Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlbinoFerret 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the order you are suggesting is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

The link posted by Mihaister clearly compares a reputable major scientific and medical body to those with similar stature to NIH, US National Academy, NIH et cetera. The AIHA is a run of the mll non-profit/trade association and not a nationally recognized expert body. This edit should be removed. Doors22 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly98. If other high quality sources find the AIHA guidelines useful, I think a one sentence addition is warranted. Yobol (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doors22 is a WP:SPA account that is upset with edits, made by myself and supported by two other editors, to the Finasteride article. Doors, please review WP:HOUND, you don't want to go down this road. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case, then that is an issue for WP:ANI - not one writing about here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this one incredibly amusing. Had this been information from ASH UK, a british health organization working closely with the UK gov. on tobacco issues, then it would have soundly been removed, as has such information in the past. Standards are great to have, so double standards must be doubly good. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be more useful to move this discussion forward to discuss the specific source presented rather than a hypothetical source no one has mentioned. It appears the AIHA guidelines is viewed as reliable by multiple government agencies, so I'm at a lost as to why we should not view them as reliable as well. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's wonderful Kim. There's nothing in life that gives me more pleasure than biased editing, selective application of sourcing standards, and deliberately producing NNPOV articles. And like so many others, I judge the success of my diabolical efforts to mislead and distort by the extent to which the articles I edit diverge from your own excruciating neutral and unbiased viewpoint. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside (which was amusing): I was talking about the fact that consensus so far on this article has been: Only WP:MEDRS secondary sources, preferrably reviews. In the odd case out, important organizations such as the FDA, WHO and CDC could be cited, but primarily for position statements or official reports. But this appears now to have changed. Or has it? I will with amusement watch when a harm reduction statement from an organization is proposed :) --Kim D. Petersen 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As a good example of why i'm commenting on double standards read this discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of non-peer reviewed white papers in a WP:PRIMARY aspect is not helping the situation. When you strongly argue MEDMOS and then include sources which do not comply, yet work towards your POV it becomes difficult to reach a compromise. I suggest you self revert. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Position statements by recognized organizations (as appears to be the case here, where AIHA guidelines are used by multiple different governmental agencies) can be used per MEDRS. Note that this paper is not a primary source as you appear to be suggesting, but a secondary source. (Primary sources would, for example, be the paper that first analyzed the content of the e-cigarette aerosol; this white paper is referencing those type of studies, so is a secondary source). Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would also be OK with attributing the statement directly to the AIHA: instead of Industrial hygiene and indoor air quality reviews have found... use The AIHA states that..., as long as the use of the Offermann source is refactored appropriately. Zad68 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree direct intext attribution to the AIHA would be more appropriate in this case. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the attribution of AIHA as disucssed here and as now in the article. Refactoring Offermann does not mean removing it. Please stop doing so, unless and until there is consensus for its removal. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of consensus (McNeill)

The source that was not a review was added against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for leaving it out; mostly it's just you.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I envite you to look at the section discussing its inclusion after the final printing, which has happened, It was said to be used with who said it. There is even a link included in the comments for the edit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus to include, so reverted, feel free to have an outside closer review that discussion if you'd like. Zad68 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also no clear consensus to not include, and it seems more relevant than some other sources that have been forced in.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's no clear consensus to do something that's been challenged, it isn't done. We as the participants involved in that discussion can't be the ones to close it. Again, feel free to ask at a neutral notice board for an outside experienced editor to review that discussion and determine if there was consensus to include. `Zad68 20:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any clear consensus to include Offermann either, so why is that still in the article? There's also no consensus for the ordering of sections, the scare-bloated lede or the ridiculous prominence given to the Grana paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, don't you see, CheesyAppleFlake? A paper written by a mechanical engineer and published in a ventilation journal is "clearly" more relevant to health issues than a paper written by well-known public health experts and medical professionals published in the Journal Addiction. That's where you get with carefully-arbitrary application of WP policy and guidelines in support of a widely held, albeit prejudiced and unsubstantiated belief. Of course articles that present evidence exposing the misinterpretations forming the basis of this propaganda cannot be allowed, no matter how reliable, because they detract from The Truth. Mihaister (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NPOV demands that we give weight to notable critique, and a peer-reviewed such in a well respected journal within the topic of the articles scope - is very much notable critique. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just crazy to be allowing articles by a glorified plumber but excluding Addiction.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the critique is by authors of many of the papers cited in the report, so the authors have WP:WEIGHT as well. Things do not go away just because someone says "but..... WHO!". Extra thing to add, this isn't even an official report of the WHO that we are talking about. It is an informal report made to the attendents of the COP... and such would normally be classified under conference papers, which wouldn't get very much weight, but here we classify everything that the WHO touches as if it was position statements. --Kim D. Petersen 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We've seen this before with the Euro TPD, when the authors of the science the EU used complained their work had been distorted for political reasons. The WHO is significant but not above being challenged, and it's worrying that it's become holy writ here. As for the COP, who knows what was actually discussed there? It was behind closed doors and apparently some delegates were physically prevented from speaking.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why User:Alexbrn hasn't defended hir revert here. That should have been the next step in dispute resolution? Or was that just a drive-by revert? --Kim D. Petersen 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) It gets especially curious considering that User:Alexbrn's last objection to the inclusion of this material now has been met. It is published in the finalized version, no more typesetting problems. --Kim D. Petersen 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be time to take this to mediation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Kim. These authors felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence . Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). These are not HVAC engineers, they are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics.

Since much of the current article is build on these misrepresentations of the evidence by Grana, many of which are addressed by the McNeill article, the only way to restore NPOV is to qualify all statements attributed to Grana with the corresponding critique and interpretation from McNeill et al. This is not a MEDRS issue, rather plain old common sense. Mihaister (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request for dispute resolution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus Mihaister (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

McNeill DRN discussion resolved, no consensus to include

Dropping a note here, we concluded the DRN discussion regarding McNeill and it was resolved successfully with No consensus to include McNeill. Thanks to those who participated. Zad68 13:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the note, Zad68. I'd like to point out that the DRN resolution does not mean there was consensus to exclude McNeill. Also, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is build on the principle that consensus can change. This is particularly relevant and appropriate for an actively researched topic such as e-cigarettes. Again, thanks to all who participated in the DR discussion. Mihaister (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Failed verification and MEDRS violation

"A 2014 review found electronic systems appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period." This statement is sourced to the wrong reference. It was fixed but another editor initially restored an older version for no apparent reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it, as you could have. Changing to another source that has the same conclusions inst that big a deal. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The other source failed verification and if it was not a big deal then why did you cut and paste the older version. Is it because you made other changes too. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont remember why.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a MEDRS compliant source for no logical reason. Do you disagree with the source. Do you remember now? You also restored a dated source from 2009. We have more recent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A MEDRS compliant review was not a study

The edit summary claims it was an older study. On the contrary, the source is a recent review and is MEDRS compliant. Was this an accident or what? Pubmed says the source is from 2014 not 2013. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The study was submitted and accepted in 2013, its a 2013 study. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed says it is a 2014 review (PMID 24575993). See: Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014 Feb;11(2):236-42. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201311-391FR. Review. QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a 2013 study. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

From the journal article itself.

• Accepted December 20, 2013
• Received November 11, 2013

It may have been finally published in an analog format in 2014, but the study was done, submitted, and accepted in 2013. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible duplicate statement and do all three refs verify the claim

User:Yobol removed this text. At the time it was duplication. Do all there refs verify the claim and is the statement still duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is only one use of the text in the article, by the way thanks for pointing out that duplication is a problem. Safety or Aerosol will be getting much smaller soon. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The text may not pass V and you have not pointed out what you think is duplication. Different sources make different claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also wondering why we have to have a separate section for exposure to the vapor (Aerosol), because its the same vapor being discussed in Safety and all that is discussed in Aerosol are safety concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a subsection with a definition and inhaled and exhaled emissions. Why was the subsection moved to the wrong place. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

All of Safety is inhaled emissions. If its a subsection any duplicate claims should be combined with those the main section. We should not even have duplication of topics in subsections. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The safety section is toxicology and the aerosol section is second-hand aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Then all toxicology and all claims of first hand use, and all sources discussing the claims as first hand use should be removed from Aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Inhaled emissions is different than exhaled emissions. All sources of first hand use should not be removed from the article. What text do you think could be merged into safety. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to have to go through each reference and make sure the context speaks of second hand emissions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You botched your last change of moving another section with restoring the old text and then deleting sourced text that was not redundant. Maybe you should discuss before moving the text. I get the impression you want to delete some text rather than moving the text. So far I didn't notice any problem with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

One mistake is not "botched" Quack. The other one one was for reasons already discussed, and was not a mistake. Ill think about your suggestions. You dont notice any problems with your edits, but mistakes abound. 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yobol, does this text passed V with all three refs? Is the text still redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this change. There was a problem with the text and now it is fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The broad claim is redundant and original research

The following text is redundant and is summarised in the next paragraph. "with one review concluding the effects of e-cigarette vapor to users and bystanders are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes." The broad claim is also original research. See Electronic cigarette#Aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, possibly OR, since the source actually says "trivial" not "minimal". I support use of the word "trivial" here to more accurately reflect the source. Mihaister (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand you added redundant text and when it is redundant it should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes when paraphrasing additional words have to be used because the exact words would lead to copyright violations. I agree with Mihaister, trivial is a lot better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff you linked is old. That version of the text is long gone, and currently I don't find this statement redundant. However, I agree a lot of redundancy has been created with statements from Grana. The article is in major need of cleanup with most of the 50+ refs to Grana compiled and summarized to remove duplicated and redundant claims. Mihaister (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs cleanup. It reads like a lot of claims written on slips of paper and tossed in a bag, then pulled out and typed in that order. Its a disaster for the reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't find this statement redundant but the same source is used in the next paragraph with practically the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the statements from Grana. We discussed this before. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was discussed before because Grana, a very controversial paper that's attracted a lot of criticism (including from the people whose work it is based on) is cited a ridiculous number of times in this article. We need to seriously look at why this outlier is given such an undue amount of weight.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Aerosol section is a subsection of the Safety section

The Electronic cigarette#Aerosol section should be right after the Electronic cigarette#Safety section. Someone messed up the section orders. Was this an accident or intentional? Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like an ownership issue, QG. Please rephrase you query in a more neutral manner. Mihaister (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree its sounding like an ownership issue, as do most of the issues in this little "problems" section. AlbinoFerret 17:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO report has not undergone independent peer review, and therefore should not be given more prominence than WP:MEDRSs

The bot sent me to the RFC, about which I have not yet formed an opinion. However, http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf has not undergone independent peer review. Even though its organizational author is very prestigious, that is absolutely no substitute for the independent peer review which WP:MEDRS requires. Therefore I insist that the WHO report be given less prominence than the bona fide MEDRS sources of which there are several. EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: why in did you delete the material I added? EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statements by medical organizations like the WHO absolutely meet MEDRS. Please read MEDRS more carefully. Yobol (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So you wish to add "Frontiers in Public Health" with an Impact Factor of 0 (zero)? The WHO produces position statements of an internationally recognized organization and thus are WP:MEDRS. MEDRS does not require peer review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The source was already in the article, in five different places. How is it even mathematically possible for a medline-indexed publication to have an impact factor of zero? Where in WP:MEDRS does it say that unreviewed reports qualify? EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people citing MEDRS read it all the way through. Yobol (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It says right at the top "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Do you have a different impact factor for this journal? Just because it was there before does not mean we should give it more prominence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Scholar has 20 citations for the article and PubMed has four. The author has been a full professor of physiology at Lincoln Memorial University for six years. The WHO report is an unsigned, unreviewed conference paper. Do you have any substantive reasons that anyone should consider the WHO report more authoritative? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything WHO publishes undergoes an extensive review.

