nature is reflected in the lede. I dislike Jmh's strawman above about me not "like a review article by Grana" since that is not correct. Grana is a significant secondary review article on the topic, but it is not the end-all-be-all article on e-cigarettes, and therefore relying too heavily on the Grana review is WP:UNDUE. He also ignores that there are other POV problems with the article, primarily created by a single editor (not Doc James), which is the major reason for the problems. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
3 1 (misread the list) Coming in from the outside of this discussion (mostly), I'm quite quite surprised by the intensity with which every minor point on this article becomes a battleground. Are people really spending hours arguing about the use of the word "vapor" vs mist or aerosol? Reading the article in its current state, and comparing it to the cited references, it seems to me to be closer to NPOV than the great majority of articles on Misplaced Pages. Particularly since most of the argument is about issues for which there is little data, and for which much greater clarity will be forthcoming over the next 1-2 years. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
1. I've been avoiding this article for the most part due to the intense disputes that occur over even the slightest wording differences. That we are citing a high quality source like Circulation is a good thing, not a reason to tag the article as has been suggested. I also find NPOV tagging to be used as a "tag of shame" or an "I don't agree with the POV of the article but I can't get consensus to go my way" tag, rather than as the intended use of getting outside contributions. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Support 2. Do not support 1, but I may consider 3, if a compelling argument is made. What hangs me up between 2 and 3 is that the lede also shows the POV problem; however, the sections of the article not directly related to health do not appear to be too far from NPOV. Perhaps two "section" tags are needed - one for the lede, and another for the health section - as a 4th Option. Onto the POV problem, I find Jmh's presentation oversimplifies (and adds to) the pervasive slant of the article. The article currently reads like an annotated conspectus of the Grana study. There is continued, unjustified resistance towards a MEDRS secondary-source critique of the Grana study (see ). In contrast, health claims and other hypothetical or imaginary scenarios aligned with the overall POV are supported by what are clearly and decidedly primary sources that do not meet MEDRS standards (). In addition, Grana statements are made in Misplaced Pages's own voice while other significant secondary reviews referenced in the article (those that do not support the POV) are given far less than their due weight and being discussed using distancing constructs such as "A 2014 review found it is safe to presume..." Mihaister (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
1 I see POV tags as being unhelpful and an admission of defeat for WP. Better remove the tag and discuss what the alleged POV is. If no agreement can be reached than have an RfC on that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
2 perfered, 3 possibly. Grana, is published in Circulation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Very little if any of the refrences in the Misplaced Pages e-cigarettes article are on cardiovascular medical topics. Therefore it should impact the ammount used in the article and should be in proportion to articles of a similar topic published by Circulation. Grana is overused. With the few review articles published, one should not overrank the others if it expresses views the others disagree with regardless where it is published. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nictoine is a major cause of heart attacks and strokes and causes about a third of all cardiovascular deaths (in the US). Therefore, any device that delivers nicotine is legitimately "a cardiovascular topic". I agree that it's not exclusively a cardiovascular topic—it should be a manufacturing topic and a legal topic, just to name two obvious ones—but it is a cardiovascular topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  Curious, are you talking about nicotine here or about tobacco? Because if it is nicotine that you are talking about, then it seems to be incorrect:
  
  Up to 5 years of nicotine gum use in the Lung Health Study was unrelated to cardiovascular diseases or other serious side effects . A meta-analysis of 35 clinical trials found no evidence of cardiovascular or other life-threatening adverse effects caused by nicotine intake . Even in patients with established cardiovascular disease, nicotine use in the form of NRTs does not increase cardiovascular risk . It is anticipated that any product delivering nicotine without involving combustion, such as the EC, would confer a significantly lower risk compared with conventional cigarettes and to other nicotine containing combustible products.
  — Farsalinos&Polosa(2014)

--Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

- all of that is patently and demonstrably false. It also shows a clear intent to derail the discussion with false and misleading interpretations of the literature. Hmmm sounds familiar . The claims made above refer to smoking statistics, not nicotine by itself, or any other non-combustible tobacco product. In fact, the weight of evidence on NRT shows that nicotine (when divorced from tobacco smoke) is a fairly safe chemical with little or no potential for dependence. Mihaister (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
2 Of course there should be a tag, there are long-standing POV issues with the article that have been clearly set out by those holding them. A more accurate name for the article would be "Negative Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes"; in other words the article is POV and preoccupied with health effects. An example of this is that the "Health Effects" section is at the top of the article, before even the "Construction" has been described. Another example of the bias is the zillion references to Grana, a study posted in a cardiovascular journal that is simply not the single-most important piece of e-cigarette research ever but is however particularly cynical. Yet another example is the Smoking Cessation section which pays almost no regard to the fact that electronic cigarettes are recreational devices, not medical devices, often used for harm-reduction, not cessation.

With regard to tag placement, the issues affect the lead so keep it at the top, no point in putting multiple tags throughout the article.Levelledout (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

1 No tag, the purpose of the tag per the tag's own documentation is already fulfilled so the tag is unnecessary. Zad68 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So let us go through the two top problems which haven't been addressed (and in fact just been getting worse) since the tag went up:

Too much reliance on a single review Grana, which at the moment is cited 43 times(!) as opposed to the 2nd most which is cited 7 12 times. Grana is strangely also the most negative review that we currently have, and most cites are for negative information. That gives us a large measure of WP:UNDUE.
We are using CDC's "Notes from the Field" to cite medical data, despite that CDC themselves describe these "Notes from the Field" as " may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information." in clear violation of WP:MEDRS.

--Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

At risk of getting sucked into the endless debates here, I'd say the ratio of cites to the two reviews in this Misplaced Pages article is quite reasonable. Circulation is a first tier journal, and Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety is a second or third tier journal that I run across once or twice a year. TADS is rarely cited by papers in other journals (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199817&tip=sid&clean=0). Circulationis a much more influential journal, whose average paper is cited 13 times. http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=22581&tip=sid&clean=0 Formerly 98 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in Addiction is cited 12 times. (i took the wrong review). And that is a first tier journal for this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem just inst the number of refrences. I have found the ones added mostly have a negitive slant added to them either not accuratly saying what Grana says, placing them in such an order on the page to create something that isnt said, or repeting the same thing over and over. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol:Of course Grana should be cited, just as every other significant secondary WP:MEDRS review should be. The problem is not Grana itself, but the overuse of a single review, to the extent that our article looks more like a copy of Grana (with some sprinklings of other sources thrown in), instead of an encyclopedic writeup that " fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Overly relying on one source is not WP:NPOV --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The Scopus Scientific Influence Ranking, based on citations per article, is 2.2 for Addiction and 8.2 for Circulation. For a benchmark, the NEJM, which is the most widely cited medical journal is 13.5. So Circulation gets cited about 60% as often as the most cited medical journal, for Addiction its 13%. Circulation is by far the more respected and influential of the two. see WP:USEBYOTHERS Formerly 98 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes. In contrast, the journal Addiction, for example, ranks #1 for the topic of Substance Abuse (ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2013 ). The weight given to a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight.

Moreover, attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in the field as well as the weight of evidence gauged by these RS. Currently, there are few secondary sources for e-cigarette topics and most of these do not agree with the extreme views put forward by Grana: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Chapman (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011).

The weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than the reputation of one journal in a different field. Mihaister (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mihaister, The topic the article is written on impacts the prominance of the citation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Also one article in a journal, no matter where, does not make the overwhelming refrences against its possistion less.

AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(replace deleted tag)

I also agree with Mihaister and Kim D. Petersen, the fact that Circulation is well respected in the field of cardiovascular health does not excuse the extreme amount of weight that the Grana article currently has here.