This journal was started in Mar of 2013 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the claim that everything WHO publishes undergoes extensive review? They publish their conference proceedings without any more review than any other conference proceedings. Perhaps Professor Merrick, the editorial chair of the new journal, would be willing to explain to you that you should not rely on impact factors calculated once per year for new journals. Again, do you have any substantive reasons that anyone should consider the WHO report more authoritative? EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an official report by the WHO. I am perplexed why we are even having this discussion, it clearly meets MEDRS, "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals..." Yobol (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a conference report from a WHO conference. What evidence is there to believe that it has ever been reviewed any more than any other conference proceedings? EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: It is not "an official report by the WHO". Not by any means. Official reports have ISBN numbers and are printed, and are not disguising as conference material. It is an informal comissioned report made as material for a conference. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We have this review article published Nov 2014 from a journal with an impact factor of 2.9 that states "There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation; however, there may be a place in therapy to help modify smoking habits or reduce the number of cigarettes smoked" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to delete the inconclusive review, I am merely trying to include the review which reached definitive conclusions. Deja vu from the fracking discussion a month ago! EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments 2

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

Should the material deleted at be restored with more prominence than the WHO report and other WP:MEDRS sources which do not reach definitive conclusions about efficacy for smoking cessation? EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article being discussed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You want to use a paper from a journal with an impact factor of zero / 0 as being more authoritative than the World Health Organization? This journal is not a "reputable medical journal" and thus this source fails WP:MEDRS. It has only existed for little over a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says nothing about journal impact factor, which is "zero" in this case because the journal is new. But it is already indexed in Medline -- the only measure of journal reputability which WP:MEDRS does establish -- just like all of the publisher's several other medical journals. The journal's editor has been a university and hospital-affiliated full professor for decades, with over 2000 publications. WP:MEDRS does say that peer-reviewed literature reviews must be well-cited to qualify, and the article in question already has about 20 citations. The review's author has been a full university professor of physiology for six years. No reasons to doubt the statement in question, that e-cigarettes have been more effective for smoking cessation than any other FDA-approved method, have been suggested or even implied. The fact that other MEDRS reviews do not reach definitive conclusions (probably because they surveyed fewer primary research reports) does not comprise a valid reason to censor the conclusive results of a bona fide, well-cited MEDRS review. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No doubt this will break down completely along party lines like every previous discussion about this article, but seriously, a review in a zero impact journal by an author who has only published 7 Pubmed cited articles over the last 25 years, and none of these on the subjects of smoking cessation, nicotine dependence, or addiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What "party lines"? I see no previous specific discussion of the Palazzolo (2013) review at all. Is there any reason to doubt the review's conclusion that e-cigarettes have been at least as effective for smoking cessation than any other FDA-approved method? Please remember to sign your posts. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - We should give prominence to reviews which reach definitive conclusions over those which do not, but we should include both categories. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - While the WHO is a respected source it isn't gold-plated or beyond criticism. Their approach to THR and e-cigs has attracted plenty of criticism and this should be recognized. We should also take account of sources which actually find conclusions, rather than blindly insisting there isn't any evidence. There is.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The author's prior publications are on the subjects of arsenic and interleukin-1 effects on the hypothalamus, the effects of interleukin-1 or a synthetic organic chemical on the thyroid, plasma thyroxine levels in aging dogs exposed to cold, and the circadian rhythmn of cortisol levels in old dogs. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So what? Professor Glantz is a mechanical engineer. That doesn't stop a paper written by his team being cited 40-plus times in the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that specialists with a history of publication on a given topic are likely to be more accurate than generalist professors of physiology has no basis in fact. Specialists fall victim to their own prejudicial biases often enough that the accuracy of primary peer reviewed sources is often not much better than chance.

Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS in this article. We already had an WP:RFC on this, above on this very talk page. This seems like WP:DEADHORSE at this point, we really should stick to the most reliable sources on this medical article. The journal in question appears to be quite new and not yet established. — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't require that a journal be established in any way other than being indexed in medline. It requires that reviews be well-cited, as the review in question certainly is after less than a year. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the 2014 WHO report is more recent and more authoritative and so is stronger under the letter and spirit of MEDRS. In addition and perhaps more importantly, the source does not support the proposed content The edit says "E-cigarettes are at least as effective as all other FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy methods for smoking cessation" and the strongest statement in the palazzo source is "There is evidence supporting e-cigarettes as an aide for smoking cessation, at least as successful as currently available FDA-approved NRTs. More rigorous research is essential before any solid conclusions can be drawn about the dangers, or usefulness of e-cigarettes." which is a far weaker statement than the edit, and is actually in line with what the WHO says. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The 2014 WHO report is not an official report, it is basically Grey literature. It is an FTCT commissioned conference report for COP delegates, which hasn't been published - so claiming that it is "authoritative" runs contrary to WP:MEDASSESS. And please see WP:SHOUT. --Kim D. Petersen 13:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please address the argument on substance, that the proposed text does not accurately reflect the source. I will address your evaluation per "gray literature" elsewhere" Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:MEDRS placed peer reviewed journal articles above Scientific Organizations. What is being said by the WHO is basically they are not sure. Why do statements of unsure trump research that has conclusions? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

per my note above, the Palazzo source does not make a definitive statement. I quoted it, for pete's sake. please directly address that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If this article is not at the top, the Who statement should go to another spot, replaced by facts we know. AlbinoFerret (talk)

please don't shift ground; please address the topic. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That isnt shifting ground, but the point of the question, should the uncertain WHO statement be there or a journal article with facts. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please address the point that the edit you have supported was not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you need a quarter to call someone who cares what you think about my opinions, bother someone else. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose generally, I think it should be included but not given as much weight as the WHO, given that Frontiers in Public Health once published an article supporting AIDS denialism. Jinkinson talk to me 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson:This actually is a very good argument for not prominently using the Palazzolo paper (the journal does seem to have serious troubles). But could you comment on the usage of the Grey literature WHO conference report as prominently as we do, where some editors, and current usage, consider it as being more authoritative as full-blown peer-reviewed reviews in medical journals? --Kim D. Petersen 15:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support with caveat The current WHO conference report must not be used as the equivalent of a fullblown WP:MEDRS secondary review article. Thus the unofficial/informal conference report must be cited less prominently than a real review. But i'm not convinced that the proposed statements that are derived from the Palazzolo source can be used this way, or even be supported this way, when considering the WP:WEIGHT of the literature. --Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  To quote WP:MEDRS (underlining mine): The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.

  Explanation: The report isn't a "formal scientific report" but instead a comissioned conference report, thus it cannot be the equal of a review. It may be peer-reviewed - but we have no knowledge thereof, it is not published etc. And to put the cherry on top... it has been criticized in the formal peer-reviewed system as being overly alarmist in its language. --Kim D. Petersen 15:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Considering Jinkinson's comment above, it definitively shouldn't be Palazzolo that we put weight upon, so my caveat stands :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jytdog: the source does not support the proposed content. The reference says only that e-cigarettes could be as effective as current methods but more research is needed, while the proposed content says that e-cigarettes are as effective. This reference and the WHO article are basically saying the same thing about e-cigarette's use as a smoking cessation tool: they might work in this capacity but more research is needed.

Regarding the relative quality of these two sources, neither is particularly good. The Palazzolo source is in a new journal whose overall article quality is unknown and the WHO source is just a guideline for discussion at the next conference; the statements in it haven't been evaluated or finalized. That these sources aren't perfect doesn't mean that they should necessarily be excluded, of course. The lack of published research in this field means that there are no perfect sources. Since use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is a topic that should be addressed, we're going to have to make use of these imperfect sources, WP:MEDRS or no.

Regarding WP:MEDRS: while it should be followed when writing about health-related statements, this article as a whole isn't about health: it's about a device that can possibly be used for medical reasons (ie smoking cessation) and whose use may have health impacts. That this device has health-related aspects shouldn't mean that the whole article is a medical one. Moreover, impact factor isn't one of the criteria for determining a suitable source per the guideline so it shouldn't have a place in this discussion. Ca2james (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose> With regards to the Frontiers source, it is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a red flag per MEDRS. The additional evidence by Jinkinson that it has published dubious papers in the past (thus failing to have a reputation of fact checking per WP:V) and the lack of MEDLINE indexing suggests to me we should not be using this source, at all, and remove it as a source from the article, and remove text which currently cites it if we cannot find a MEDRS compliant source to supports those statements. With regards to the WHO source, it is of course a "formal scientific report" - it was a report commissioned by, and published by, the WHO to help WHO policymakers make decision regarding WHO positions for e-cigarettes. Above commentary that tries to label it "unofficial" or "informal" is remarkably unconvincing after reading the background and report (which appears to have been adopted by the WHO, though detials aren't clear about exactly what was adopted). Finally, the suggestion that we use a source just because it comes to a "definitive" conclusion is completely wrong-headed in my opinion. Some things in science have little evidence with which to make a definitive conclusion (which IMO is exactly the case with e-cigarettes); coming to a definitive conclusion when there is not enough evidence to make such a conclusion suggests the source is a poor one, not a better one. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  I can't say that i'm much in disagreement with what you are writing. Except for your comments on the WHO comissioned conference report. Formal reports are publicized for a broad audience and printed. Simple checks would tell you that this isn't the case for this report. Its audience is limited to the FTCT delegates, and it doesn't have an ISBN number, nor is it put out on the regular FTCT website as other than supporting material (Provisional agenda item 4.4.2) for the COP. And we're not even citing the final version, which is this one --Kim D. Petersen 16:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Drawing on years of experience reading the medical literature, I can say that this clearly meets MEDRS criteria. The target audience (in this case, for WHO policymakers) frankly, has no bearing on the validity of whether it is authoritative or reliable. I have never, ever seen the lack of ISBN being an indicator of unreliability. The criteria you are using to determine if this is reliable or not is completely foreign to me, as someone who, again, has read the medical literature for years. Yobol (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: i do not recall having ever said that it wasn't a reliable source. What i was commenting upon was the assessment of the source with regards to weight. I think that you are confusing things here. A source such as this is reliable, but as a source it doesn't rank as high as secondary review articles in peer-reviewed journals. When talking about whether or not a source is authoritative that is what people are talking about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Same comments apply as to whether it is authoritative or not. This is clearly a formal report of the current state of the scientific literature produced and published by one of the highest quality medical organizations in the world. I have never, ever seen the lack or presence of ISBN number as a role in whether something is authoritative. Again, we seem to be using very different criteria, ones that I have never used in my years of experience reading the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's a briefing document commissioned from a single source and presented to a conference which took place under very questionable circumstances. It ignores most of the current state of the scientific literature.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a scientific report published and produced by the WHO for WHO policymakers. All attempts to downplay these simple facts I think reflect more on those who appear to dislike the conclusions of this report than they do on the report itself. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! So a "provisional agenda item" translates into authoritative and on the same level as pure WP:MEDRS reviews? Impressive. What other kinds of Grey literature do you believe is authoritative? And yep.... It really does tell us something about those who want to "puff it up" as authoritative. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an item on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, as it is the official science report prepared for discussion there. Sigh, indeed. Yobol (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope, "formal" means something in this context. This is a formal agenda item, but not a formal report by the WHO for general consumation. The lack of an ISBN number, as well as the lack of the normal WHO preface material, not to mention that it says that it is a "Provisional agenda item" on the WHO website - tells you that it isn't a formal report. I'm surprised that you'd argue otherwise - especially considering your claim about years of experience here. --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The "it doesn't have an ISBN number" is such a red herring. If we're paying strict attention to what WP:MEDRS says, as previous arguments did, note that WP:MEDRS makes no comment regarding the presence of an ISBN number in determining source quality. Zad68 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it is a quite valid point. WHO reports are published, and they have an ISBN number, but conference papers and briefing documents do not, because they aren't supposed to be presented to an outside population. As for your MEDRS comment: MEDRS does talk about how to assess sources, and how official documents from respected organizations can be as valuable as reviews, but they also note that not all documents from such are at that level. And this one isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get the idea that any report published by the WHO without an ISBN number is not authoritative? What source says that? Yobol (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a report. It was just a discussion item for a conference, and not even a discussion that led to a vote on policy.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about this document, which has in big bold letters in the front page "Report by WHO", and which is described on this WHO page as the "Report on e-cigarettes to WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control"? You mean that's "not a report"? Really? Good Lord. Yobol (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So basically, what the MED editors are arguing here is the WHO has the absolute and final word on any medical topic and that, as such, their opinion is beyond contestation, no matter the amount of evidence that can be presented, because.... well because they will deny the presentation of any evidence that goes against the word of WHO. Remember when people thought the world was flat because the Church said so and the word of the Church was beyond contestation?

The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence and hide behind a WHO document with unclear status does not make it go away. Many of the peer-reviewed secondary sources have conclusions that either directly contradict the WHO/Grana position or are far less specious or negative. Here are some, just in case you missed them: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011). Mihaister (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How does this rant have any bearing on the previous discussion taking place? Yobol (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: this is an example of a formal report from the WHO. It has a front-page, ISBN number, NLM classification, preface, etc. Now compare it to the Provisional agenda item that you are calling a formal report. Can you spot the differences? I find it extremely disappointing that MED editors will get hypnotized by the words WHO and then turn of their brains. --Kim D. Petersen 14:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have a source that says reports without a ISBN number is not authoritative? This is a criteria you personally made up? Yobol (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't need it. But you on the other hand need to be able to demonstrate that this is a "formal scientific report", something that you are severely lacking in doing. You apparently see WHO+report and believe that this immediately translates into material as good as reviews. That is not what WP:MEDRS says. --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to see how this objection has any merit. This from the WHO links directly to the Report, in English and 5 other languages, under the subheading Report on e-cigarettes to WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The Report clearly passes the bar of being influential in forming the position of one of the world's most important and authoritative health organizations. Zad68 15:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature"

Please note that this describes a range of documents from medical organizations.. with "formal scientific reports" being the most reliable, which have the potentiality of being as reliable as the best reviews. This particular "report" doesn't fall into the "formal scientific report" category, not even by your own assertions. It is a provisial document presented to policy makers, as a debate item to inform policy. It is not a scientific report, but a political document. And i frankly am baffled that anyone here would even contest that. --Kim D. Petersen 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear your answer on where you got the idea that the presence or lack of ISBN has any bearing whatsoever to the authoritativeness of a WHO document. I have asked this question several times now, and would appreciate a direct answer. It is an official scientific report presented for consideration to inform policymakers. Scientific documents that are taken into consideration by policymakers do not magically transform into "political documents" by merely having medical policymakers looking at them. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Because formal scientific reports get published. And publishing means that there are bureaucratic things that follow... such as getting an ISBN. This is about as basic as anything. --Kim D. Petersen 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion that this is true, but I am still waiting to see any objective source that says the presence of an ISBN number makes a WHO more authoritative than one that does not. Certainly something "as basic as anything" can easily be sourced and brought forward to confirm your opinion. Yobol (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try not to reverse the burden of evidence. If you need a source to be used as authoritative, then you need to demonstrate that it is such. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned this is Grey literature from the WHO. And unless you can demonstrate that it is a "formal scientific report", then it is not and cannot even be considered per WP:MEDRS as being as valuable and equal to reviews. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, all you have to back up this assertion about ISBN and the authoritativeness of WHO reports is your own personal opinion? Unfortunately, as expected. Yobol (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read back. I've presented you with an example of a real formal report by the WHO as comparison material. As for why published materials have ISBN's? Aren't you supposed to know that? Haven't you had any experience with printed literature? (see ISBN). --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Except you have provided no source to say that those WHO documents with ISBN numbers are more authoritative than those without. Absent said sources, we are going in circles, and I have better use of my time than to try to argue against your opinion that is not backed with any valid source. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, Kim, what do you think "Provisional Agenda Item" means? Are you using that phrase to undermine the credibility of the report or suggest that the UN WHO's treatment of topic is in any way not substantial? If so let's close that door right now: See here, an item is "Provisional" if it's possible that not all the prerequisites would be in place; if all the prerequisites are in place, the item goes on the agenda, and that's what happened in this case. There is nothing "provisional" about the Report. Zad68 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling it that, because that is what the FTCT is classifying it as. Formal reports are given NLM classifications and are published (with ISBN) for consumation by everyone. I find it hard to understand that you'd classify it as being equal or above