With regards to CDC data, clearly, its a primary source, it should be removed.Levelledout (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert on this subject but I would just make the comment that on a first reading this article does not seem to me to present an obviously biased view. There are a few overexcited comments about dangerous chemicals but generally the article give the impression that the article gives a balanced view of things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed before the rfc was closed, and there is no clear consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes" This would be a great argument if this was just an article about the addictive properties of e-cigarettes. In fact, the health issues covered by the article are much broader than this, and range into areas that are completely outside Addiction's scope of coverage. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Which equally applies to Circulation. But this is really moot, since it is not the publication venue (journals) themselves that determines WP:WEIGHT, and i'm surprised that you'd even mention that. The publication venue is the determining factor for reliability - but not for merit and weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point that the articles scope is in fact more favorable to the argument of weight applied to the topic of articles in Circulation. The additional topics in Grana and the wikipedia article are also outside the usual topics in Circulation playing more into its lessened weight. Publishing articles outside of the usual topics of a journal plays into weight because it is not reviewed by those best suited to review the claims it makes. Your also wrong in that the NPOV problem the article has is that the article reads and is structured to give prominence to health effects. Ecigarettes, while a consumer product has been overtaken by a medical agenda. The overloading of the page with health effects quotes when so little is known, and sources conflict each other is one proof of that. Grana should be used, but the amount of use should be alot less. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UT

Yes I agree with AlbinoFerret that the journal used for publishing research does affect the research's reliability. The Misplaced Pages article's subject is entirely irrelevant. The point is that the subject of the research should match the speciality of the journal as closely as possible. The idea is that poor research is far more likely to slip past peer reviewers if it is posted in a journal that does not specialise in the type of research that has been conducted. Whether or not this affects the weight is questionable, but it does affect whether the source should be included at all.

One thing I will say is that reading the WP:WEIGHT section, the enormous weight that Grana currently has here seems to go against most of that policy seeing as WP:WEIGHT is actually about:

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."

It is also about explaining the majority view, any opposing views and any minority views. I do not believe that one review can become the majority view simply because it was published in a popular cardiovascular journal. The opinions of editors regarding the journal are in any case irrelevant in determining weight. It's just one source.Levelledout (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done a lot of editing to the article this evening including changes of the order of the article to address a situation Levelledout pointed out above that I thought was strange and adding to the NPOV issue. They may make the question this section addresses moot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this, I think it's fully appropriate to use the street vernacular "vaporized", but also to explain the difference between the misty aerosol and true vapor. I should note that this terminology was used for many decades in reference to schemes for heating marijuana without burning it which produced a more genuine vapor. (Speaking of marijuana, we should detail the adaptation of the devices to work with cannabis oil, which is one of the first and most interesting things I read about them) We need a clearer explanation of how a cigarette-like smoke is produced by the devices. The explanation should cover the marketing aspects -- as the advertisements make quite clear, one of the biggest draws of the mist is that people can look so "cool" standing around puffing their addictive smoke in all directions without the limitations that have been placed on tobacco. We should also see if we can answer the question of how far the aerosol particles actually go (rather than just the amount of cotinine in coworkers' blood). Wnt (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know, e-cigs aren't/can't be converted to vaporize cannabis oil (too thick methinks). I think you are talking about dry herb vaporizers not e-cigs... similar concept but not quite the same. As for the advertisement/marketing angle, haven't seen that on this side of the pond, can you refer to some 2ndry sources for this? --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The type specimen for the ad is . Secondary sources... it's not my field and I'm not necessarily hitting them. Searching around I find sources like that are neither very good nor really make the argument that I think is obvious from watching a commercial like that, that the "black and white movie appeal" of the strategic exhalation is something valuable in itself. Regarding marijuana, there are articles like . I am getting an impression from these and some informal sources that the cannabis may be vaporized at a higher temperature than the nicotine solution, even when it is in wax, and therefore there is a preference for metal e-cigs, but how sure can I be of that after just a few minutes of searching? Would be worth pursuing, though. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing order of sections

There has been a change in the ordering of sections without consensus I have thus restored the ordering. Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tells us to edit boldly, there is no need for consensus before making changes. The changes were made as a result of a comment in the rfc section though not on the specific topic of that section. The reasons were that it closely matches the order of the lede. The articles name is Electronic cigarette, not health effects of e-cigarettes. The top sections should be about it as the lede does. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, you are the only one of the regular editors who are married to the current ordering. This isn't a medical article, it contains some physiological and effects stuff - but at the base it is an article about a new type of product. Personally i'm all for the reordering. And i'm rather vexxed that you would edit-war without trying to get consensus, or explain why there is a consensus for this ordering, Doc James. --Kim D. Petersen 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. You two are requiring a RfC for the movement of the NPOV tag. And yet are edit warring this change in ordering. No BRD for you two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually you were the one who was "requiring a RfC". I can't see the need for such, since dispute resolutions haven't run out yet. --Kim D. Petersen 17:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And i'm not seeing any explanations as to why your version should be the consensus one, which is what you claimed in your reverts , instead you run to a "friendly" board to get backing --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just filed a ~~3rr~~ edit warring violation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim, I suggest you review what WP:CAN actually says before throwing those sorts of accussations around. Particularly the part beginning with "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Misplaced Pages collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." Formerly 98 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And why would an editor call on a board, without having exhausted the possibilities here on the discussion page? Do note that Doc James was the first to cast the WP:CAN stone. I find the lack of discussion here to be confusing. Doc James should've presented his case here, not just do a vexatious claim of consensus, that isn't even apparent.

So present your case as to why the medical section must come first. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so that we ensure that WP:CAN is accurately represented here, I have reviewed what is actually says and note that it also says "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner..."Levelledout (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the new ordering with "construction" first is far more logical. This article is about a class of devices, which should obviously be described first, before any controversy as to effects. 24.16.2.248 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The recent changes to the sections were confusing. AlbinoFerret recently filed a fake 3rr violation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The board is for Edit Warring, you dont need to make more than 3 reverts to be found guilty of that. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to look at this issue is to follow the WP:NPOV advice of looking at how it is being treated in reliable sources. Try the following Google searches:

NYTimes e-cigarette
WSJ e-cigarette
Newseek e-cigarette
Time Magazine e-cigarette
CBS News e-cigarette

There are few or no media stories leading off with a discussion of what sort of fashion statement e-cigarettes are making, how they are constructed, what the latest e-juice cocktail is, where they are made, etc. 90% of what you will see in the media is stories debating the health effects. And leaving aside Pubmed, searching Google scholar for "e-cigarette" will bring up no article on the first page of hits that are not health related.

The argument that this is not primarily a health-related article flies in the face of what strongly dominates the result of every search you can perform on the internet. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Strawman. By that measure almost every article is health-related; And health-related is the point: It's related only so it warrants a health section just as in "asbestos" and "cigarettes" but it's not a straight and plain med-article!TMCk (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. Do the same searches with the word "e-cigarette" replaced by "Barbara Bush", "equality", "construction", "automobile", or "plastic". There are lots and lots of subjects that the media and academic sources treat without 90% of the articles being health related. E-cigarettes just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I like your point about the wikipedia cigarette article and asbestos article a little better, but what is different in that case is that the health effects of asbestos and cigarettes are not hotly debated. Its settled science that those items pose serious health risks, and everyone in the country including my 5 year old nephew knows it. So it is old news and goes lower in the article. I don't think one has to appeal to MEDMOS to argue that health should be the first section in this article. Just ask yourself, when was the last time you saw an article in the NYTimes or WSJ discussing the design of e cigarettes? Formerly 98 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're funny. So when the health effects are clear, med-mos doesn't apply when it comes to primarily non-med articles but when there is no clear evidence at all like here it suddenly becomes a "strict med article" (like some new prescription drug). Where is making sense here?TMCk (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Ok, I have no feelings regarding e-cigs. I don't smoke, but I don't have anything against smokers either. I came here because of the kerfuffle on ANI regarding edit-warring.

That said, the lede needs work. The second sentence is far too wordy and conflicting. I see both sides trying to win the paragraph and as a result it is a back and forth of pros and cons. The second sentence needs to be reduced by quite a bit. The third paragraph should be summarized a little more as well. The fourth paragraph looks ok.