"the best reviews published in medical journals" that we have. Forget the Palazzolo paper, which i agree is not particularly reliable (as i've written above several times), but this document does not have the "equal bang" as a review - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody has to win! Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this RFC seems to give people a choice between giving the source "more prominence" or deleting it altogether. I don't like either of those things. A properly written Misplaced Pages article should be like a big sack where you can throw in any new source that is even moderately informative. Organizing it is fairly important; deciding "who is right", not at all. Contradictory statements, when both are sourced, are excellent. It isn't our job to decide who is right. We should be channeling Pliny here, not Celsus -- we're not trying to make an expedient field guide, but a comprehensive informational resource. So my main vote here is cool it - quit deleting respectable looking sources. If a source isn't MEDRS, just don't use it for a confident medical statement. (A statement that such-and-such org came out with this opinion, on the other hand, is OK) That goes for everyone, no matter what "side" they're on. (I have yet to understand this as a binary issue) Wnt (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly some do think of it as a binary issue. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Wnt. This RfC sets up an untenable dichotomy, and I don't find either option reasonable. As an encyclopedia, this article should present all the information found in reliable sources and we, as editors, should probably approach the task with a more detached attitude. Mihaister (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jytdog, the source statement is far weaker than the proposed edit. Also, one study cannot over turn the WHO report, per WP:MEDRS. Darx9url (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Cloudjpk (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose zero impact journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for the following reasons:

1. Per Jytdog, the proposed claim in Misplaced Pages does not reflect the source cited.
2. Even if the claim did reflect the source, this journal does not meet WP:MEDRS and cannot make a medical claim. This kind of source is fine for nonmedical claims, but there is consensus on Misplaced Pages that non-medical claims cannot be made without sources of a certain quality, and this journal does not meet that standard. It fails the standard because it is new, has 0 impact factor (which is a measure of journal quality, with 0 being unassessed and unusuable), and because the journal itself makes no claim or pretense of medical authority to give advice. There is consensus that there is no room for diversity of opinions on Misplaced Pages about health claims from sources which do not even purport to be authoritative. This is a low standard, and this journal makes no pretense of attempting to meet it.
3. Even if the claim did reflect the source, other consensus is that the claim in this source conflicts with a claim made by the WHO. I am persuaded that the WHO source meets WP:MEDRS and is in conflict with the claim presented in this source. It is purported to report the consensus of many stakeholders and to be the position of an authoritative organization which gives health information. When a weaker statement from a less authoritative sources comes into conflict with a stronger statement from a more authoritative source, the weaker statement is treated as WP:FRINGE and is blocked from inclusion into Misplaced Pages.

Without additional support from other sources to establish that this claim is not WP:FRINGE there is not evidence that it merits inclusion into Misplaced Pages at all. The WHO source and its position can be presented. There is not much room for debate here as this issue is not complicated and can be decided by WP:MEDRS precedent, with the weak paper failing MEDRS and WHO passing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose wait until there is more than one source on that subject Avono♂ (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification failed

Verification failed for this edit.

First change was this:

but a significant number will use both tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use"

The "report" states: "However, for a sizeable number of smokers ENDS use will result in the reduction of cigarette use rather than in quitting." - sizable != significant.

Second change:

A 2014 WHO report concluded that the aerosol emissions are likely to increase the risk of disease to nearby bystanders, especially from those e-cigarettes which produce toxicant levels close to those emitted by certain cigarettes.

There is no such "conclusion" in the report. In fact it states:

"It is unknown if the increased exposure to toxicants and particles in exhaled aerosol will lead to an increased risk of disease and death among bystanders as does the exposure to tobacco smoke."

And unknown doesn't translate into "likely".

Not to mention that the above editor in his edit states that this is the "WHO position", which is incompatible with the source material, which isn't a position statement. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Conversely

The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use".

The report says:

" This will lead to dual use of ENDS and cigarettes. Given the likely greater importance of duration of smoking (number of years smoking) over intensity (number of cigarettes smoked per day) in generating negative health consequences, dual use will have much smaller beneficial effects on overall survival compared with quitting smoking completely.

That means that this isn't verifiable either. Significant is the editors own apparent invention. --Kim D. Petersen 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now directly quoted the WHO report to assuage any concerns of failed verification. I note that that Point 28 subbpoint (d) stated, " In fact, exhaled aerosol is likely to increase above background levels the risk of disease to by standers, especially in the case of some ENDS that produce toxicant levels in the range of that produced by some cigarettes" which is where point #2 was added. As I think it will be fruitless to try to add any such material to this article in the current toxic and adversarial environment, I left out any mention of it. Yobol (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@A1candidate:, could you please explain why you reverted this version, which appears to be a clearly more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer paraphrasing to quotes, in this case quoting the report directly seems perfectly suitable in this situation, and I think the edit should be restored. Zad68 19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer paraphrasing as well, the numerous objections to the paraphrasing leads to the only real solution being direct quotation. Yobol (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by "in this case"... Zad68 19:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a problem with paraphrasing - it is a problem with the paraphrasing by increasing severity of statements. "sizable" becomes "significant", "unknown" becomes "likely", "smaller beneficial" becomes "significantly less" - all of which are for some strange reason in the same directionality... and all of which encompass a single POV. And as for the statement that point 28 d that appears to state something contradictory to an earlier sentence in the same report, that should make you stop up and not use it, instead of picking the one that you like. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the paraphrases I used were well justified, but clearly you do not, so I have used direct quotes as a compromise. As noted above, I will not be attempting to restore that aerosol material (I had only seen the part in 28 (d), not the earlier portion). Is there any objection to this version, or can we implement it now? Yobol (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote passed V and it is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is quoted out of context and the excessive use of quotation marks makes it difficult to read. -A1candidate (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "out of context"? Do you support the previous paraphrasing if you do not support the quotations? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not quoted out of context. A1candidate, if you thought it was quoted out of context then you could of fixed it. What do you think is quoted in context then? No more excuses, please. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are still objections. For one that you are using the "report" as if a position statement instead of the Grey literature that it is, and secondly that you are using it to contrast real bonefida reviews in the medical literature, this is especially troublesome considering that the report has been criticized in the peer-reviewed literature as following:

"CONCLUSION The language of the report, the selective use and misrepresentation of evidence is problematic in a major policy-relevant document. Policymakers and the public require scientists to present evidence objectively, and when they offer unsubstantiated opinions, scientists should make it clear that this is what they are doing."

This report should be used sparingly, and not be used for cherry-picking information that is already covered in the reviews that we have. --Kim D. Petersen 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a "report", it says so on the WHO page and on the front page of the report. You are also reverting to a version that already uses the report, just a poorer summary of it. As the proposed version is a better summary of the source, what objections to this particular diff do you have, besides WP:IDONTLIKETHESOURCE? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Strangely it doesn't seem as if there is a general consensus that this report is as useful as you want it to be. How about acknowledging that lack of consensus and keeping the usage within bounds? --Kim D. Petersen 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree there is no consensus to use that report. 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to start a discussion about how much to use the WHO source, but that is not the point of this thread, which is a discussion of "Failed verification" and which version is a more accurate summary of the source. I feel this version is a more accurate summary, do you not agree? Yobol (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is a natural outlier of the earlier failed verification. The WHO source is discussed in the above thread, in WP:DR and on the RS(medical) board, as well as being part of the reason that there is a POV tag on the article.... so it is a valid question to ask: Whether or not we should expand the usage of this source, considering that. v--Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I ask, is not my proposed version a more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

False dichotomy considering the things mentioned above. Find another source, and if you cannot, then that is further demonstration of the problem. --Kim D. Petersen 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are refusing to answer which version is the more accurate summary? Or do you not have an opinion on the matter? Yobol (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think i've made clear several times that the source is overused, and has dodgy pedigree. And that gives a problem with WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown the issue with using quotes. The original objection was the text failed verification. The WHO source is not of low pedigree. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless. 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

a pox on all your houses

I reverted back to what appeared to me, to be the last stable version before today's nonsense. Please resolve issues here, not in the article. If you guys keep this up, this article is going to end up with really stupid editing restrictions on it (like 0RR - no changes allowable unless they are vetted here first). I understand that (but not why) there is a lot of passion around this topic but please don't edit war. That goes for everybody who made an edit today. If this went to the edit warring board the lot of you would get blocked. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point i have to say that a 0RR could only be an improvement unfortunately. That would require consensus or at the very least a semblence of such. As for the edit-warring or what you call "today's nonsense", that could've been entirely avoided if there had been more usage of the talk-page, and waiting for further input. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

you are part of "all" Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so are you. --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you went to the talk page first Kim. The time stamps have the talk page section made about 5 minutes after your first edit today. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the 5 minutes was the time it took me to formulate what i should write. 'm not fast, which is why i often get edit-conflicts :) --Kim D. Petersen 02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Its better to think things through than to use boilerplate excuses........ AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of OR and duplication was restored. Please be especially careful not to restore OR. The WHO source is one of the most reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it one of the most reliable sources? It's highly controversial and several of the scientists whose work it reviews have accused the WHO of misrepresenting them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering all of the discussions above, it seems disingenious to make such a claim. But i take this from it: QG considers it one of the most reliable sources - but other editors disagree with him. That would be an accurate description of reality. --Kim D. Petersen 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

globalize tag

A1candidate, per your tagging for "globalize" and somewhat sarcastic edit note, you are aware that the article emphasizes what the world health organization says about e-cigarettes, yes? are you aware of medical authorities in non-English speaking countries that have made statements, and more importantly, sources in english on them? Please bring them. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Are the FDA, CDC, American Industrial Hygiene Association etc. World health organizations? Impressive. --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The WHO isnt the word of God. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Section titled "Position of medical organizations" does not mention WHO, only US/UK authorities. And the section under "Safety" only deals with US/UK. -A1candidate (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you provide sources the tags are ridiculous. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about providing balance, not sources. -A1candidate (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Without sources you have not demonstrated there is any issue. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And we all now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous. AlbinoFerret (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

True, English-language sources are not always so easy to come by, but there is plenty of regulatory/public health activity beyond the U.S. and UK. France and India very recently, to give two major examples. The tag seems quite justified and isn't a criticism of what is in the article, just an observation on what else should be. Barnabypage (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So add the positions. Most organizations actually do not have clear positions and just go by that of WHO. We cannot add what does not exist. So yes inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about maintaining a balance between US/UK authorities and non-anglophone institutions (including WHO). Is this really that hard to understand? -A1candidate (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is used. The US government is the largest research organization in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO is not used in "Position of medical organizations" and only mentioned once under "Safety". -A1candidate (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Non-English sources: There seems to be a misunderstanding. Sources do not have to be in English per wp:NONENG.TMCk (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Polosa et al (2013)

Currently, the only summary of Polosa et al (2013), a peer reviewed open access literature review with about 22 citations from volume 10 of the impact factor 1.6 Harm Reduction Journal by several Italian and American medical school full professor authors, is as follows: "A 2013 randomized controlled trial found no difference in smoking cessation rates between e-cigarettes with nicotine, e-cigarettes without nicotine and traditional NRT patches."

However, the abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "it is likely that smokers who switch to E-cigs will achieve large health gains." And the review concludes that, "smokers are finding these products helpful.... Most importantly, even if this product proves to be effective for only 25% of the smoking population, it could save millions of lives world-wide over the next ten years."