The order of the sections is off. This is a manufactured product. So you describe the background (History) , the product (Construction), how it is used (Usage) and then effects (Health). Thus the History should be first with the Construction second. Third should be Usage (which should be merged with the Society and Culture section). Health Effects should be fourth with Related Technologies fifth. Arzel (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We had a ~~RfC~~ regarding the ordering of it before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Was the request placed in the medical section? AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the archives and the only official RfC is regarding the POV tag. I see a lot of mention about asking for an RfC, but no actual RfC. Where is it located? Just trying to help resolve your impasse. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My apology. We have just had previous discussions and

This has been controversial for some time. Maybe it is time for a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure medical editors will agree with you. How about a rfc for the heart of the matter, if it should be in the medical category at all. With the widest rfc possible, not just medical editors. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a science RfC and we are asking if it should be considered medical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a consumer device and not asking consumers in a wide group will taint the results. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of non MEDRS sources and claims

In this edit an editor used non WP:MEDRS to place things in the medical section. I have remover them and I am placing this section in case the editor wants to know why or has any questions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, AlbinoFerret. News articles are definitely not reliable sources for medical content. Mihaister (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

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.

Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

Support It is clearly medical. All one needs to do is look at the sources available. Perfectly reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as it has been doing for some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Support If one conducts a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, 90% of the hits are health related. Likewise if one searchs on the word e-cigarette in combination with the name of any major media outlet in regular Google. NPOV requires that we emphasize what reliable sources, and in particular, scholarly ones are emphasizing. Right now, that's the health controversy. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Support, Given the number and level of authority of the medical sourcing available that covers this subject, especially in comparison to what's available for the non medical topics (I saw how hard it was to come up with acceptable sourcing to even describe the construction, and what's in the article now is built on: medical journal articles), WP:MEDMOS is clearly the appropriate guideline for layout. Zad68 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, there are plenty of sources for construction. That other editors have only focused on the medical aspect is the reason. I have been expanding components and have only been delayed by other matters in the article that suck up my time. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response provides excuses but doesn't counter my main points, does it? Zad68 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you said it was hard to find good references for components. I said no, they can be found, and I will clarify the last part for you. That editors some other editors have focused in on one section, does not lessen the other sections. Components can me more important than medical claims to some people. I would be expanding the components section but constant editor disputes slows work on the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is sort of artificial because it does not separate the meaning e-cig (usage of) and e-cig (device). More sources exist on the usage of the e-cig because (for obvious reasons) there is more research done on the usage. However, this does not imply that the device itself is a priori medical (some analogy with a syringe). Why not split the article? Jophiel 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel I did suggest that in the my original discussion I started on the classification. There was not enough input from other editors and one editor of the three (including myself) was against splitting. That was based on size of the article. But it wont be long, based on the growth pattern of the article where that argument will not have a lot of weight. These constant edit problems are doing harm to the article. It takes up everyones time that would be better used in improving it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC will not lead anywhere. Decision for an article being "medical" depends on the content (not on the subject itself). Article size isn't large, agree, but there is a good reason for doing a spinout: an obvious and tedious content conflict. Jophiel 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. This is a medical related article. A few editors think e-cigs are harmless vapor. That's incorrect. Yes, I know: e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Which editors think that e-cigs are harmless vapor? Or is that simply a strawman? --Kim D. Petersen 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Support This is not a brand of printer paper. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to check your printer paper, it may contain BPA Arzel (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good one. *grin* TMCk (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support In RS the health aspect is by far the most important aspect of the e-cig topic, and so must be prominently treated in this article; doing otherwise would destroy the fundamental NPOV we are required to maintain. As a secondary consideration, MEDMOS could usefuly inform the style/structure here. Alexbrn 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Essentially a medical-related product. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Support I can see the argument that this is a consumer, rather than a medical product, however as survey data suggests the use of e cigs is mainly to stop or reduce tobacco use (which is therefore a medical use), MEDMOS would apply here. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious Yobol - what you are saying is basically WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to actual content in articles. My stance, which is that consumer products that are primarily used for medicinal purposes should be first looked at from a medical standpoint, isn't so much OR as it is a question of emphasis. If that is WP:OR, most editorial decisions made here on Misplaced Pages are WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support This is a consumer product, but one that dispenses a highly addictive substance. If this were the first source of nicotine, it would never pass FDA approval as a schedule II, let alone be available without a prescription. Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: i'm missing something here. Are you saying that Misplaced Pages can decide on its own what a product is or isn't? Has the FDA rejected approval? --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether this article is "primarily medical in nature" seems to be a philosophical or even semantic point that only distracts from the more meaningful question here, which is whether "Health effects" should be the first section. Given all that we know about the health dangers of smoking, and the widespread perception that e-cigs may be safer than conventional cigarettes, I submit that far more readers want to know about e-cigs' safety than their history. Per Formerly 98 above, the editors of successful and reputable magazines and news sources evidently agree. Therefore I support making "Health effects" the first section. Adrian J. Hunter 10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support in spirit but not in letter. The WP:WEIGHT of sources says that health issues are very important for e-cigs and there should be significant discussion of health issues. MEDMOS provides a useful structure that the article should follow, but whether "Health effects" or "Construction" comes first is trivial. I actually think that MEDMOS should be changed to place a description of the device first and have noted so on the MEDMOS talk page, since medical devices vary so greatly (unlike drugs). So on the narrow question of the ordering of sections, I would !vote for Construction to come first, so readers know what is being discussed. But I do hear and understand the argument that what matters most is how e-cigs affect you and so that should come first.Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Support per Formerly 98, most reliable sources talk about the health effects of e-cigs rather than their recreational uses. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Support The weight of the reliable sources is that electronic cigarettes, when discussed, are in 90% of reliable sources discussed mostly for their health effects. The reliable sources which discuss it in other contexts are usually on the lower-quality end of the spectrum of reliable sources. The weight of the available sources presents this concept as a medical concept. I agree with many who oppose who say that one might expect articles on products to be structured like other articles on products, but in the case of this article, so much more coverage exists on health effects than the actual product. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that whenever you pick up a secondary WP:MEDRS review, then the layout of those almost invariably describes the product/construction/usage before it goes on to address chemistry, health effects etc. Even our most (over)used negative review paper (Grana et al. PMID 24821826) does it this way. My conjecture is that they do so because it makes the paper flow better... ie. start with an understanding of what it is, and then gradually move towards reviewing the health material. --Kim D. Petersen 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead of our article should include the basic information about construction necessary to provide context for later sections. Adrian J. Hunter 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. Strongly agree that topic is medical in nature and should follow WP:MEDMOS. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Clearly medical, and leaving medical information out would leave a very short and ill-conceived article, biased article. Most of what is in here is and should be medical. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is not about removing any information but the order of the sections already on the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose This is clearly not a medical article. If one wishes to write an article regarding the medical effects/benefits/risks of electronic cigarettes, then they should do that. I will point out Cigar and Cigarette, which are also effectively delivery devices of Nicotine, both have History being the first section and Health effects being towards or at the end. Arzel (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons that Arzel provides. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The article is clearly a consumer product and does not require a prescription. There are no other consumer products that contain nicotine in the medical category. This article should not be in it either. I think the phrasing of the question is a strawman and the results will be tainted by it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would you mind naming a few examples of "consumer products that contain nicotine" so I can better understand what you mean by this phrase? For example, Nicoderm and Nicorette both contain nicotine and are sold without a prescription, and I think that many people associate those smoking cessation products with health/medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. It's primarily a gadget/devise with non-medical purpose. A health section is of course warranted but not in a leading manner. Comparison to layouts like, I.e. asbestos and cigarette should be the guide to place it in proper order.TMCk (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
BTW: If it would be "primarily medical in nature" You would be able to buy devises at your local drugstore. But so far they stick with nicotine patches. TMCk (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK pharmacy counters are where they are found; tobacco outlets very rarely carry them. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And you live where? Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Here's a couple of examples of tobacconists that sell e-cigs in the UK , not particularly difficult to find. --Kim D. Petersen 01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - you may also want to see this, where there is documentation that e-cigs are sold in all kinds of stores in the UK (the article is about selling to <18yo.'s). --Kim D. Petersen 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate to say that pharmacies are the main source of electronic cigarettes in the UK. E-cigarettes are available in the vast majority of newsagent (tobacco outlets) and supermarkets that sell tobacco. Just because a pharmacy opts to sell a product it doesn't make it a medicine. Most pharmacies I know of sell beauty products of no medicinal value and I known of one major pharmacy chain that sells Coca-Cola, which the last time I checked was not a medicine either.Levelledout (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is about a class of consumer products and the medical agenda is a only a tangential subtopic. As such, it should be structured like other consumer product pages such as humidifier, vacuum cleaner, or iPad; that is, History first, then construction, types, usage, and last any controversy as to health effects. Mihaister (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This user was requested to particpate a few hours easier here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And "th user" has also been active almost every day on this article. Sigh! What are you trying to imply Doc? --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the Doc would rather not hear opinion that goes against his POV. thanks for your shiny example of consensus-building. Do you really think I wouldn't've commented on this irrespective of any notification? Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret apparently had some doubts. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you really looked at who I left a message about the RFC you would see its every editor, except IP addresses who has edited the article for about the past week or so. I only messaged those that had not left a comment. I went back 3 pages of history and included those, based on previous posts, that I had a good feeling would support this biased RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
Yobol, who stands with the "med-crowd" received the same message and he didn't edit here in the last couple of days. That shows "canvassing" within policy. Not so much what Doc did when you take a look at the 3RR notice board and trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin closing the report.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
OpposeThe article is about a manufactured product and should be structured as such. The health issues may be of great importance but they are not the only aspect of this device. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose E-cigarettes are consumer products, they are not medicine, nor are they sold in pharmacies. Yes, when used with an e-liquid with nicotine, then they do have some physiological effect. But such effects in consumer products are not an indicator of them being medicine. If we take for instance Coffee, then a Coffee machine isn't a medical device, Coffee is not a pharmacological product, even if it can contain Caffeine which is a crystalline xanthine alkaloid and a stimulant drug. On the legal side, both the EU and the US have refused to consider these as medical products. --Kim D. Petersen 12:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Mind you: This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the health effects section, just that this at the heart isn't a medical article. --Kim D. Petersen 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Untrue re the EU - see above. In the UK they certainly are sold in pharmacies and at pharmacy counters; that is where you normally find them. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not really the case. Boots and a few other chemists sell "cigalikes", but where you normally find them is newsagents, tobacconists & specialist shops. The leading models, refillable tanks, are pretty much exclusively sold through specialist shops. The Royal College of Pharmacists state that they're not a medical product.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which part of supermarkets sells them then? The refillable tanks are mostly sold online, as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are confusing the EU with member countries. I refer you to the TPD (tobacco products directive) of 2014 article 20. And yes, there are a few countries that sell them in pharmacies but as CheesyAppleFlake notes: Even there it is not the norm. --Kim D. Petersen 14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Pharmacies (at least here in Denmark) also sell shampoo (regular not specifically medical), does that make Shampoo a medical product? --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim the shampoo comment is funny. But in the a lot of US pharmacies sell cosmetics, wouldnt the same faulty reasoning make mascara and blush a medical product? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The article is titled "Electronic cigarette" and that's what it should be about. If people want a medical article they can create a separate one for health effects, but this one should primarily describe the devices themselves.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly if one searches medical journals, one will find medical-related sources with a medical related agenda. However, if you search outside of that arena into places such as the mainstream media you will find issues such as construction, harm-reduction, vaping sub-culture and regulation regularly and readily being discussed.

I think that it also must be recognised that bodies such as the EU have specifically declined to classify e-cigarettes as medical devices under most circumstances and that the vast majority of e-cigarettes are simply not medical devices, are often not used are such and are not allowed to make medical claims about their products in many jurisdictions. Therefore medical guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are inappropriate across the whole article. The medical community feels very strongly about e-cigarettes and this can be recognised in the health section, which rightly should be subject to medical policies and guidelines.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Very vague oppose. MEDMOS gives a recommended list of sections, which may be good advice for this or any medical article. But it's not going to write the article for you. Any change made to follow that advice has to actually be a good change; you shouldn't make it "just because MEDMOS says so". Philosophically, from the history, we could say that Gilbert's non-commercialized nicotine vaporizer from 1963 made it a consumer product, not a medical product, that could have replaced the tobacco. (A moment of silence to contemplate the millions of lives that could have been saved, had a common sense way to reduce cancer deaths been pursued with resources. The magnitude of the sacrifice our society has made on Moloch's capitalist altar!) The Chinese product was introduced for "smoking cessation and replacement". Smoking cessation is clearly a medical product - smoking replacement is obviously not a medical product. The philosophical ambiguity since then remains unabated. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Electronin cigarette is a consumer device, not a medical one. Also, if you take a look at cigarette, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. And that article - if any - would have all the reason to acclaim itself as a medical one. I think it would be quite logical to benchmark cigarette in this case. Levelledout is also making a good point while explaining how EU has declined to classify electronic cigarettes as medical products. This is something we certainly should not ignore. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - This is an electronic cigarette. It is not an endoscope or a central venous catheter. -A1candidate (talk)
Oppose Electronic cigarettes are as much of a medical topic as regular cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, or potato chips. The fact that the majority of sources the article uses are medical publications is one of a series of serious WP:NPOV issues that need to be remedied; moving the "Health effects" section to the bottom of the article where it belongs would be a good start. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose As many have stated above me, e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a pharmaceutical product or other drug. Health effects definitely have a place, but they are not the primary focus of the article.Doors22 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose AND Support

It's a matter of definition and terminology. The electronic cigarette is not a medical device a priori. It can be used as such (beneficial for health) but it can also be used just for leisure (possibly harmful). Recently EU decided (wisely) that electronic cigarettes and the liquid solutions are not medical unless their presentation or function is medical:

"Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated by this Directive, unless they are - due to their presentation or function - subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) or to Council Directive 93/42/EEC (*3)." (2 = Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67), 3 = Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1).)

So, there are three aspects: 1. The technical (about the device), 2. the medical usage (for smoking cessation), and 3. the non-medical usage (for leisure, possibly harmful). Most sources are, of course, on the health issues i.e. on the usage (2. and 3.), but this does not make the device a medical device a priori.

If you call this article "electronic cigarette" you should focus on the device and its technical aspects (1.). If you call this article "health effects of the electronic cigarette" the focus should be on 2. and 3. (i.e. on usage). Split the article. Jophiel 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