Which of those excerpts are appropriate to include in the article? I propose including the excerpts shown as direct quotations in the introduction per the instructions to summarize major controversies in WP:LEAD, as well as in the body's "Smoking cessation" section. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not a collection of quotes from different sources. Thus oppose the idea as presented. We already more or less say this "evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine; I propose including "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains. Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, they could save millions of lives over the next decade." EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubt vaping is safer than smoking. The current debate is over where, in the region 95-100% safer, it lies. So the article isn't representing the current literature very well.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. Has the faction in favor of showering the readership with wishy-washy uncertainty presented any evidence to the contrary at all? EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they're just constantly hollering that the WHO and aircon installers are The Truth and can't be challenged. This article is an unreadable mess.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes as soon as you anyone convinces WHO, NICE or this comes out in a major journal with the sort of certainty express above we will include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you replying to Doc James? Could you please indent so that i can tell? --Kim D. Petersen 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The implication that http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/ isn't a "major journal" is absurd because the median medical journal impact factor is much less than 1.6 per . Not a shred of evidence has been presented that the WHO conference proceedings were ever independently reviewed before publication. The idea that we must convince WHO or NICE of the plain language of MEDRS sources is not based in policy or guidelines. EllenCT (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. The defining problem with e-cigarettes is that there have been so little study about their effects. To suggest we can now quantify their effects ("millions of lives") is absurd. This is a problem of WP:WEIGHT; one source says we can quantify, every other source doesn't even try to quantify because they know better, but the one source that makes the absurd statement is valued; this is madness. I paraphrase from an earlier comment - the suggestion that we more highly value a source just because it comes to a "definitive" conclusion is completely wrong-headed in my opinion. Some things in science have little evidence with which to make a definitive conclusion (which IMO is exactly the case with e-cigarettes); coming to a definitive conclusion when there is not enough evidence to make such a conclusion suggests the source is a poor one, not a better one. While I agree the article is an "unreadable mess" this is largely due to people shoehorning in definitive statements from their favorite source, rather than documenting with appropriate weight what the sources say, i.e. "There is disagreement in the medical literature as to effect x, with some reviews stating y, and some stating z." Instead we have competing definitive statements each in text attributed to a specific source. Madness. Yobol (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But that's absolutely not true. There have been hundreds of studies of their effects, mostly coming to the conclusion that there's little or nothing to worry about. The problem is they're all being rejected in favor of Grana and the WHO, who represent a minority and extreme position.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Madness is giving greater prominence to reviews which do not reach definitive conclusions because of their limited scope, when wider reviews which do reach clear prescriptive conclusions are are abundant and unquestionably as authoratative. EllenCT (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, madness is taking one line out of one review and trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to it. If there is disagreement in the medical literature and positions, we give them, but only with due prominence. If only one source out of 40 says we can quantify something, we don't give undue weight to that one source. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If reviews A and B say "there is insufficient evidence that widgets are blue" and review C, of a substantially larger number of sources, says "widgets are blue", giving greater prominence to the conclusive evidence is absolutely not undue weight, as long as the positions of all three reviews are included in the article. EllenCT (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the ref for 100s of studies? This ref says "efficacy of these products as a cessation aid is sparse, confined to 2 randomized controlled trials and 1 large cross-sectional study, anecdotal reports, and Internet-based surveys" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Hajek et al (2014)

Currently, the article includes twelve summary citations of Hajek et al (2014) (Redacted), a peer reviewed literature review with 7 citations from volume 109 of the impact factor 4.9 journal Addiction by Swiss and American medical school full professors along with authors from the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products at Virginia Commonwealth University's Department of Psychology.

The abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "Long-term health effects of use are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders ." However, that statement is not included or summarized in the article. The review concludes that, "health-care professionals should support smokers unable or unwilling to stop tobacco use who wish to switch to EC to reduce harm from smoking should emphasize the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine altogether."

Therefore I propose that, "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes," be included in the introduction and the "Harm reduction" section of the article, and that the "Harm reduction" section should also include the statement that, "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine." EllenCT (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is we should be comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources, not just taking them piecemeal. Piecemeal additions from sources is what caused the mess in the article in the first place, and I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I invite other editors to join me in giving the appropriate amount of credibility to the opinions of anyone who announces that they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not a helpful response Ellen. The fact that someone expresses disagreement with your approach is not tantamount to announcing that "they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree". A more accurate description would be they have announced that "they strongly disagree with my proposal". These are not the same thing, and equating them is part of what makes editing this article so difficult. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How would you characterize "I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route"? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That your approach to editing and building this article will make this article more unreadable and develop worsening WP:WEIGHT issues. Nothing I wrote has even the remotest thing to do with "have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree". Yobol (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree violates the WP:V and WP:NPOV pillar policies. You clearly wrote what I quoted above, and it clearly implies you are not open to any further suggestions to include summaries of such excerpts. What other possible interpretation is there? EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree" - Um, excuse me? I did not say that. This is the second time you have misrepresented what I have wrote, in this one thread. I am taking my leave now, as life's too short to deal with someone who appears to either lack the competence to understand what I am writing or does understand and misrepresents it anyways. Yobol (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone else has a theory about what else you possibly could have meant by "piecemeal additions" than excluding just the parts of reviews, which are already partly summarized in the article, that you don't agree with, I'd love to hear it. But you would rather bow out than answer my question? And then make a personal attack accusing me of misrepresenting what you wrote without explaining what you claim to have meant? Good riddance. EllenCT (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the main problem with the article is not the "comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources" as suggested above but the failure to accurately portray the large controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics (health effects, safety, addiction, harm reduction, vapor composition, and risk). Most of the sources mention this heated debate explicitly and the others portray the controversy by presenting conflicting evidence from both sides. I think the "health" section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial and based on thin evidence (from both sides). It should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when. Mihaister (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the MEDRS sources I've looked at, I have not yet seen any detailed description of a controversy greater than usual for any new health-related development. What source do you think best describes the controversy? I wasn't even aware that there was any controversy before the RFC bot pointed me here. EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a source that is useful here, but it provides some insights into what is happening: Professor Peter Hajek - Experts on Camera --Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

THAT VIDEO IS EXTRAORDINARILY INFORMATIVE AND I AM SHOUTING IN RED HERE IN HOPES IT WILL ENCOURAGE ALL EDITORS TO LOOK AT IT. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick, they all say something about the debate or controversy in this arena. For example, the Hajek 2014 review (since it's the topic of this subsection): "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition." Or the Polosa et al. 2013 review from above: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate."

There are also many other articles that don't necessarily cover medical topics, but rather focus on the social or economic aspects of this, some which are entirely dedicated to portraying the controversy: e.g. Stimson et al. 2014, Gilmore and Hartwell 2014, Glyn 2014, Cavico et al., etc. A few minutes on Google Scholar and you can find many more.

In addition to creating the "Controversy" section mentioned above, I also propose we add the following templates to this talk page: {{Controversial}} {{Calm}} {{Pbneutral}}. Mihaister (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

Since QuackGuru seems to be confused about why this tag has been placed on the article, despite several RfC's ongoing (albeit imho on wrong questions), and since the older discussion has been archived, let me expand my rationale for putting the tag there. First let me note that i believe that this is a systemic problem in the article, which is why i didn't place a template:POV-section tag or a template:POV-lead tag - but instead went for the Template:POV one.

• We have an imbalance of how views present in WP:MEDRS secondary sources are presented => WP:BALANCE
• We put too much emphasis on the views of a single review (or 3 researchers if you want (Grana review)) => WP:WEIGHT
• A lot of cherry-picking for quotes within papers is taking place - both "sides" have this problem. Instead of looking at the conclusions/summaries of the papers => WP:BALASPS
• The structure of the article is put up so that it emphasizes medical aspects instead of going for a layout that (for instance) would match the ones that review articles use (they always start with a description of what it is, and how it came about before describing what may/may not be the problem with it) => WP:STRUCTURE

and there are more .. but these are the obvious ones.

Finally: The tag is not there to be "tag of shame" (as QG puts it), but instead as the tag is supposed to be a "message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems" exactly as described on WP:NPOV#Templates. And i would entice editors not to remove the tag, unless the conditions set forth on Template:POV#When_to_remove are met. --Kim D. Petersen 21:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Any many of us disagree with you per the RfC. The majority of the high quality literatures state that there is simply not a lot of evidence. The same amount of evidence there is shows that they are probably safer than regular cigarettes. And this is what the article says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a natural thing that people disagree about POV issues - otherwise POV issues would probably never surface, but as the RfC you point to also shows: This isn't a minority view! As for your "the majority of high quality literature" thing, well that is both correct and incorrect. They all agree that more research is needed, and that there are uncertainties, but the "majority of high quality literature" also agree that e-cigarettes are significantly less of a health-risk than cigarettes (typically cited as 2-3 orders of magnitude), and that there is very little risk in second hand exposure. Now there are outliers within the literature, one of these being the Grana review - which we put rather a lot of undue weight upon. And please do not argue with the "This journal is better than that journal", because what is important is researchers and the views of researchers. The Grana review is the professional view of 3 researchers - it is not the view of the journal. --Kim D. Petersen 21:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is published by an exceedingly well respected journal. And yes that matters. It is interesting that some are attempting to attack the best available sources and are putting forwards sources with impact factors or zero instead.

So yes I guess their is a POV and it is that of the best available literature / sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An exceedingly well respected but not very relevant journal. Meanwhile a review published in Addiction is being rejected by your lapdog because he doesn't like its conclusions.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a deliberate misunderstanding, but this is not about disliking some sources, but a WP:WEIGHT one. Journals are important in finding out whether the articles can be trusted, but the venue of publication once we've decided that it is trustworthy, is not an argument for WP:WEIGHT. I have troubles understanding that you'd even contemplate to say that impact factor of the journal should be the deciding factor of how often a particular paper should be cited. --Kim D. Petersen 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We do and should give greater weight to better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That was really a "talk around" rather than an answer. I can agree with what you say (and do), while still have the same trouble understanding your argument. --Kim D. Petersen 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I agree completely with the points you raised. Also, I'd like to add that the failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics adds to the NPOV problem, as detailed above , . Mihaister (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've raised a question on this at WT:MEDRS#Impact_factor_of_journals_as_the_determining_factor_in_weight --Kim D. Petersen 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope i presented the problem/conundrum as neutral as possible, and that people here don't just pile on, and continue a content dispute at that board. :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a serious problem with the lede the tag should not stay at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please follow the link to WP:NPOV#Templates and read that, as well read what i wrote about tags? This is not an Template:NPOV-section problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you think there are no issues with the lede. The tag and the Rfc has already attracted other editors. The requirements for the tag were fulfilled. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD by being a summary of the body of the article? And i would refer you to the 3 bulleted items on Template:POV for when to remove the tag. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede is a bit short but it does follow lede. There has been problems with editors adding or restoring original research though. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have had to remove a lot of negative OR lately. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add image

I propose we include this image. Can I restore the proposal? Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. That photograph is of outdated rubbish. Also, somewhere as prominent as the caption of a photo can we please not use the ridiculous "mist"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack has a problem with the word "vapor" a view only supported by him and Cloujpk in the talk pages. A very minority view. Vapor is the most common term used. He relies on two journal articles, though we are not supposed to be writing like a journal. Mist was suggested as a compromise in the lede, its use elsewhere was not agreed to. This photo is outdated, like most of the article, relying on first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be based on what Quack wants. He's just one editor with a very bad reputation for causing problems, and even if he has a powerful protector we shouldn't let him throw his weight about.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it is a poor representation of current vaping equipment, cig-a-likes are (at least in Europe) very rarely used, mainly because of their poor functionality. I'm not against a picture there (or even this one), should just be a better more up-to-date one. --Kim D. Petersen 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Do current e-cigarettes puff like that? QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with a photo of the stuff that comes out of an e-cig Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as we use only one photo. If a better photo is available in the future we can replace this one. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Kim that the picture is old and outdated. Cigalikes are a poor product and really don't provide a good representation of todays devices. They are first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's good to have a picture of a cigalike, a picture of a tank system, etc. The lack of homogeneity in the market is one of its important features. On the non-cigalike devices, some sense of scale in the picture would be useful. Barnabypage (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The photos of the devices in general are useful, but the one of vapor? Not so much. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely this photo is useful. The way in which the device mimics cigarette smoke is clearly a distinctive feature, and seeing the mist helps to underscore why people wonder about the health effects of the second-hand "smoke". Also, the stuff is not vapor - look up vapor, this isn't it. Vapor would be clear. It worries me that there are people saying a) that we should inaccurately call the substance "vapor", and b) wanting to hide a photo that illustrates it isn't vapor. It gives the appearance of some kind of spin. That said, I have no objection to using better/more updated photos, though frankly, I see little visible difference from what is being advertised now, except maybe color? Wnt (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor is not always clear. As for your "worries" about people wanting to call it vapor that's what EVERYBODY calls it except, thanks to Quack's POV-pushing, Misplaced Pages. And if you don't see a difference between the crappy cigalike in that photo and what people are actually using you need to see your optometrist urgently.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if there's any POV here it's only chemistry class - classes taken long before e-cigarettes were on the market. Vapor is a specific chemical term. It is accurate for a THC vaporizer for marijuana (if combustion is truly avoided) when a volatile material is simply heated, but not for a suspension of droplets cunningly created from a liquid solution. While we should not exclude mention of the popular term, when it comes to routine statements in encyclopedic voice we should be accurate. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you use a PG-only liquid the vapor is next to invisible. There's a British liquid, Clearstream I think, where it is invisible. Vegetable glycerin is added specifically to create a visible plume because users like it. They are producing vapor. Most academic papers say "vapor". Every manufacturer, user and media report says "vapor". Objecting to the use of "vapor" is crazy. As for POV, this article is an unreadable mess of hypothetical health effects that might appear sometime when it's supposed to be about the devices themselves. It is not a medical device and the article just shouldn't be in this state.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I dont think anyone is debating the textbook definition of "vapor" or what its called in some journals. But there are a lot of Misplaced Pages guidelines, WP:MEDMOS to name one, that tell us to write to the General Reader who doesnt use the textbook or journal definition of most things. In fact those Misplaced Pages pages tell us not to use jargon except when there is no other alternative. An example "An electric gasoline hybrid vehicle" may describe a Prius but most people call it a "car". A lot of repair manuals from Copier manufacturers call what they make "Network laser printer with attached scanning option" but no one says that. Since this article is about a consumer product, we should use consumer terms when describing it and things about it. Mist is confusing, and aerosol to the general reader is a can of hair or bug spray. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I finally added something I suggested way above, about the blu acquisition by Lorillard and the Steven Dorff ad campaign. I think that this text justifies a Fair Use screenshot of Dorff exhaling - I snapshotted a frame right after he says "we're all adults here". That said, I think even if that is acceptable to people here, the old shot is still useful to have also because there's no artifice in it, and it is a different brand. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Its probably the least offensive ad if all your using is a screen shot of it and not the video. Quack added a tag asking if the link to the video was a reliable source. Since its on Youtube, and Blu used its corporate account to post the video the source should be reliable for showing the video exists. It doesnt seem the cigalike companies can advertise without someone finding a fault with the advertisement. Im not sure they should do video advertisements. In the hearing of the of the commerce committee on e-cigarette advertising a Blu representative said they make and advertise things for adults. Naming one of the flavors as whiskey, pointing it out as an adult flavor. It was then pointed out to him that even that flavor would attract youth. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New section proposal - Controversy on health topics

Many of the MEDRS sources cited in the Health section refer to the public health debate or controversy with respect to e-cigarettes. Yet, this is not mentioned at all in the article. This failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics creates an inaccurate and non-neutral portrayal of the subject.