As this is the third time we are discussing this about time to have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RFC is to narrow and does not get to the heart of the matter, if the article should be in the medical category at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The first bit is a question of "is this article medical" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But the request is only going to medical editors. It should be in the widest pool. Its like the mouse guarding the cheese. The article was placed in the medical catagory by a editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. It was not a medical article for over 4 years. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a math science and technology RfC. There is no medicine RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then this RFC will be tainted, its like asking only a group of Republicans who should be president. The wording is also is a straw man, no one has said it doesnt have medical resources, but should a consumer device that doesn't require a prescription, be in the medical category when no other consumer product with nicotine is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The health effects of cigarettes and cigars are well established and not controversial. Its 40 year old news that my 5 year old nephew knows. That's why health isnt' in the first section of those articles. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd statement to make. WP is not here to promote a specific point of view. Your argument seems to be that because they are new people need to be told of the health effects right away so that they know that they are bad for you. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not for warning anyone about anything. I'm for making sure the article gives different subjects the same weight and priority as is extant in non-Misplaced Pages sources as demanded by the WP:NPOV rules. I offered speculation on why the cigarette articles and cigar articles might not put health effects as the first section, but ultimately whether or not those articles are correctly formatted is immaterial to this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither of them is listed in project medicine yet all are effectively the same device. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that MEDMOS is probably unncessary here. But I think that the health section should go at the beginning for now, because that is what people are discussing outside of Misplaced Pages. If it turns out they are harmless and the health aspect becomes a non-story, I'd move it to the end. But for the next 2-4 years I think health issues will dominate the public discussion. JMHO Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, legal issues are what I hear being discussed. Regardless, I think you are taking the wrong approach here. The actual device is nothing more than a tool. What I am hearing from the support side is really related to the effects of the liquid being used. In any case, the "Support" argument does not justify illogical article structure. Arzel (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about what I "hear people talking about" . I said that I did 6 different e-cigarette Google searches focused on what are generally considered reliable sources and all were 90% dominated by health issues. Because the weight given to issues by reliable sources (and not by one's friends, co-workers, and family) are is the standard that WP:NPOV sets. WP:BALASPS In any case it is clear that we will not agree. Welcome to the ~~argument~~ discussion, you're now a member and an outside observer no longer. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We write for our readers, right? I'm a long-time editor but also a reader and as a smoker I looked up our article on those e-cigs. What do I get? Non info! First I get the usual "it's bad for you" advise (w/o scientific backup either way) and only if I scroll down I get a glimpse of what those devises might be and (even so only potentially) could do for me. To get real and unbiased info I have to do my own research with WP only being of help in providing opinion disguised as fact. That'll work for dumb people but dumb people don't check or listen to WP at all and smart people check the sources and come up with a different conclusion than provided. The result is to feed those who are already with or w/o knowledge against something what they want to hear. You see? You make no difference at all -- you only embarrass yourself writing this non-educating stuff up. NPOV means... not what is happening here.TMCk (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of legal issues, US District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:09-cv-00771-RJL, 2010) ruled e-cigarettes were not medical devices . Mihaister (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a court of law and our purposes and guidelines really have no reason to be in line with a given court ruling. Zad68 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but Misplaced Pages doesn't invent its own classifications, we have to follow reality. Otherwise we'd be doing WP:OR. Remember that is what our policies say. Misplaced Pages cannot on its own decide what a product is or isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What we need to do is follow the sourcing. In the case of the subject of this article, multiple authoritative bodies and top-tier medical journals have provided lots of high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and surveys of the sourcing show a heavy emphasis on medical sources, as others have pointed out here on this Talk page. A court of law has its own context and purposes, but again, we are not a court, we are an encyclopedia. Zad68 02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how willful ignorance of court ruling having the power of law meets encyclopedic standards. Please explain. Mihaister (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Be happy to reply when you address my point. Zad68 03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Let see if I get this straight. The verifiable fact is that FDA (or any other entity in the US for that matter) cannot define vaping products as medical devices, because that would be illegal. However, Zad thinks that fact is of no encyclopedic consequence, because some "high-quality" medical literature can be found about these devices, which somehow makes them medical devices. Surely I'm missing something, cause that doesn't quite make sense for me. So, I'll ask again, please explain. Mihaister (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So because medical sources describe the medical aspects of e-cigs => medical. Erh? Something here went circular. --Kim D. Petersen 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said either. Zad68 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seem like that is exactly what you were trying to say. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement, but I come to the same conclusion, Arzel (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply because there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources out there, it does not really follow that WP:MEDMOS should be applied. As I'm sure you are aware WP:MEDMOS is a style guideline for medical articles that has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS sources. If the article isn't primarily medically related, then it isn't appropriate to apply WP:MEDMOS. This is the question we should be looking at, based on the subject and structure of the article.Levelledout (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are WP:MEDRS sources used in health sections of a lot of consumer products. The health sections are not at the top of the page, they dont follow MEDMOS. A prime example is Cigarette. It even provides a lot of nicotine and even worse chemicals. Is it a medical device? How about a Tobacco pipe? Its a device for concentrating the nicotine from a source for inhalation by the user. is it a medical device? Should it have a Health section at the top and follow MEDMOS? I can buy both at Walgreens, a drugstore. But I see neither is treated as a medical device on WP, but for some reason e-cigarette is? The lack of consistency is confusing. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making the same point Doc James, Formerly 98, Alexbrn, Jinkinson, Blue Rasberry are making. Formerly 98 makes this same point particularly well. Zad68 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not a medical device, but I still think the medical concerns should be in the beginning of the article because that's the subtopic that CBS News, the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, the Times of London, and the majority of academic papers published in Google Scholar have focused on, whether taking a "pro" or "con" position. I don't know that its in a guideline anywhere, but it seems odd to me that so many here are upset that Misplaced Pages should cover this topic in the same way as the rest of the world. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd logical falacy. Of course the history and contruction of the tool is not going to be described over and over and over. By you logic, almost zero articles on WP would have any remote semblence of logical thought or presentation. They would be a mish-mash of information presented in order of their prevelance without any regard for how anyone would read about a subject. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, formerly is making an argument about how much WP:WEIGHT to give health concerns. How do you determine WEIGHT? (real question) thanks. Jytdog (talk)

Please check yourself. I have made no determinations of weight with regards to what should or should not be covered. Formerly is making an argument that since Health Effects are the most covered aspect then that section should be first. Taken to the logical conclusion this approach, throughout WP articles, would result in absurd articles that have no logical structure. I was simply pointing out the logical falacy that Formerly was using to try and justify why Health Effects should be first. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry what do you mean "check yourself"? also would you please answer how you determine WP:WEIGHT (regardless of what you think Formerly was talking about). thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are changing the core principle that Formerly was making and then linking the new line of discussion to me as a question. I don't want to get into a tangential discussion about how much weight should be given to the health section. My argument has been the flow of the article not the content. As for Formerly, there is no question as to what he was saying. He made a specific statement, that since the majority of discussion about e-cigs is regarding health, that health should come first. That is a logical falacy which if applied to almost any topic would result in illogical article stucture. He even weakens his case by agreeing that e-cigs are not medical devices which makes the classification as a MEDMOS article less justified. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

this is not productive. stopping. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so random break

COMMENTS and a question - the RfC is unfortunately framed, for two reasons.

1 "medical" vs "health": On the face of it, there are only a few countries' medical regulatory bodies that classify e-cigs as medical devices. There are some - so for those !voting "oppose" above, saying flatly that "e-cigs are not medical devices", this is not true so flatly stated. But those "oppose" votes have a wikilawyery, narrow point, in that in most jurisdictions, e-cigs are not regulated as medical devices. I say that the RfC is unfortunately framed because MEDRS and MEDMOS are primarily concerned with Misplaced Pages content about health. And a) most regulatory bodies that have said anything, have said something about health; and b) most coverage in the media and in the biomedical literature (and there has been a lot of both) have discussed health issues. (As a side note, per WP:WEIGHT, health issues should get a significant amount of coverage in this article.) The discussion on this page has become stupidly polarized and in a context like this, writing usefully nuanced content becomes impossible. I ask everybody to take a deep breath and try to walk away from the knee-jerk reactions that folks are giving. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

2 Use of guidelines: by framing it as "should MEDMOS apply", the question of why it matters is lost, and nobody is discussing that. MEDMOS is a very useful guideline for structuring articles with a strong health focus (I know MEDMOS says "medical" but please don't wikilawyer the point) I very much recognize the importance and utility of following guidelines but we don't apply them mindlessly, and if local consensus develops to not use them or depart from them, that is fine, but the consensus should be based on reasons why it matters. So I'll ask - Why does it matter to folks which section comes first? Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

my answer to my own question, by the way, is that it doesn't matter. The article would be fine either way. I am interested to learn why other editors think it matters.Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, there's an underlying NPOV issue here. One wished-for change among some editors here, as I understand it, is that this article should be de-medicalized (or de-healthified) to focus on non-health aspects of e-cigs: construction, social changes, flavourings, user experience, uptake statistics, etc. This would go hand-in-hand with shunting the health information off to a separate "Health effects of e-cigs" article. I fear this could make Misplaced Pages engage in e-cig advocacy, by unduly de-emphasizing the not-so-helpful-for-advocacy health information. Whether that fear is founded or not, I think it's important for NPOV that this article mirrors the RS coverage of e-cigs, which is largely health-based. Whether the precise details of MEDMOS are followed is a mere secondary detail. Unfortunately, the RfC failed to make a distinction between the importance of the first part of the question ("is this article primarily medical in nature") and the second part (so "use MEDMOS?") Alexbrn 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most people understood the issues here. I am new to this page and I did. We have had a neutrally worded RfC, let us stick with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Jytdog has made some excellent points, and has nicely cut through the bullshit on both sides, as he so often does. The discussion has been way too polarized, there is too much focus on "winning", and we've spent too much time arguing about symbolic issues.