Evidence:

• Hajek 2014 review: "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition."
• Polosa et al. 2013 review: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate."

Proposal

• The Health section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial;
• This subsection should caution the reader that positions of both sides are based on thin evidence and likely to change as research develops;
• We should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when.

Your thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Outline of proposed section

• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarette use are likely small compared to smoking tobacco.
• A heated debate on the topic of e-cigarettes is ongoing between tobacco controllers and harm reduction advocates.
• The controversy is centered on whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a net positive or negative public health impact. However, most sources recognize that there isn't sufficient data to draw broad conclusions about long-term population-level risk at this time. Positions of various advocacy groups and public health bodies span the range between "enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition."
• Positions, both based on thin or equivocal evidence for any hypothetical population-level effects:
  • Likely positive impact: even though there is insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, the evidence that currently exists supports conclusions that e-cigarettes are having a positive impact on the individual health (when compared with smoking combustible tobacco) and there is no evidence of negative effects at the population level. E-cigarettes may be a valuable tool in the efforts to reduce smoking harms.
  • Likely negative impact: Even though the evidence that exists suggests smokers switching to vaping likely reduce their individual risks, a "precautionary" approach is needed because vaping looks like smoking and may "re-normalize" smoking or otherwise undermine tobacco control efforts. Other population-level concerns include possible initiation of nicotine use by youth, a "gateway effect" leading consumers from e-cigarettes to combustible tobacco, and delaying of quitting by current smokers.
• Significance: there are currently ~1.24 billion smokers worldwide. The WHO estimates that smoking may cause over 1 billion deaths this century. If e-cigarettes provide an attractive, low-risk alternative for current smokers, they should be thoughtfully considered as a part of tobacco control efforts going forward.

  -- Mihaister (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

alternative outline of proposed section

• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarette use are likely small compared to smoking tobacco.
• Most agree that the risks of e-cigarettes use (compared to not using them at all) are not well known, especially because e-liquids and devices to vaporize them are so variable
• Most agree that we should regulate them so that e-liquid contents are safe enough and are known, and we should regulate e-liquid packaging to prevent accidents, and we should regulate devices so that we understand what users are being exposed to
• Most agree that more study is needed
• The controversy is centered on whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a net positive or negative public health impact. However, most sources recognize that there isn't sufficient data to draw broad conclusions about long-term population-level risk at this time.
• Positions, both based on thin or equivocal evidence for any hypothetical population-level effects:
  • Likely positive impact: Cigarette smoking is terribly harmful, and based on what we know of e-cigarettes, they are very likely to be far less harmful to users and bystanders. If people turn to e-cigarettes instead of smoking, literally millions of lives and billions of dollars could be saved. Smokers like e-cigarettes because the behavior and feel is the same as smoking; people are already choosing them. This is a great tool to add to the harm reduction arsenal. We should regulate e-liquids and devices just enough so they are regularized and accidents don't happen, but we should do nothing to prevent their use and proliferation and doctors should discuss them with patients who cannot quit smoking. And we should keep studying their effects to make sure this was a good decision.
  • Likely negative impact: The risks of using e-cigs are not known and the lack of regulation means that consumers are might already being put in danger. At minimum we should regulate e-liquids and devices -- and we should even consider requiring drug-like safety testing before we allow any specific product to be marketed. A "precautionary" approach is needed because we don't understand the effects of vaping, and users and bystanders might be getting harmed right now in ways that will only emerge later, when it is too late. It is just irresponsible to stand by and allow that to happen - think about what happened with asbestos. On top of that, vaping looks like smoking and may "re-normalize" smoking; it may also initiate nicotine use by youth and delay quitting by current smokers. Public-health-wise, we should treat e-cigarettes like cigarettes until we understand them better. We should study them more.

some key differences from Mihaister's version:

• the prior version doesn't discuss the absolute risk of e-cigs (in other words, the risk of using them at all, which is a different question from the risk compared to smoking). it is the "absolute risk" that has been a key point of concern for "nay-sayers"
• there are areas of strong agreement among experts and regulators.
• the "likely negative impact" perspective was not accurately described and contained arguments from the "positive impact" side

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC) (removing two lines that were not supportable; the actual debate among experts is far less heated than this talk page!! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC))

Discussions of safety occur at two levels: the individual and the population. At the individual level if e-cigs replace regular cigs most agree that e-cigs are safer. If e-cigs however maintain smoking regular cigs they are likely harmful. At the population level safety is unclear. If e-cigs increase use of regular cigs within a population harm will result. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Your alternative seems fair and balanced. I made a minor edit to keep the tone of the 2 positions equivalent in acknowledging that statements about risks or benefits are hypothetical or based on thin and equivocal evidence. Mihaister (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - Count me in. At minimum it would accurately show that the health effects are hypothetical and controversial, which has to be a huge improvement on the current version. Right now it looks like a crude attempt to smear vaping with every imaginary risk that can be dragged up. Some balance would be great.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is poor evidence. This article should not turn into a hodgepodge of what supporters or opponents think. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? At the moment it's just a hodgepodge of what opponents are concerned about. There are no known health effects of vaping, apart from the whole not smoking any more thing, but the article is dominated by fearmongering rubbish.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

CheesyAppleFlake, you touched on one of the reasons e-cigarettes hold so much promise and controversy. There are those who no matter what you tell them will continue to find some way of getting nicotine, they wont quit. Assessing the quit rates of these people is insane. Scare them away from e-cigarettes and you scare them right back to tobacco ones. Each person scared away is one person doomed to bad health and a fast death. Its like Chemo, the drugs are not perfect, but they are better than the outcome of letting things go on. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support the controversy on the harm reduction aspect is underdeveloped and in that context, this paper might be interesting:

  Hajek, Peter; Foulds, Jonathan; Le Houezec, Jacques; Sweanor, David; Yach, Derek (2013). "Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?". The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 1 (6): 429–431. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70124-3. PMID 24429230.

  --Kim D. Petersen 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support in spirit My support would be hinged on an agreement to stay on the controversial aspect, and not get into yet another section that is a hodgepodge of claims trying to prove it isnt controversial. So many of the sources we use have "unknown", "uncertin", or "concerns" language added to them it is a given that enough material exists to make quite a healthy section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not yet - before we make a controversy section, how about representing both sides of the controversy with the statements that the MEDRSs reviews already included in the article use first? The fact that the widest-ranging MEDRSs in the article are summarized as if they don't make statements diametrically opposed to the unreviewed WHO conference proceedings is an abhorrent violation of WP:NPOV and an affront to the principles of building an accurate encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to propose some text illustrating what you had in mind? Mihaister (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done so at . EllenCT (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) and agree that the "Controversy" section should not be another expansive one-upmanship exercise resulting in a jumbled mess of claims, counter-claims, caveats, attributions, and loaded language. I'm envisioning a concise, neutral exposition of the controversy and relevant positions. that might be even as simple as the Hajek quote from above: position 1="enthusiastic support", position 2="vigorous opposition." No details, no health claims... Mihaister (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to suggest a small, few lines example that most can agree on to this section. Id say all but thats near impossible on this article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose an invitation to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  How exactly would describing the controversy be unbalanced? Are you saying that it cannot be described neutrally? (by WP:NPOV not false balance?) --Kim D. Petersen 00:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The goal of this article is to describe Electronic Cigarettes neutrally. The means to that end is best evidence. Points of view are not evidence. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, lets remove any claim that is about "concerns" because those are points of view without facts. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another effort to ghettoize the health concerns that form the bulk of what is discussed in most lay and scholarly treatments of the subject. The fact is that 90% of what is out there discusses potential health effects. Attempts to turn this article into a "gee whiz, aren't these things cool" and "oh by the way, a few fringe voices have expressed health concerns" article is seriously NNPOV. Its like writing an article about the Nixon presidency and moving all discussion of Watergate into a "Controversies" section. Health effects are core to the story. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  There is a difference between health effects and health policy. Basically the controvery is over of two different ways to view this product, where one is focused upon "It might be harmful to the user" and the other on "It is significantly less harmful to the user than cigarettes". And that debate is in fact significant as attested by the number of peer-reviewed papers on that. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The RS's make the health aspect central to this topic, we must follow; hiving this stuff off to one side would violate our requirement to maintain neutrality, which is non-negotiable. Alexbrn 06:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  So the RS's mentioned above are irrelevant - because of ... what? --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "irrelevant". Alexbrn 13:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You state in your oppose that we can't write about what they say, because of ... something. Thus they must be irrelevant for some reason, which you haven't explained. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't put that "we can't write about what they say" either. Ping me if you ever actually engage with what I wrote, it's quite simple. Alexbrn 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well, all we can decipher from your comment then is "i don't like it" then, which is a non-argument and thus should be discarded when considering whether to add content or not. In summary: You don't want to explain, fair enough, but then there is no argument. --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the closer will have basic reading comprehension skills. Alexbrn 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - That's what building an encyclopedia is about. -A1candidate (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any specific "controversy" section or addition of more unsightly templates or tags. Support clear documentation of any disagreements between sources as disagreement between sources, with due weight to their prominence in the literature. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What we dont need are dozens of position statements. Major medical bodies would be just fine. AlbinoFerret 22:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unclear what the question is what is being proposed as controversial, exactly? In my view there are some things for which everybody agrees; and others where there is controversy. In my view everybody agrees that we know little about the absolute health effects of e-cigs (in other words, compared to not smoking) - I think you will no source at all that says that the risks of e-cigs are well understood. Also, everybody agrees that cigarettes are very bad. Also, I think you will no source that would disagree, that e-cigs are likely to be less harmful than cigarettes. Put all that together, and the actual controversy is pretty clear and is a matter of whether you emphasize the absolute unknown risk of e-cigs, or emphasize the ~likely~ benefit in comparison to smoking. Namely a) whether we as a society should allow e-cigs to continue to proliferate when their absolute risks are not well understood; b) whether we should allow and even encourage their use since they are likely better than cigarettes. That is in my view the controversy, at least among academics and other commentators. I have seen no regulator (the parties who are actually responsible for public health) supporting unregulated profileration. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But this article is supposed to be about e-cigarettes, not what the unspecified but presumably omnibenevolent we will condescend to "allow". This is why the antis are hated so intensely by vapers. We managed to quit smoking on our own, without your so-called help, but then you bastards turn up uninvited and start pontificating about what you're going to "allow". Actually this prohibitionist arrogance explains why the article is in such an appalling state. Maybe instead of getting on your high horse about what you feel like "allowing" us - and by the way, thanks to no-cost shipping from China it's already far beyond your ability to control - you should actually try to understand the fucking subject.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, your POV is showing. You talk about comparing e-cigs to not smoking. Duh, e-cig users AREN'T smoking. If you don't even know that maybe you shouldn't be involved here, because it's pretty fundamental.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

off topic - this is WP:NOTFORUM. please comment on content, not contributors. ignoring. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: As the reliable sources cited above point out, the controversy has nothing to do with "allowing" anything. That's the concern of regulators and busy-body "control" lobbies. Scientists are debating whether e-cigarettes are likely to have a positive of negative net public health impact. So far, as you've accurately identified, everybody seems to agree that, on the individual level, switching from smoking to vaping likely results in a substantive reduction in health risk (funny how the article does not make that clear). All of the controversy is created by various opinion (mostly unsupported) as to whether population-level effects would be positive or negative. Some sources make claims based on thin chemical composition evidence that trivial toxicity risk translates to disproportionately large negative population effects, raising politically-correct but purely hypothetical "concerns" about children or expecting mothers. Other sources point out that the evidence is thin and these concerns are unsubstantiated, alarmist, and designed to appeal to emotions rather than to follow evidence (). Moreover, the evidence that does exist supports conclusions that the "concerns" raised, though hypothetically possible, are not actually materializing and that more plausible benefits are being unfairly dismissed (eg the Hajek et al. 2014 review). Therefore the controversy is about the lives of 1.24 billion smokers worldwide who may derive an immediate health benefit by switching from deadly smoking to the far less risky alternative of vaping, but are instead being bamboozled with hypothetical and alarmist concerns (). Mihaister (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