As a "pro-medical" partisan, I think I can summarize my concerns as follows: 1) I think the main issue covered in the news and science articles has been health, and so I think that should be a big part of this article, and 2) I'm a little concerned that the size and detail of the design section makes the article read like an article in a vaping enthusiast magazine or even a vendor website.
On the other hand, I think Jytdog may be correct that the order of the sections does not matter, so long as the length of the article is not so long overall that most readers never scroll down far enough to see "Medical". I could see that section go 2nd as part of a larger compromise.
I'd be also be willing to see the negativity of the health section toned down as part of a compromise. The main thing we know about these things is that they are almost certainly healthier than cigarettes, and almost certainly less healthy than not vaping, though the size of that difference may not be large compared to being obese or eating a lot of hamburgers. We can probably turn down the level of obsessiveness about trace amounts of metal microparticles and the like. We all breath that kind of stuff daily just walking down the street.

I'd like to hear a reasonably concise summary of what the key concerns of the anti-"over-medicalization" faction are, and where there is room for negotiation, compromise, and turning down the confrontationalism. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This will probably be in the TLDR domain, but here we go:

First let me state what i'm in agreement with in your comment: Yes, a medical section must exist, at least until such time as the article get unwieldy and should be split, and i also agree that health aspects, with the same caveats as before, must be a significant section. I also (although i can't determine if you think so) that the health section should be based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS.

On the other hand, i do not agree that WP:WEIGHT is a useful measure in applying/limiting the amount of content there should be in individual non-similar sections, that is why we have WP:SPLIT. WP is not paper. Weight is a determination for us to measure contrasts between views within a scope. (ie. i can't see weight as being an argument for limiting any section of the article, let the sections take up the amount of space that we have individual aspects to write about).

I can't agree that E-cigarettes are medical products despite your insistence on them being so, they are several things: a leisure product, a tobacco replacement, a hobby, a cessation tool. Only one of these would fall into the medical category (sessation). And not to put too fine a point on it, but e-cigarettes have several meanings: The battery(mod), atomizer, and usage - and only usage could ever fall into the medical category, and only some usages thereof would be. So no - putting them down as medical in nature is simply false. (TLDR section done)

Finally to your primary question: The main reason as i see it to restructure the article is because it will flow better for our readers, and while i acknowledge that much of the media seems more interested in the medical stuff, an e-cigarette is more than just a health issue. Thus using MEDMOS for the whole article (as opposed to the health section(s)) is the wrong take, imho. I can't really see the NPOV issue with either way of having the structure though, that seems more to be perception rather than reality, i have other POV problems as mentioned earlier but structure is not one. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would go with a compromise. I think we all agree that it is not the purpose of this article, or WP in general, to warn people of the dangers of ECs any more than it is to promote the products. I supported the structure change because I think it is more appropriate for a manufactured object.

Regarding the pro/con medical opinion I think we must avoid saying what we do not know. Editors here cannot assess the relative merits of peer reviewed journals or other quality publications. I suggest that we state the generally agreed health position on the subject but word more contentions claims in a way that shows that there is some dispute over them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim, with regard to your comments on WP:WEIGHT in your 2nd paragraph - that section says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Can you please explain how what you wrote in your 2nd paragraph squares with that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: yeah, that might have come out confusing :) What i'm trying to say is that the article as it stands, really is a collection of different topics, and if e-cigarettes keep continuing their expansion then each will probably have a seperate article, ending up with this as a summary article, since they aren't really about the same thing. Within each of these topical areas, weight certainly plays a role. But between these different topical areas, i don't think that weight is supposed to be considered this way, weight is basically an aspect of NPOV and it doesn't scew the neutrality of the article to have more health stuff, or more battery stuff etc. I'm a bit down with a cold, so i'm probably rambling :) Hope you can see my point despite that. --Kim D. Petersen 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry you are sick, kim. in my experience WEIGHT applies to the overall structure of the article, as well as perspectives described within any given section. i do hear you that the article is sprawling, and WP:SPLITs are likely! Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The test of whether MEDMOS should be used is whether using it is beneficial to the article. For example, when I read this discussion I discovered there were the recommendations for headers, so I tried applying some at Acute flaccid myelitis, an article I'd just started and hadn't really figured out an organization for. And what do you know, they actually seemed to work! Except for a few which I didn't really come up with an edit I liked, so so far I haven't done those. That's the way it is with guidelines: you try their advice, and if they help they help. But we still have to write articles ourselves, and when the flow of an article obviously fails -- as with the current jump to health effects here -- it's time to try something else. In part it fails because they're not really medical; in part it fails because, despite being new, electronic cigarettes are very much a historical phenomenon, being controlled much more by community knowledge of tobacco's health problems, economics, regulation, and liability than by medical science of the product itself. There's an exception in MEDMOS for having the history first; I say we use it.

I would like to see us start with the Gilbert idea and a deep explanation (if we can find it) of why it failed. Some tie-ins I'd like to see explored, if sources can be found, would be with the idea that tobacco company regulation of nicotine content was used as a basis for liability (per Brown & Williamson's more modest effort to increase nicotine/tobacco ratio with genetically engineered tobacco) and the risk of regulation of nicotine inhalers as a medical device. Of course there might be simpler economic or technical reasons, I don't know. Then -- what changed in China recently to make this a viable idea? There are some obvious socioeconomic reasons, and of course the degree of tobacco use in China that might play into that, but a little explanation there might help. You have to background, of course, with some discussion of when tobacco health effects were known and how they affected the market, as well as other nicotine delivery methods.

Once the history is laid out, I think then you should move on to cover the varieties of the device that now exist, how they work in more detail (how do they produce "smoke" exactly?).

Then you should cover the health effects, which you've started to introduce in the history - evaluate how they've reduced tobacco mortality; also how they retain nicotine addiction. ~~Hmmm, I ought to search to see if they're used in Parkinson's and whether they have any unique role due to the controllable dosing~~... I think I'm about done with this anyway :) Wnt (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... I should have looked first before saying that! Despite a burst of recent talking head activity, apparently people suspected and tested nicotine for parkinsonism two decades ago. As briefly reviewed in there still is no real progress in actually protecting patients with nicotine, despite some signs of neuroprotective effects and some wacky (who knows maybe true) ideas like PMID 24753353. One reason: as described in PMID 25217056, Parkinson's disease simply makes it easier to quit smoking! Wnt (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649, per my comment above, may I suggest that you withdraw the RfC and start two new ones, along the following lines

1) Per the policy WP:WEIGHT, how much weight should content on health have in this article? Please !vote and provide reasons based on the policy.
2) Should the "Construction" section or the "Health effects" section come first? Please provide reasons based on policies and guidelines and if you are providing a !vote based only on your preference, please state that and provide the best reason you can.

I would be happy to launch the new ones, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Starting a new rfc when the premise is faulty from the beginning is wrong. The Electronic cigarette article is not in a medical category. The talk page has been adopted by a group to keep an eye on it and show interest in it. But the article itself is not subject to any medical guideline other than a health section on any page is subject to WP:MEDRS. Secondly weight goes to the size of information and weather a source is included, it never discusses placement of sections, and should not override the style of articles on similar subjects.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The dispute here is the strict application of MEDMOS on the section ordering, once we either decide on one or the other, things can continue down either track, and figure out how to handle it. As for your 2nd bullet: Policies don't decide what order an article should be in, nor is it general for MOS' to specify that sections should be ordered in a specific way. MEDMOS (and probably other specialized ones do, but they are usually also targetted towards a particular article type)... not something that i've generally come across. Lets cross the bridge of further RfC's once we reach the point where they are needed again, much could be resolved if only the talk-page was used more. --Kim D. Petersen 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim and AlbinoFerret, I disagree somewhat with you. WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". I don't have a official definition for what is meant by "prominence of placement', but to me the most obvious aspects would be "higher or lower in the list of subtopics" and "having or not having its own heading". I think both would be involved. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of things that you cite from WP:DUE. Where i don't agree is that on such a diverse topic as this, where we have several diverse areas of interest such as Mods (which is a HUGE topic), Atomizers (again HUGE topic), Batteries (probably the most controversial aspect at the moment, because of interchange of chargers causing LiIon failures sometimes with hospitalization), and Health (which is also a HUGE topic), that this is what UNDUE is about. I think each section should be allowed to grow to the point where the article can WP:SPLIT and the sub-topic summarized. I have nothing against a large health section, and i can also see your point about prominence, even if i disagree with it (i basically think that readers will read the lead, and then jump to the sections that they are interested in).. but currently the article as an entity flows wrong, i don't know how it should reflow, perhaps with history first or construction? But as it is at the moment it (imho) fails.