i was making an effort to define the controversy in a neutral manner. please try to define it in a neutral manner. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If this section doesnt work out, Perhaps we could make a "Unclear, Unknown, and Concerns" section and gather them all together in one place. AlbinoFerret 14:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog:So far the only agreement I have seen from regulators, at least here in the US is that they are not going to be banned. While the article is not just about the US other countries like the UK are not planning on banning them either. So the "allow" question is OR as is trying to prove that they shouldnt be allowed by hammering Unknown, Unclear, and Concerns. Some regulation is probably needed to control safety issues like child proof caps on eliquid, and shoddy manufacturing causing unneeded risks. I dont think I have read anything from either side that would be against that. But the allow part can be compared to Cigarettes. We know they are bad for you. But few if any countries have banned them yet. I have read statements from regulators that sound promising, that we shouldnt bann them, The head of the fda said that there would be health benefit on a public health scale if we could get everyone to switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes in testimony before a congressional committee.AlbinoFerret 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

how you would define the topic of controversy, concisely and in a neutral way? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I added an outline for the controversy section at the top. Mihaister (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that about sums it up. AlbinoFerret 21:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

all it I see at the top is there is a "public health controversy". if i missed something, i am sorry. I am trying to define just what the that public health controversy is. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part of the text up here are you having trouble with, Jytdog? Perhaps I can try to rephrase so it comes across in a more unambiguous fashion... Mihaister (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out!! I see it now. (my bad, pretty fucking obvious where it was) That is pretty good! But in my view that could use some tweaking - I'll offer an amended version right below it. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Health effects need to be prominent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What health effects? None are known. Apart from vague, hypothetical "concerns" you got nothing.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly and this unknownness needs to be prominent Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support for many of the reasons give above and suggest/reiterate that the section should focus on public health rather than physical effects on the individual. In public health there is a genuine (if often short-tempered) debate with genuine and credible broad points on both sides, and this doesn't need to be crowded out by a long recital of conflicting detailed physical research results. Barnabypage (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated as an introduction to the Health effects section because it would misrepresent the sourcing by leading the reader to believe there's serious disagreement within the medical literature over what kind of evidence is available and what conclusions can be drawn from it. What the sources provided in this proposal indicate that there is disagreement within public policy proposal from regulatory bodies over how they should be regulated. The full quote from Hajek is The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition. Regulatory bodies around the world are deciding whether to allow EC to compete with cigarettes freely, submit them to a more restrictive regulation than cigarettes, e.g. as medicinal devices, or ban them.; the full quote from Polosa is The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate with authorities wanting to ban it or at least regulate it. (emphasis added). The kind of content proposed should be down in the Society and culture section. Zad68 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I cant wait for the FDA deeming regulations to become enacted so we can see if they are an effort to ban, or just regulate them a little as the proposed ones did. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zad on where it should be located - in the Society and culture section. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses

• Support reverting to replace the summaries of the conclusive sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

One wikilink is enough

Hon Lik redirects back to this article but there is a draft for the article titled Hon Lik (inventor) One wikilink is enough. It is already wikilinked early in the same section. See Electronic cigarette#History. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary wording

This is unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that Quack, I cleaned it up a bit. The product name and bold was a little much. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We are entering Split size

At present the article has grown from 40kb to 50kb of readable text in a week. 50kb says splitting is possible, but not always necessaryWP:SIZESPLIT. When we get to 60kb and 70kb it will increasingly become necessary. AlbinoFerret 22:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the current stats Document statistics:

• File size: 324 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 80 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 18 k*B
• Wiki text: 96 k*B
• Prose size (text only): 52 kB (8256 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1084 B

AlbinoFerret 23:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Before a split is necessary, some good ol' fashioned copyediting, especially in the section of primary importance per the sourcing--the medical section--could help quite a bit. Those large quotes could use quite a bit of curating and summarizing. Zad68 04:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure some space can be saved, I dont think a split quite necessary yet, at present its at 53kb of readable text. But it is inevitable at some point down the road at the rate the article seems to grow. Another section large like Statements and it might push it over the split point. AlbinoFerret 04:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather than split the article, how about we cut the health section down to just proven health effects and get rid of all the hypothetical nonsense?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We report what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources conclude there isn't enough evidence to know, we say that. Zad68 13:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If the RS say there isn't enough evidence why is the article full of dire warnings? Why are hypothetical health risks OK but hypothetical gains not OK?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Case in point diff1 the source is a WP:MEDRS already used in the article. Its referenced, but its removed. The reason? No consensus. But there is no consensus for allowing all the "they may" "unclear" "unknown" "possible" or "concerns" negative statements. The entry didnt say they should, but they may. But we have dozens of "they may" "unclear" "unknown" "possible" or "concerns" negative statements throughout. Can someone explain this double standard to me in a way that explains why it isnt one and why its allowed to exist if it is other than one POV has more editors? (forgot to sign the original comment on 11/7 edited slightly on 11/9 and signed) AlbinoFerret 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The article now stands at 55kb or readable text. AlbinoFerret 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Source says 2013

"Flouris and colleagues performed the only clinical study evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping compared with passive smoking." I will change it to 2013. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It was published in 2014, with no submission or acceptance dates of 2013 mentioned like Drummond. If the dates change on this contrary to evidence then the date on Drummond will be 2013. We have the submission and acceptance dates on Drummond, they are in 2013. AlbinoFerret 13:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. The specific clinical study was performed in 2013 according to the 2014 review.

The "Flouris and colleagues performed the only clinical study..." QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube video is unnecessary

• Daniel Nasaw (2012-12-05). "Electronic cigarettes challenge anti-smoking efforts". BBC.

• blu Electronic Cigarettes (2013-03-05). "Take Back Your Freedom featuring Stephen Dorff". YouTube.

The BBC reference has the video "Take Back Your Freedom featuring Stephen Dorff" cigarettes challenge anti-smoking efforts ad as part of the article and the source is probably unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the Youtube video was posted by the Blu corporate account, it was probably reliable as a source for the video. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, this reminds me of arguments I had at David Foley a few months ago. I value primary sources because if you're trying to research something and you see comments about a primary source, it's just infuriating to not be able to see for yourself what the fuss is all about. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I didnt see anything wrong with using a primary in the History section to show a video exists. Perhaps the information would have fit better in the Economics area, but it fits ok where its at. In history its ok to link to what was produced by a company and for the most part more reliable because its likely in its original form. AlbinoFerret 15:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not be linking to ads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule I agree with not linking to adds. But when the advertisement is notable, and part of a controversy, linking to it to give the reader the chance to see why, a link may be useful. Do you gave a guideline that says no links to ads are allowed under any circumstances or would disallow one that is part of a controversy? AlbinoFerret 03:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The BBC article has the ad. See The Blu ad - and a few predecessors. The BBC article is still in the article. See Electronic cigarette#Economics. See Electronic cigarette#cite note-134. Adding the YouTube video at this point is redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Information on Third Generation Devices

You can use "ref name McRobbie2014". It is reference number 66. See Electronic cigarette#cite note-McRobbie2014-66.

• Hayden McRobbie, National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, 2014. Electronic cigarettes Source can be used to expand the section. Read page 6 please. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical sections added without consensus

There is a RFC ongoing discussion the page order of the page , be it medical or consumer. Adding medical sections is without consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

These are section names for specific text that are not part of any previous discussion. The previous discussion is the ordering of the sections. You were a bit confused. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=adverse+effects&fulltext=Search Numerous articles have section names for specific text in each section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol the second hand exposure section

Almost the complete first paragraph of Aerosol is made up of first hand exposure when the source is looked at. The section deals with second hand exposure. Therefore the first paragraph is mostly Original Research. 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The word aerosol by definition is aerosol or possibly secondhand exposure emitted into the air. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic of the section is second hand use. You are leading from definitions of first hand into problems with second hand. That is WP:SYN or Original Research through Synthesis. AlbinoFerret 12:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The aerosol is emitted aerosol into the air. All the text in the section is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be all sourced, but when you start with definitions pertaining to First hand, where the source is speaking about First hand and then switch to talking about the problems with Second hand in the same section you are engaging in Original Research through Synthesis. This is not allowed per WP:SYN you might want to read the guideline to better understand the problem. At one time I moved them out of that section to Safety, which talks about First hand to fix the issue, but you moved them all back. Either find definitions where the source talks about second hand with the definitions or place them in another section. AlbinoFerret 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a tag on the section. AlbinoFerret 13:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE should summarise both the Smoking cessation and Harm reduction sections

Sourced text in the lede was deleted without any logical reason. There is consensus to summarise the body and the text does summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add that to the lede. AlbinoFerret 12:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You never gave a reason it should be deleted. Text should summarize the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede should be concise, easy to read and understand. It is to mention the major controversies. Adding more and more claims defeats the purpose of the lede. AlbinoFerret 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree the WP:LEDE should be concise. At the same time, the LEDE should summarise both the Electronic cigarette#Smoking cessation and Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction sections. What is the reason to avoid summarising Smoking cessation and Harm reduction in the LEDE when theses are notable sections? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a limit to the number of paragraphs allowed depending on the size of the article. But perhaps something can be added. AlbinoFerret 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about adding one sentence to the LEDE to summarise two notable topics in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities RFC

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

Comments please start your response with Yes or No

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No

• No The article already has enough of these types of statements and they lead to a ever increasing negative bias when little is known. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• No because the reviews of a larger number of primary sources reach definitive and prescriptive conclusions. The uncertain conclusions in reviews of a smaller number of primary sources should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC goes against policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two wikilinks is the same section is too much

There is a wikilink in the above paragraph. This is a violation of OVERLINK to have two wikilink in the same section. It should be wikilinked in the above paragraph not the later paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is only one in the section. The order of the section was off, a statement of the controversy should come before the conclusions. Its only two short sentences, the reviews are still at the top in a prominent place. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sections

Why has Construction now been moved under Health Effects? I'm reverting that.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes by IP 80.179.90.190 on Nov 9

"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain." was changed to

"The level of certainty regading the benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are debated."

The former language more accurately conveys the sources, which state (for example): "more formal studies on safety and efficacy should be completed in order to determine whether these products have a role in smoking cessation", "These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking", and "Allowing EC to compete with cigarettes in the market-place might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality

"Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products." was changed to

'Evidence suggests that the hazards of e-cigarette products currently on the market "is likely to be extremely low, and certainly much lower than smoking." '

The quote is taken from one of the cited references, but the other states that "large and carefully conducted prospective randomised controlled trials will be required before a definite answer about the efficacy and safety of electronic-cigarettes can be reached"

"In July 2014, a report developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. This report noted that electronic cigarettes have not been approved, for helping people quit smoking, by any government. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarette may have a role helping people quit that have failed using other methods" was changed to

"In July 2014, a report developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) mentioned studies and expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested that e-cigarettes play a role in helping people quit, but concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine with certainty. However, the report conceded that e-cigarettes are likely to help some people quit. "

What the source says is "Although anecdotal reports indicate that an undetermined proportion of ENDS users have quit smoking using these products their efficacy has not been systematically evaluated yet"

All of these changes are less representative of the sum of the sources cited than the existing language, and so have been reverted. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the editor took the bias point from one extreme to the other. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit:

"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain."

was changed to

"The level of certainty regading the benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are debated."

The edit added a reference to explain the "uncertain" as did another edit of theirs on a different point. The benefits at this time are uncertain because of the debate between sources. It is a controversy because while long term studies have not been done, existing research shows the benefits in harm reduction probably outweigh the risks of continuing to expose those that wont quit to tobacco cigarettes. Though it may be OR combing them this way. This IP's edits should not be auto reverted imho, but perhaps edited by breaking out the added reference to a new sentence. The editor is possibly new to Misplaced Pages. I hope they join and have a talk page so its easier to explain how the claims should have been added. AlbinoFerret 13:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Undone Electronic cigarette edit

Moved from QG's talk page.

Hi QG, can you explain why you undid this edit I made to the ecigarette page? The harm reduction section has way too much of "a review said this" followed by "a review said that". My edit was neutral and did not change the underlying meaning of what was written but varied the sentence structure up for a better written article so I'm confused why you undid this. Was it inadvertent or purposefully done? This is the edit to which I am referring: I see you added a lot of material and that's all well and good, but I do not see a clear explanation for why the edit I made was changed. If you could elaborate, I would be grateful. Thanks TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not an adequate explanation. How did I violate WP:SYN? I did not change any of the conclusions that were already written. If you're saying the information as it was already written in the stable version was violating Syn, that's one thing, but if you're implying I did, that requires further explanation. Please elaborate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This wording is the current text. "A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders. A 2014 review found some evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use."

The word "some" was removing.

"Review articles published in 2014 stated different things. They did not come to the same conclusion. It is close to your change but without stating "Review articles...". I kept most of your change. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, each review concluded something different and that is clear from how I wrote the sentence. It was quite clear that two separate conclusions were being discussed in the same sentence and that each of the two claims was attributed to a specific reference. And I quote: "Review articles published in 2014 found evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." As you can see, this clearly states that the Drummond article supports the evidence of e-cigarette possibly lower tobacco cigarette use statement and the Haj reference is the support for the possibly less harmful than tobacco cigarette use to users and bystanders statements. There is absolutely no reason these statements can not be combined into one sentence for simplicity. This was very clearly written and I do not see a WP:SYN violation. If you disagree, I would be happy to discuss this and obtain additional opinions if you insist. I personally think it was quite unambiguous the way it was written and did not represent a WP:SYN violation. The removal of the word "some" was actually not purposeful, however, it was still not a SYN violation since the version I wrote qualifies the statement with the word "may". Regardless, that does not call for undoing the entire edit. Instead, you can simply reinsert the word some to clarify that there is "some evidence". Is it agreeable to you to put it the way I had it and add back in the word some? Also, I purposefully started it off as review articles to vary the sentence structure. Here's what I would propose: "Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use". That is OR to state "Review articles published in 2014" because it was only one 2014 review that came to that conclusion. There was no Review articles for each individual statement. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be OR to say that, except that's NOT what the sentence says since it does not end there. If you read the rest, it's clear from the entire sentence that it is not saying two review articles reached the same conclusion about lowering tobacco cigarette use. One concluded there's evidence for lowering use while the other found evidence for less harmful effects. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, QG and I are having a bit of debate about the wording I changed yesterday. I personally think it's quite clear that the following statement: ""Review articles published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." would be interpreted as "these two reviews (or we can specify two reviews if necessary so people don't think it's more than that) found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarretes may lower tobacco use (this statement is attributed to the Drummond article) and may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders (this part of the sentence clearly attributed to the Hajek article). Do others believe this is confusing or have slight modifications that would be better? I'm not opposed to saying something like "Two review articles published in 2014...etc etc). There are concerns that this somehow represents WP:OR or WP:SYN when this is really an attempt at simplicity, terseness, and avoiding the repetitive drone of "a review stated this" and "a 2014 review stated that". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a slight SYN and this is not how to write text for each individual review. Even if two reviews made that exact same statement it would still be SYN to state "Review articles published in 2014..." The first part is SYN and that makes the entire sentence SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That incorrect, if two reviews come to the same conclusion you can write the conclusion and place both citations at the end.AlbinoFerret 06:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case two reviews did not come to the same conclusion. If two reviews come to the same conclusion it would be unnecessary to add "Review articles published in 2014..." QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You did the same thing here Quack. I just fixed it. AlbinoFerret 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, when two reviews DO come to the same conclusion, we place the citations both at the end of the sentence indicating that they reached the same conclusion. However, when we have a sentence on Misplaced Pages and we put one citation in the middle and one at the end of the sentence, it always means that the citation in the middle of the sentence is serving as verification of the information preceding it while the one at the end of the sentence is verifying the remainder. This is pretty common practice across Misplaced Pages. I'm sure I can find numerous examples of this. I also disagree that it would be SYN to say "review articles" if the two reviews had reached identical conclusions. The sentence I wrote clearly indicates that the first part of the sentence refers to the Drummond article and the second half of the sentence refers to the Hajek article. If it was a "slight" SYN, can you propose a slight modification of the sentence without overhauling the whole thing to eliminate the problem? I think that would allow for a mutually agreeable solution since this has become a semantics debate (and it's not really worth spending much time on). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I also have to agree with AlbinoFerret that from the diff he linked it looks like you did the exact same thing QG. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of the e-cigerette article :D AlbinoFerret 06:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of getting sucked into this vortex. I have no desire to participate in the countless spirited/toxic debates I've observed here on this page. QG, here's what I propose in order to keep the varied sentence structure intact (I think that's still needed) but avoid any ambiguity related to OR or SYNTH: "One review article published in 2014 found some evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use while another suggested e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders." Is this clearer? I still maintain nothing was wrong with the original sentence I put in, but I would prefer that we stop focusing on this semantic issue and put our energies where they better serve Misplaced Pages-toward editing and adding actual content. Objections? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"One review article published in 2014" is too wordy and we don't do this for other text to put "while" in the the middle of the sentence. Another editor considers it SYN to put the word "and" in the middle of the sentence.

A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders.

"A 2014 review found some evidence that e-cigarettes may lower tobacco cigarette use. However, no long-term studies have been done on e-cigarettes safety; therefore, their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear." Reference is the same source. I think it should be grouped together. I disagree with moving the Drummond2014 source away from the next sentence from the same source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The "therefore" in your wording above is clear SYN.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear." The text and the word is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

QG, just to be clear, by agreeing with AlbinoFerret you're agreeing that you engaged in SYN as well, if you're really interpreting SYN correctly (which I don't think you are). Regardless, I'm not interested in debating this further, it's become tiresome and basically pointless. As I said before, you're debating semantics and that's really not what's important on Misplaced Pages. I do not feel you are working constructively to resolve this issue (you did not even address my question of whether the sentence I proposed was clearer or not and arbitrarily criticized the style as not what you would've chosen) and are simply digging in your heels rather than working collaboratively. It's really not that wordy a proposal and I have yet to see a counter-proposal from you that addresses the issue and avoids the "a review this, a review that" issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting the word while in the middle of a sentence to clarify that the sentence is discussing two separate but related elements or clauses. QG, I'm finding your unwillingness to compromise (on a relatively minor matter) or to work collaboratively/constructively with me by working towards anything resembling a mutually agreeable solution irritating, so I'm going to say I'm done. Have it your way pal, I'm really done. This is precisely why I did not want to work on the e-cigarette article and be involved in such a toxic environment. Again, with all due respect and no offense intended, I think you are significantly contributing to the toxicity of this talk page with your editing style and I think you should reflect on whether you could improve your ability to work in a collaborative manner. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"One review article published in 2014" is too long.

"A 2014 review" is concise.

Each sentence is discussing different issues. QuackGuru (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference WHO Position 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drummond2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haj2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Removal of Variable Wattage Section

While some of the removal may have been necessary, there was no discussion. It also removed things that should not be a point of contention like the shape of the device since pictures of the devices exist in the article.AlbinoFerret 15:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use only high-quality, independent sources. Commercial press releases and manufacturer's websites are unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT. Anonymous enthusiast blog postings are also problematic. Per WP:BURDEN if unsourced content is challenged, for example with a revert, it is up to the editor interested in having the content remain in the article to find acceptable sourcing for it. I will be reviewing the rest of the section to ensure the sourcing complies with standards. Zad68 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, look ll you want. Please discuss it first before removing whole sections. I would like to keep up the notability of the section in case there is a split. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I will follow WP:BRD. Generally if it's been WP:BOLDly added recently but doesn't appear to meet standards I will WP:REVERT remove it. If there's an editor who wishes to see the content in the article they can start a Talk page discussion making their case in support. We will then discuss. Zad68 15:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Only the last two little sections were recently added, and that was at least a week ago, the main section has been here a long time. I have a problem with this removal it is referenced to a site that is not just an enthusiasts "blog". Per its disclosure statement. " We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers" AlbinoFerret 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like the content to stay please find independent reliable sources that both have a reputation for fact-checking and can be used to established WP:WEIGHT. The "ecigadvanced" website's own statements clearly show the website is closely allied with the manufacturers and so the site can be expected to have competing interests. There's nothing to indicate they fact-check or have a responsibility to anything other than their advertisers. At a minimum this site cannot be used to establish WP:WEIGHT. Zad68 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:BIASED financial biased sources may be used by attributing in the text. As for fact checking, there are "teams" of writers. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For this particular section of the article, the level of reliability of the sources seem to be adequate. We need a section on these 3rd gen devices. If you have better suggestions for sources, then feel free to help :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am working in my sandbox to strengthen the references and clean up the area. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The main thing this article should say about customizable e-cigarettes (I see two sections about mods and variable stuff) is how many people use them. If that number is a low percentage, consider giving one sentence about it in a higher level section, linking to a new article you create about all the wonderful ways you can adjust your 'vapor' from day to day. Preferably that article should be larger than the sections here, large enough to accommodate, for example, an explanation of why people do this. There was a suggestion to split the article above and this seems like a natural line of cleavage. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mods are different that Variable devices though they can both sometimes be generically called mods but they differ in construction. Mods in the true sense are pure mechanical devices without wires or boards. They are unregulated giving power strait from the battery kind of like a flashlight. Variables have power regulation through boards and use wires. They also are usually different in shape. Mechanicals are usually a cylinder, Variables are usually a box shape. How many people use them has not been studied, but they are commonly used by anyone who doesnt use a cigalike so use is pretty wide.

If you are planing on moving Construction during a split you may have issues of notability where the section is just moved back in a few days. While it is important to the discussion of the E-cigarette it is harder to prove notability. As Kim said above, the sources it uses to explain parts are usually good enough to prove something exists in an article that already has notability. But proving stand alone notability is another thing. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Coupla points here. (a) We need to explain in quite basic terms what a customisable/non-ready-made e-cigarette is. This is old news to people in the vaping world but it's quite possibly entirely unfamiliar to many non-vaping readers. An analogy could be useful (hi-fi is an obvious one that springs to mind but may not be the best). (b) If we're talking about penetration of customisables we should remember that this varies a *lot* from one country to another. Some are much more cigalike cultures than others. Barnabypage (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact in an article about electronic cigarettes we should dedicate more effort to explaining what e-cigarettes are than to completely hypothetical health risks that are unsupported by, or even conflict with, all the available evidence. More descriptions of mods, less scaremongering.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with this statement. I've been off wiki for a couple of months and the health section has exploded. I still don't think health effects should come before Usage and Construction, the two sections that tell you what one is and what it does. The health section needs some serious pruning. SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ownership Issues

Quack has been busy changing names of sections back to what he used to create things. There is no consensus for adding more medical sections. I removed them, He added them, I changed the name of the sections trying to work with objections raised to me that some organization is needed and pointing out WP:OR issues on one of them. Quack changed them back again to what he added in the first place. This is an ongoing problem. If the words Quack adds are changed, or the order he creates them in are changed, he changes them back. WP:OAS is the controlling policy. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have changed one name to something diffrent but meaning the same thing, and added a WP:OR tag on the "Ultrafine particles" section since its Original Research By Syntheses. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a recurring problem. It has been discussed numerous times in the past month or so , , , . I don't see how any meaningful improvements can be made to this article when constantly faced with such editing tactics. Mihaister (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack just moved a OR tag from the section to Components, pure vandalism done from spite because of ownership issues. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving a tag does not meet the definition of WP:VAND but I agree it was undesirable. However, the correct procedure now would be to explain why an OR tag is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had left a message here last night thanking Albino for his changes to the Construction section, but I don't see it this morning. So I will add again here. This was a helpful and appreciated change from my POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition of "Advertisement" flag to Construction section

I have added an "Advertisement" flag to the Construction section based on the following aspects that I feel render this section unduly promotional.

• Extraordinary detail of design aspects and their "advantages", targeted markets, and experiential aspects that go far beyond Misplaced Pages's normal description of manufactured products
• Consistent use of non-objective language emphasizing product "offerings" and how they meet the needs or particular user groups that is more appropriate in a sales brochure or on an enthusiast website than in an encyclopedia. In particular, the tone set by the widespread use of terms such as "features", "consumer choice", "offerings", "introduced", and descriptions of user experience.

• "New generation electronic cigarettes often called mods, PVs (personal vaporizer) or APVs (advanced personal vaporizer) have an increased nicotine-dispersal performance"
• “Some manufacturers also offer a cigarette pack-shaped portable charging case”
• “This group includes mechanical mods and variable voltage devices and may sport additional features”
• “Some of these devices offer additional features through their menu system..”
• “Evolve was the company that introduced variable wattage to the industry. The technology goes all the way back to the Darwin, the companies first variable wattage device”
• “The DNA 40 is the first control board to monitor and control the temperature of the heating coil. Controlling temperature is important to limit charing of the wicking material and reduce the breakdown of flavoring and base liquid ingredients”
• "Components are also available individually and consumers may choose to modify or boost their flavor, nicotine strength, or concentration with various offerings. Pre-made e-liquids are manufactured with various tobacco, fruit, and other flavors, as well as variable nicotine concentrations"
• "In surveys of regular e-cigarette users the most liked e-liquids had a nicotine content of 18 mg/ml, and largely the favorite flavors were tobacco, mint and fruit"

Formerly 98 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. It's "advertising" to note that some devices have menus with extra features, or come with a charging system? Please don't be so silly.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CheesyAppleFlake, we need more information and facts, not less. The Health section can fill up with speculation, but facts about hardware are a problem? This appears to be an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have just redone the Power section on Variable Wattage with reliable sources, including one for the patent. Citing Firsts, or patents issued in an area where they have not been given is a normal addition, it only mentions how far back and mentions a product not sold in the last two years. As for e-juice, components are food flavourings, they have always been available, and the preferences are sourced to Hajek. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Which product is being advertised? As far as i know most e-cig producers are making 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation equipment, so no specific company is being advantaged. That you are reacting to this this way, is in my view more an indication of ignorance of the product as well as the market, rather than being an objective perspective of the material presented. With regards to your comments on advantages etc. then that information is (iirc) already present in several of the usage sections of the WP:MEDRS material used in the health section. E-cigarettes are consumer products the same way as Vacuum cleaners and just as those, there are different technologies, and products that offer different advantages/disadvantages. May i suggest that you look at Vacuum cleaners and compare the construction section with that article? --Kim D. Petersen 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim, one interesting thing about the Vacuum cleaners article is scarcity of citations in the hardware sections. AlbinoFerret

Interesting comment about Vacuum cleaners, Kim. I agree the "construction" and design considerations are relevant and appropriate for comparison here. However, it's quite striking how little is discussed in that article about "Health effects" even though vacuum cleaners are known to produce "ultrafine particles" which may have similar health effects to environmental pollution. Perhaps WP:MED needs to take a close look at the Vacuum cleaners article and add a "prominent" health section related to the possible effects of second-hand vacuuming to children and expecting mothers. Mihaister (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the vacuum cleaner article is very different and less promotional.

• The word "feature", used to describe an attractive or valuable attribute appears 3 times in this article, and 0 times in the VC article
• The word "offer", again used to describe specifically to describe an attribute as being useful or valuable to a consumer, is used 6 times in this article and 0 times in VC
• The word "sport", used as above, is used 3 times here and 0 times in VC
• Various phrases about consumers having a choice or consumers being able to choose a particular style that meets their preferences or needs, appear 8 times in this article and once in VC

The tone here is clearly promotional and more suitable for an enthusiast website where one would go to pick a particular item for purchase than an encylopedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Having a choice is more widespread in e-cigarettes than vacuums. There are about 5,000 different components and over 3,000 juices currently being produced. I will take a look at those words and how they are used. But when a statement says (insert components category) modern versions offer...... (insert addition). Its not a sales pitch but describing the evolution of the type of component. Please, if you can suggest a word thats more appropriate to describe the features of a component that make it different than others, suggest it.

That you dont find the section interesting is clear. But I am sure some readers do, especially device people, those that love to look at tear downs of things. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for the information on components gives a better understanding of the device, what it does and how it does it. The article is about a consumer product documenting the features of consumer items is normal for Misplaced Pages. I have removed advertisements, there is no place for them, I try my best to link to non commercial sites and would rather not use them unless someone challenges the information. Believe me this is not a sales pitch nor do I want one in the article. AlbinoFerret 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I still believe it reads like a Buyer's guide, and that is not our job here. I'd suggest that we replace words like "offers" and "sports" with the more neutrally descriptive verb "has" throughout, and eliminate all references to consumers making choices. Or we can do yet another Rfc I suppose. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with substituting "has", but removing references to consumer choice smells like an attempt to further medicalize what is a consumer product. All these options exist because consumers want a choice.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the words "offer" "feature" and "sport, funny thing, "sport" was only in it once. The other instances were the word "transporters" from medical claims. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done a little work to the e-liquid statement. It wasnt one of my edits as I havent expanded that area but one sentence and thats the Hajeck referenced one. Some description of choice is necessary to describe the reason for the vast number of devices available. But if there is a troubling use point it out and Ill try and reword it. AlbinoFerret 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

When I see words like "sport" "offer" "most liked" etc. my perception is I'm reading promotional material, not an encylopedia article. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I suspect there could be some truth to this perception, perhaps rooted in biology. There is a lot of talk here about "next-gen", someone compared the customized cigarettes to "hi-fi" in the section above, talk of "improved" performance, but so far the definition of what is "better" is left unclear. To editorialize a moment -- pure guess, suspicion, not even OR -- I am getting the feeling that 'improvement' is all about getting more nicotine out of each puff. After all, nicotine positively reinforces whatever is perceived to be the cause, whether it's a Native American religious ritual or the act of tapping a cigarette, or of course smoking it. So if tinkering with a cigarette = more nicotine, that's going to be reinforced as an activity. Now with someone who smokes tobacco, I assume all the various tars and toxins and stink of it tends to self-limit consumption, but is the same true of nicotine solution? I kind of worry that the "seventh-generation e-cigarette" could involve syringe, several times the normal lethal dose of nicotine, and a high tolerance. Anyway, I'll quit editorializing, but that's the smell I'm picking up here, and one way or another, it would be best to defuse the promotionalism by carefully identifying and sourcing what claims are actually being made, without blindly accepting assertions of "better"ness. Wnt (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but you just don't know what you're talking about and this article isn't about any feelings you might get. The mistake you are all making is insisting that e-cigs are just a "drug delivery device" and all users are looking for is nicotine. Both assumptions are just wrong. Your medical claims are 100% destroyed by the fact that a lot of people buy very high end vaping gear and use it with nicotine free juice. I'm doing the AGF thing here, and I'll just suggest that instead of trying to force a medical slant on this article you learn something about the subject first. That's the main cause of this whole damn mess.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting idea Wnt, but incorrect. What is more sought is better flavour/taste extraction and/or more vapor production. And the reason that i can state, with some confidence, that nicotine isn't the factor, is that there is an inverse correlation between how much vapor someone wants to produce (jargon: cloud-chasing) and the nicotine content in the e-liquid (jargon:juice) that they are using. Not to mention that we have actual WP:MEDRS sources that have investigated whether the nicotine content in liquid is correlated to the cotinine levels (it isn't - apparently vapers will puff more/less to fit the cotinine levels that they are used to getting). --Kim D. Petersen 01:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I have gotten also Kim, people who use mods and variables max out at 6mg liquid. With more using 3mg and 0mg than 6. There are a lot of "Flavour Chasers" out there. I have yet to add it to atomizers, but there have been a lot of advancements that add to flavour in the last year like domed top caps. Its the idea of addiction or continuation of addiction that stops Harm Reduction for people already hopelessly addicted and will impact their short lives as they continue puffing tobacco. There are some that wont stop trying to get nicotine. History also shows that when the devices that work are not available, people can modify things to be e-cigs. Like turning a flash light into a "Mod" Thats how the term was coined. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@CheesyAppleFlake:, @KimDabelsteinPetersen: No offence taken! I knew I was going out on a limb there, but understand I had to put on the board that this is something that a nonsmoker reading the article could end up inferring. I also wasn't familiar with the point about cotinine which could be worth pursuing. I do recognize that references about what users want in an e-cigarette are not medical in nature and should not be strangled with MEDRS, and would welcome seeing them put to use. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. It's just getting very frustrating watching an article that's supposed to be about e-cigarettes turn into a litany of what people who don't like e-cigarettes don't know but have hypothetical concerns about. The "Health effects" section doesn't contain any health effects, just speculation about possible health effects. As for non-smokers reading the article, I'll gently point out that I'm a non-smoker too. I haven't smoked since I switched to vaping in 2012.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I have a good feeling your not pushing an agenda. But my greatest fear is the agenda ends up hurting people. There are a ton of stainless steel and brass mods and atomizers out there and things can be modded. They are not going to just go away. Make it hard for people to jet nicotine juice and we are going to see a black market and "bathtub ejuice" made in back rooms with all kinds of impurities. Regulation of juice and hardware is the best way imho. AlbinoFerret 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not nearly to the point of having an opinion about that at this point. First I'd like to know what the mods out there are and do (I suggested you split that off and give yourself more room to pursue this above). Then I want sourced claims of what policies have been proposed and what they're supposed to accomplish. And then? I'm not signed up for a legal approach. After all, the Surgeon General going out and saying that smoking causes cancer was the biggest lifesaver ever to come to nicotine, and at the beginning it was nothing but words. There's no reason to assume legislation/regulation is the only path to a goal, once a person decides on what that goal even is. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why can't we have that information about e-cigarettes here, in the e-cigarette article, then split the medical stuff off if people are really that interested in it? This article is not called "Hypothetical health effects of e-cigarettes" and really I don't care much what the medical literature is concentrating on, because this isn't a medical article. It's about a consumer product, and it should be informative to people like you who'd like to know more about that product. Right now all it really tells people is what a bunch of nervous nellies and vested interests have "concerns" about, which is kind of pathetic.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Np, Wnt. I'm very much aware that this would be a common logical misconception to reach. On that issue, this whole "advertising" issue is rather funny for a whole other reason. The e-cigarette industry is usually steps behind in innovation/production with the hobby/DIY market. Most new innovations are figured out by tinkerers rather than industry. And when we consider the "big evil ones" (the tobacco companies - yep most vapers consider them that as well), they are at least a generation behind with their products... for instance most tobacco corps are still focusing on the cig-a-like, which is in decline (simply because they are bad products - once you've tried a 2nd or 3rd gen device, you aren't going back). --Kim D. Petersen 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent removals of words like "offer" has helped the article a lot. The above suggestion that medical stuff may be moved to another article would not be desirable. Shunting unwanted text to a back corner would not work as a tactic, and would not be compatible with WP:POVFORK or WP:DUE. It is highly unlikely that a general reader would think that e-cigs are only tenuously related to health issues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not be desirable to you, but that's down to your POV. You think this is a health article. It isn't. It's an article about a consumer device that's been hijacked by the MED fraternity. Yes, speculation about hypothetical risks should be covered in a section, but it should absolutely not dominate the article the way it does now. As for WP:DUE, most of the discussion I read about e-cigs is about new equipment, juice and coiling techniques. Health only dominates in medical journals, and this is not a medical article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter what section is split, it will be a POV split based on the comments of this section. AlbinoFerret 03:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Erh? No. POV-splits are duplicates that differ in their POV. A regular split means that you move the content of a section off to a new article, and summarize that article in the section instead. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@@Johnuniq: i agree that with the "strategy" that you outline it very easily could be a POV fork, but i don't agree that it by necessity would be so, or that your "strategy" assessment is correct. From my view, this article should be a summary-article, and thus we should split off both of the two massive sections and summarize them here instead - thus ending up with an article that covers the whole topic area, and two subarticles that can expand and explain the nitty-gritty. And that is 100% within WP policy, and not in anyway incompatible with either DUE or POVFork. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal - A November 11 ceasefire

Tomorrow (today in the EU) is Armistice day. I grew up in a home with a WWI antitank gun in my Dad's office. My great uncle brought it back from the War. (Things were a lot more casual back then). The gun was a wreck and had clearly been fired in anger. So that war has always been very real to me.

The war ended on November 11, 1918 at 11 am Paris time. Eight hours from now is the 96th anniversary of that event. It might be a nice time to take 24 hours off from fighting over this article, complaining about each other on the admin boards, and criticizing each other on this Talk page.

Could we take 24 hours off in honor of the occassion? I propose we do so starting 8 hours from now. Maybe we could all think about why the other side feels so strongly about its position for 24 hours and refrain from editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Go spend the 24 hours learning something about the damn subject. Signed, A 20-Year Army Veteran.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea Formerly 98, but lets agree to revert any edits by current editors after its over. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If we get a reasonable number of people to agree, I will personally agree to use my 3RR limit to delete any "pro-medical" edits occurring during that period. Alternatively, we could hold a vote and ask an uninvolved admin to close the page to edits for 24 hours.Formerly 98 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A noble and symbolic gesture, Formerly 98. I agree with the proposed "ceasefire". Mihaister (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea, this is not an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages article editing capabilities. "Because it's Armistice Day" isn't an valid Misplaced Pages content or policy reason to make a content change to article. Zad68 02:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: I'd say the goal of the exercise is to try to get the editing of this article back on a constructive footing. Maybe its a silly idea, but unless you have a better one it might be worth a try. What isn't going to work is continuing in the vein of the last few weeks. Can you name a single day from among the last 30 that, if that day's edits hadn't occurred, the article would be worse today? Formerly 98 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 don't get me wrong, I agree editing at this article has not great for the past 6 weeks or so, and again I appreciate the sentiment but unfortunately this won't be the path. Zad68 03:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be interesting, here are a few videos by experts whose papers we cite in the article, that might make you understand an alternative:

• Hajek: Experts on Camera
• Polosa: Harmful & potentially harmful constituents in e-cigarettes
• Dr. Michael Siegel on Why Electronic Cigarettes Work

These are all good resources in trying to understand the Harm reduction view. --Kim D. Petersen 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Endless Reshuffling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions

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

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3 (question is malformed though, "less healthy" is too broad. Almost everything is less healthy than not doing it). --Kim D. Petersen 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 barring new evidence, no significant health risks are documented, or very likely. --Kim D. Petersen 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 No reason to think so. Vapor contains harmful levels of... what?-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 1 There is no clear evidence of absolute risk from vaping. We have to be careful here though. because "statistically significant" doesn't necessarily mean biologically meaningful. My answer here reflects the latter interpretation rather than the former. Mihaister (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• 4 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 (again not very useful - improve is everything from having 1 less sickday per decade to not dying) Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 I don't think anyone is seriously arguing this point anyway. Even the ANTZ are just talking about "population" effects.-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 Even the head of the FDA on tobacco control said before congress that if we could get everyone to switch we would see significant health gains even in populations. On a personal level I have witnessed it. This should be a major focus to the article IMHO. AlbinoFerret 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 All MEDR sources appear to agree on this one. Mihaister (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 Kim D. Petersen 21:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 5 Again, is anyone credible denying this? No comparison.-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 4 All MEDR sources appear to agree on this one. Mihaister (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• 3 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• X (completely useless - wearing deoderant is more likely than not to pose at least some measurable health hazard. Define level of harm. Kim D. Petersen 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• X Agree with Kim. We can measure pretty damn small, but does anyone really care about a 0.000000001% increase in risk?-CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 3 That may well be the case, however, "measurable" does not mean biologically meaningful. Mihaister (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2 Formerly 98 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 only one case where it could end up that way - and that is if e-cigs turn out to be a direct gateway to smoking. And no data indicates this. As long as the number that stop smoking is higher than the number that start - the societal burden falls. Key fail in this question is "tobacco related" since the health hazard vectors in e-cigs aren't tobacco related, except for nicotine, and here data indicates that the burden is close to caffeine and other stimulants. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Ridiculous. The "gateway to tobacco" idea is dead, and that's the only way this could happen.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 All available evidence shows the health risks are less even now without any regulation. A little regulation is needed imho. Child safe packaging, checking for and eliminating impurities in liquids and defective hardware design could lower the burden more. But increase? I have seen no evidence that it will. AlbinoFerret 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 First, currently available evidence suggests the risks of vaping are "trivial". Second, there is no evidence strict regulation has made any tobacco product safer. Mihaister (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 0 no real term risk vectors have been identified, and it if it is there, then it is more likely to be on par with deoderant/perfume exposure. The reason that tobacco control focuses here is the perceived risk of "normalization" or smokers "cheating" on cessation, which are policy issues rather than health issues. --Kim D. Petersen 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 Not a chance. Any exhaled residue is barely distinguishable from the levels in a non-vaper's breath.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• 0 There is no proof of a moderate health risk from second hand vapor in MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)