From my view (and experience on other articles), i would say that DUE is mostly about similar aspects, and the prominence of placement is mostly within sections/paragraphs/sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Back at you: I'm not sure more is necessarily better. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive textbook. My gut feeling is that the medical section drones on endlessly trying to gaze into the crystal ball and figure out what will be readily apparent 5 years from now, and that the design section is dangerously approaching the appearance of something put out by the Electronic Cigarettes Manufacturing Association. I'm sure you will disagree, just my humble opinion.

I also think that we are to some extend blending the very different concepts of placement, quantity of text, and tone. I suspect that some of the anti-medicalization faction would be less upset with the medical section being on top if it were less negative in tone. I would object less to the design section being on top if it were not so lengthy. Both position and volume of text make implied statements about what is important. Given that the health aspects are still unclear and that this aspect has been the subject of so much attention in the media and journals, this worries me a bit. Its always the non-verbal communication that controls what the audience walks away with. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head for one of my problems with the health section. An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries. What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics. But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus. There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article. Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret please discuss content, not contributors; please focus on what sources say, and please frame arguments with regard to what policies and guidelines say, all per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not name anyone but addresses concerns of mine about the reasoning on guidelines. Ill try and rephrase some of it in the future, but the erroneous viewpoints are part of the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. AlbinoFerret was indeed addressing article content and how it looks to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I also have to agree that AlbinoFerret was raising a valid point that relates to article content. I do think that it is import to maintain WP:AGF. I don't think that it should be off the agenda so to speak to discuss exactly why it is of such enormous importance to some editors that
The health/medical section must appear first

The rest of the sections must be structured according to WP:MEDMOS even though the sections on the WP:MEDMOS page bear very little relevance to the article's subject and its current sections.

Any attempt to split the article from the health section must be vehemently opposed.

WP:MEDRS must be applied even when it isn't needed (such as to describe construction)

All of that stuff affects the article's content profoundly. If we are going to find a way forward, I don't think it is inappropriate to ask why the feeling is so strong about blanket applications of these policies and guidelines across the whole article.Levelledout (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Leveledout, as frustrated as you may be feeling I think its probably better to focus on 1) what we agree on, and 2) exploring differences in a detailed way to see where hidden points of agreement and willingness to compromise might be found.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done a strikethrough on my comments, I admit that I had not read this discussion in its entirety before posting. After doing so I realise that my previous comments probably don't add much to the debate at this particular stage.Levelledout (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks AlbinoFerret. I agree that the article should not be targeted to a medical audience, and disagree with what I think you said or implied, that the article should instead be targeted to users. I think the article should be targeted to the average person, who is neither a medical professional, an anti-tobacco activist, nor a vaper. In this regard, I think the suggestion above from Wnt (I think) that the article should have more history, somewhat less detailed medical speculation, and somewhat less detail on the finer aspects of design might be a good direction to go in. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something that sounds to me like progress towards consensus. I agree that the article should be targeted at the average person, as well as needing more history and less medical speculation. As far as ordering of sections goes, I find these comments from above , , and make a reasoned, balanced, and compelling argument. Finally, I don't think the two new RfC's proposed are likely to provide constructive results at this stage in the discussion, for the reasons presented here and here, but also because this discussion here appears to be already getting pretty close to resolution. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if he will accept the task, but I propose that we ask Jytdog to prepare a WP:BOLD revision of the document (here or in his sandbox) based on the discussion in this section (rather than on his own opinions), followed perhaps by a straight up or down vote on whether to accept it. He got this conversation started, is a non-combatant, and does not seem to be overly tilted toward either side. I'm sure I'll find many aspects of his draft objectionable, but it will probably be better than another 2 weeks or more of acrimony. Anybody have any thoughts on this?Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Answering your previous post, but I dont want it to get missed. No, I did not imply that the article should be specifically targeted at users. But that users are a growing segment of the population that may read the article. I also disagree that the components section is to fine on detail. That section is dealing with 3 different generations of devices in a rapidly expanding and innovating marketplace. Each generation has benefits and problems, mostly benefits over the previous generations. Components is a very much detailed section when dealing with any device. There are even people who are just interested in design of things with no intention of using them. Should the article be targeted to them? No, but Misplaced Pages isnt a paper enclapedia and there is more than enough room for information that is concrete and verifiable. I wouldnt put up speculation on design, or concerns about what may or not be with respect to flaws in hardware, or any place else. Such information is speculative. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess the difficulty then lies in where we can find room for compromise, assuming that is still our goal. I don't know what the detailed concerns are of the other "medicalists", but I suspect they are variations of my own concern that this not become a "look at all this really cool technology" article with a subliminal message that "this is cool and you really ought to try it". Examining my motives, my push for the medical aspects to be highlighted is partly in response to the size and detail of the design section and this fear that the article begins to seem almost promotional.

I'm sure you think that's silly, but that's my concern and it probably won't change just because you tell me I'm wrong.

On the issue of facts vs. speculation, I think that you can take that argument a mile down the road, but it won't get you all the way to Omaha. We prepare for all kinds of things based on speculation, whether it is war, pandemic flu, or economic downturns. In economics we estimate the financial impacts of future problems by multiplying their cost x their probability. I'd not allow my kids to vape nor would I do so myself for the reason that I think the percent risk of bad health outcomes x severity of problem > benefits of vaping. Though neither may be huge, I think arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to which is greater. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "reading between the lines" idea isnt helpful to anyone. I dont think its a good motivation for any edits. No one is a mind reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some amount of speculative material should be there, but there are degrees, speculation on extreme outside chances, is unnecessary... Picking unique speculation from one review, combining that with even more unique speculation from another review etc makes for rather bad material.

But to mention something else that i realized today: Virtually all of the review articles that i've read about e-cigarettes (ie. all WP:MEDRS sources) start with a section on construction, history, usage etc. before they reach the medical review, Grana as a good example (for once :)). It simply flows more naturally, you want to know what the thing is, before you go into what it might effect. Made me realize why it is that i feel that the flow in the article is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I don't think having the med section first is a point that I'm going to fight to the death over. But compromise is compromise. So far all I seem to be hearing is that it would be great to move the medical stuff down, make it less negative, and keep all the stuff that I've expressed concern about 100% intact. Apparently I'm a lousy negotiator. Time to climb back into the trench and load a fresh belt of ammo into the Vickers? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your concerns. But I dont think anyone is glamorizing the hardware but sticking to facts. What someone may think about the hardware descriptions, and perhaps use it, as long as they are an adult, its out of our hands as long as we are not commercializing it. I also think that lowering information to stop an adult from using something is not something that wikipedia should do, but I am unable to pop off a reference off the top of my head. It sounds like censoring to advance a social policy. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ௐ ௐௐ ... ௐ ௐ. ௐ .. ௐ ௐ .. ௐ ..ௐௐ

Rata-tat-tat-tat ▻▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ ௐ ௐ

▻ ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ. ௐ

▻▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ௐ ௐ . ௐ

ௐ ௐ.ௐ .ௐ ௐ.ௐ ௐ ௐ ..ௐ ௐௐ ..ௐ ௐௐௐ.. ௐ

Formerly 98 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: regarding your post above - I find this rather problematic. It seems to me you already have made up your mind regarding e-cigarettes, enough to make what appears to be a quantitative (albeit WP:OR) determination about risks ("bad health outcomes") both in terms of their probability, as well as severity ("of the problem"). Further you suggest you've also quantified the benefits (unspecified) and basically found that e-cigarettes are a problem with bad health outcomes that outweigh any benefits. To advocate this WP:POV you inserted some text in the article citing a press release from AAPCC as the source. I find this goes against at least 2 of the WP:5, many general WP policies, and pretty much everything WP:MED stands for. Mihaister (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Phrasing of the RFC

New version to address concerns:Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Previous versions
Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or a consumer product like all other types of cigarettes? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
~~Should a consumer product, in which the article itself is not in the medical category, follow the page order for a medical device~~ AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is completely inappropriate as the original wording neutrally asks the question as to what type of article is it without prejudicial language. You wouldn't like it if I added an alternative phrasing of "should a drug delivery device used to administer a pharmacologically active substance follow the section order for a medical device", but your own rephrasing is equally prejudicial. I'd urge you to revert this edit, after which I will revert this one. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
But by that criteria a beer glass is also a medical device! E-cigarettes aren't medical devices. They don't treat any medical condition. They are not prescribed by doctors. They are sold & used as consumer products, & that's what producers, distributors & users insist they are.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
CheesyAppleFlake, this is not true. A "prescription" is whatever your doctor tells you to do. It is not limited to writing a pharmaceutical prescription that you take to a pharmacist to get a regulated drug. Doctors "prescribe" diets and exercise. I know of one who "prescribed" whiskey sours as a muscle relaxant. If your doctor tells you to switch to e-cigs (e.g., for harm reduction), then e-cigs have been prescribed to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:I think that this is dependent on where in the world you come from. Here in Denmark, a Doctor can't prescribe anything that isn't a government approved medication. He can advice you to take a non-medical product, but not prescribe it to you. --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that every Danish doctor that has ever written orders for a stroke patient to be given a low-sodium meal in hospital—and that's probably all of them, given the way medical training works—will disagree with you. The dictionary isn't too hard to understand on this point. If a physician or surgeon orders anything for the purpose of addressing a health condition, then he's "prescribing" it. I doubt that the Danish government is going around "approving" low-sodium foods and calling them "medications". If you want to continue this claim, then I suggest that you back up your claim with reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
See BEK nr 1671 af 12/12/2013 §1 of "Bekendtgørelse for recepter" (law regarding ordination/prescription") --Kim D. Petersen 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As an example can be given the legality/non-legality of prescribing excersise, which has only within the last 10 years been a possibility, and has been tried in test-runs, so No. Doctors can't simply decide on their own what they want to prescribe in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A parallel situation has to do with medical cannabis in the U.S. The federal government prohibits the physician from "prescribing" marijuana; so they make an "oral recommendation" per free speech, and by extension a "written recommendation" which may end up being required for a special state (not federal) ID license card for marijuana, then there's a crackdown on doctors writing recommendations without seeing patients or meeting various other standards... no doubt a third term will eventually be invented. You might say the English language is always the first casualty of law. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The original wording suggests its a medical device by asking if its medical in nature, not if its medical or consumer, that shows a bias. The original wording also points out the creators own suggested outcome. Another problem is that the creator only placed the question about medical classification in the medical category when its a consumer device and medical editors are not the only consumers. Its a subtle form of canvasing WP:CANVAS called votebanking, asking medical editors if they should keep the article in the medical category. Its like asking mice if they want to keep cheese. This whole rfc is flawed. If the original statement stands then the rephrasing stands imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
~~The original RfC was neutrally worded and has got a good response. This is an attempt to reword it in a non-neutral way. Let it run. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)~~
Just a note that AlbinoFerret posted the alternate wording to the village pump; I came here because I thought it weird that an RfC would have "alternate phrasing". Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe the original wording is biased because it only mentions one option and does not correctly summarize the issue. I have edited the alternate phrasing slightly to only ask the question of its formatting. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, the advice given at WP:RFC is that if you are unhappy with the wording then you should ask the originator to rephrase it. But be aware that although the original was slightly suggestive (perhaps inadvertently), sticking "like all other types of cigarettes" in there is mixing question with answer. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure that there is any "page order for consumer products", I think this probably falls under the general WP:MOS. So the best you could hope for might be "Should the e-cigarette article follow general Misplaced Pages page order guidelines or the medical guidelines?"Levelledout (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I will adjust it a little more to address your concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

~~AIHA white paper~~
Material sourced to this dubious publication, which I removed, has been reverted into the article. First of all, this is not peer reviewed, or PubMed indexed; also not a reliable MEDRS. The sheer number of spelling and grammar errors in that text should give any unbiased editor pause. Mihaister (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"Per MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."
The American Industrial Hygiene Association is an expert body recognized as an authority on occupational exposures by
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The EPA

OSHA

The Department of Energy, and

The U.S. Navy
~~Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)~~
Please, not this argument again. Are you honestly equating the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Sciences or WHO (as "prominence" is exemplified at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations)? Mihaister (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Read the comment again please. This citation is MEDRS compliant if it is an official statement of a nationally recognized expert body. I have demonstrated that. I said nothing about the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Science, nor do I need to to show that this is a MEDRS compliant citation. Please don't put words in my mouth to set up straw man arguments. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

~~Another primary used~~
~~Another edit today placed a source that the editor noted in comments it was not a MEDRS and the reference itself says its preliminary. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)~~
That's not a primary source, it's a press release; but, apparently citing press releases as reliable sources is OK when they promote a certain POV... Mihaister (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please point out any primary or press releases in the medical section, I may have missed one. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to correct the record, this material was not "placed" today, it was replaced after it was removed by an editor who stated that "it failed MEDRS". MEDRS states that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The material was restored with the explanation that a phone call count does not constitute biomedical information and thus the source did not need to be MEDRS compliant.
How we got from this set of facts to the description above escapes me. Nor how this episode came to be described as "the source itself described the result as preliminary" without the important detail that the text added to Misplaced Pages also noted that it was preliminary. Does every difference of opinion need to be described in such a partisan manner to tell only half the story and make insinuations about those you disagree with? This is not helpful in any way.
I removed the text from the article, not because MEDRS covers the act of counting phone calls, but because it was largely redundant with other material in the same paragraph. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The only removals in the recent past that I can find that come close is mine But the citations were to news sites. Those are defiantly not MEDRS. Since the editor who placed them there only had one edit, the one I removed in part, I also placed a section on the talk page in case they had questions. This is not an attempt to censor information. The reason I said placed is that the edit you did had a different set of numbers and used a different citation. I did not remove the edit, but came here to discuss it, because the editor, you, has more experience. If discussion is a problem...... AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant to remove it but apparently screwed up. Its gone now.2605:E000:1C0C:80F7:5DD:E900:F922:9F25 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By far the most repellent thing about the "medical" approach to the article is the use of MEDRS to oppose sources. When someone writes that "More than 2,700 people have called poison control this year to report an exposure to liquid nicotine, over half of those cases in children younger than 6, according to national statistics. ", that's news. That's something that happened. We don't need a cabal of doctors to wave their magic prescription wands over something like that to make it real. That said, one should not give something the tone of established medical fact based on a news report, i.e. "In severe cases, a child may experience increased heart rate, high blood pressure, coma and ultimately death if too much is ingested." But of the two, the removal bothers me much more than the lack of caveat on the other data. You shouldn't need MEDRS every time you write that some chemical is poisonous; it's just how you do it. Wnt (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the misuse of WP:MEDRS as a weapon... but then that is a two-sided issue. But this particular item is simply silly. Of course there has been a rise in calls to poison control, since there has been a rise in usage. It is a statistical inevitable thing.. If you have a rise in usage of bleach, then by statistical necessity you'd have a rise in calls to poison centers about bleach. There is no perspective/context on this "news", there are no caveats etc. Basically it has no information value, only POV value. --Kim D. Petersen 11:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand: This is in fact where the requirement for WP:MEDRS secondary source (imho) has value - it ensures that we use sources/references that put such information in context and perspective. --Kim D. Petersen 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd expect an article about marijuana legalization might include data about how many poison control center calls and emergency room visits were made after kids got into edible cannabis. Such impacts are often cited as an overall measure of costs, without making a medical claim about them (since after all it really isn't all that dangerous) The same rationale applies here. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd only expect such material to be there iff there is actually a perspective on the "overall measure of cost". Without a perspective or context it is simply WP:RECENTISM. While such information may be interesting politically, or news-cycle wise, it doesn't have much merit seen from an encyclopedic perspective. --Kim D. Petersen 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Categories: