Misplaced Pages

Talk:Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bfpage (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 23 July 2015 (→Bekki et al: comment from an uninvolved editor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:55, 23 July 2015 by Bfpage (talk | contribs) (→Bekki et al: comment from an uninvolved editor)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Ecig sanctions

WikiProject iconMedicine: Toxicology / Pulmonology Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconChemicals Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Considered Toxic

What general ingredient in e-liquid or emissions is considered toxic in the Bertholon et al paper that is used as a reference? Toxicity is very much based upon dose, and not component, so the very general claim here is problematic. Combine this with the conclusion given in the paper of ".., the short-term toxicity can be considered to be very low - except for some individuals with reactive airways - and the long-term toxicity depends on the additives and contaminants in PG and/or glycerol." then it gets even more dodgy.

When we make such statements in the voice of Misplaced Pages - then it is required that we are at least as conservative as the reference that we are citing - and here we are taking a paper that states that toxicity is considered to be very low, and stating it as if it is generally toxic. --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The review verifies the claim. Therefore, there was no need to add a citation needed tag. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the review does not verify the claim. Will you please read my text? What general ingredient is toxic? --Kim D. Petersen 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This diff does not resolve the problem. The Bertholon paper does not state that "some ingredients in the e-liquid of e-cigarettes are regarded as toxic". Even water is toxic if you ingest too much of it. So i'll ask again: What general ingredient in e-liquid or emissions is considered toxic? --Kim D. Petersen 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Current wording: "Some ingredients in the e-liquid of e-cigarettes are regarded as toxic.
The source said: "The basic PG and/or glycerol mixture produces a white, odorless vapor, so natural or artificial substances are added to give it flavor. These substances have been studied extensively because they are used in the food industry and for indoor fragrances and deodorants: some are considered to be toxic and a number of them are close to known carcinogens ." QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"Some are considered to be toxic" can not be translated into "Some ingredients in the e-liquid" - the former is specialized and the latter is generalized. And you completely ignore the fact that the papers general conclusion is that if there is toxicity, then it is "considered to be very low" - something that cannot be ignored, unless you are cherry-picking from the paper, instead of representing what the paper is actually saying. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The source does not say "Some are considered to be toxic". QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it does - try actually reading it, instead of trying to find specific wordings. (btw. is inserted to provide context) Context and the general view of a specific paper matters. You can't just look it through and pick whatever individual sentences that you like. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is more from the source: "However, in the case of the e-cigarette fluid, the composition is not properly labeled: additives like nicotine and flavors vary between and within brands and contamination with various chemicals has been detected. The short-term toxicity seems low, but the long-term toxicity is unknown." QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why you think that sentence is relevant - other than in the fact that it summarizes what they've found about short-term/long-term toxicity? (which i already quoted above) --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have adjusted the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More General vs. Specific

When we state:

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), toluene, aldehydes, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and tobacco alkaloids has been found in the vapor.

Then we are stating this in such a way, that the reader will assume that vapor contains these substances - but each of these individual parts have only been found in some e-liquids. Ie. they are not always found. And TSNA's include the tobacco alkaloids. --Kim D. Petersen 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless the source explicitly states it has only been found in some e-liquids then that is original research. The part "has been found" does not mean they always are in the vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the source does state this - and even shows it to you in the tables - then it cannot be OR (example: Only 2 of 4 studies find TSNA'S). Our sentence does state it as if it is always found within vapor. Once more you are more focused on individual sentences in the papers, instead of what the paper actually says. --Kim D. Petersen 23:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I still can't verify the part some you want to include. Maybe there is another source that explains it in more detail. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with KDP, Quack the reason you can't verify Some is because, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, you don't understand verification. When a source shows 2/4 studies that look for TSNA's find them, that verifies that they're sometimes found. SPACKlick (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. "Some" is only OR or WP:WEASEL when the reader, by checking the sources, can't figure out who or what "some" refers to, which is clearly not the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Using "has sometimes been found" will fix the problem reported in the original post, since the sources confirm that fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Propylene Oxide

Has Propylene Oxide ever been measured in an e-cigarette? One thing is the potential of PG to generate PO, another thing is whether it is actually possible in an e-cigarette. The paper cited in Grana is not about e-cigarettes, but about what happens to PG when it is heated to 800K - which i think is rather impossible. But basics first: Has it ever been measured in e-cigarettes? Or is this just more speculation? --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71" The text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you actually read what i wrote? I'll ask again: Has Propylene Oxide ever been measured in an e-cigarette? --Kim D. Petersen 23:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think this diff is a solution? Unless this article in reality should be named List of chemicals speculated to be possible from a electronic cigarette. Again: Has Propylene Oxide even been measured in the aerosol of an electronic cigarette - if not - then it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to question reliable sources how they came to their conclusion. I'm sure there will be more sources in the future on this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not list Propylene Oxide as a component of e-cigarette vapour. Therefore it should not be referred in an article "List of chemicals in the vapor of electronic cigarettes"
"When propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it could produce propylene oxide." The text is sourced to a very reable source and it is within the scope of this page. Grana 2014 is a high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"The claim "Reliable sources do not list Propylene Oxide as a component of e-cigarette vapour." is not accurate. It is sourced to a high-quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Where? I've read the review and it doesn't mention propylene oxide being found in the vapour.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide..."" It does mention it. This is common knowledge. See "Even better, when heated above a certain temperature, PG will convert to propylene oxide". QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is not about what propylene glycol can do. It's about the chemicals in e-cig vapour. The review does not say propylene oxide has ever been found in e-cig vapour so it's not a valid source.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Since propylene glycol can form propylene oxide it can be found in the vapor according to MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That is a massive leap of logic, like saying that because vinyl is flammable vinyl in swimming pool liners is flammable in a full pool. There is no source which has found propylene oxide in the vapor. There has no source that has even speculated that the conditions for propylene oxide formation exist in electronic Cigarettes. Your POV is showing. You've had long enough to find a source for your bold assertion, it's clearly POV and OR and should be removed. SPACKlick (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It can't be OR when it is obviously sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Quack it doesn't matter how many times you source "A can turn into B" that doesn't get you to your conclusion "Thing which contains A also contains B". Your sources do not show propylene oxide in the vapour. You are wrong to say they do and it is OR or at the very least SYN to make the leap from "can form propylene oxide" to "Can form propylene oxide in the conditions of an e-cigarette and thus propylene oxide is in the vapour". Your claim is not sourced. SPACKlick (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The review clearly stated "When heated and vaporized,..."" When it is vaporized it is in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The source is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if propylene glycol, when heated and vaporized, can form propylene oxide. What matters is if propylene oxide is found in e-cigarette vapour, and you have not produced a source for that. Do you have one or not?--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The review is very relevant. It does matter that propylene glycol can form propylene oxide when heated and vaporized. Because when it vaporized it is in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Where does the review say that propylene oxide is found in e-cig vapour? Please quote the relevant line.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the text you deleted is sourced to the Grana 2014 review? QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop changing the subject. Where does the review say propylene oxide has been found in e-cig vapour?--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The sourced text you deleted confirms it is found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. We have as confirmed. PG is in e-cigarettes. PG is heated to about 55C in e-cigarettes. (I have seen non RS data that says it can get to 175-200 in some circumstances). When PG is heated to 530C(800K) it can form PO. PG is found in e-cig vapour. What you need to show, for relevance to this page is EITHER PO has been found in e-cig vapour OR PO can form during the sort of heating found in e-cigs. Neither of these things are sourced so the fact that "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized" while verifiable isn't relevant or within the scope of this article. It would be nice if you'd show some idea of understanding our position even if you disagree with it. Rather than IDHT and repeating your arguments without reference to the points made. SPACKlick (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You agree the text is sourced. So there is no issue with the text. The text shows when PG is vaporized it can form PO. That clearly means PO can be found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is about chemicals that ARE found in the vapour. Propylene oxide is not one of them. Your source doesn't come even remotely close to showing that PO can be formed in the conditions found in an e-cigarette. You are just pushing your own POV. There is a clear consensus against including this speculation; the only one who wants it in the article is you.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That is for the reader to determine not editors. It is evident from the review that it can be found in the vapor, however. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No it's for scientific consensus to determine. Currently you are speculating on behalf of scientists. What the review says is that there are situations where heating and aerosolising can turn PG to PO. What it comes nowhere near saying is in e-cigs PG turns into PO or that PO is in the vapor. That is your own OR/SYN. SPACKlick (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The text is well sourced and verifiable. There was no OR/SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There is OR/Syn when you move from "There are conditions where PG+heat->PO" to "There are conditions where PG+heat->PO in the context of e-cigarettes". The source doesn't indicate these conditions exist, likely exist or even possibly exist in e-cigarettes. Just that there are conditions that exist. It is OR to add to that the context of specifically e-cigarettes.SPACKlick (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is this back?

We now have the claim again that "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized." despite the fact that, as mentioned above, it has never been found in an e-cigarette, and that the source that Grana cites for this, is about PG heated to 800 K - a temperature not even remotely possible in an electronic cigarette. --Kim D. Petersen 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide" The text is clearly sourced and accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
As we been through before: No one has ever measured propylene oxide in an electronic cigarette. So it is not a verifiable "Chemical in electronic cigarette vapor" - despite your putting fingers in your ears and singing la la la la la... --Kim D. Petersen 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Another editor just restored the text. The text is verifiable according to WP:V and the text is definitely relevant since this page is no longer a bare list. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No, QG. You added the text. Not another editor. --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That is an old diff. Another editor deleted it but I did not restore it. It was an admin who restored it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the time when i stated that this claim was back. Its the top post of this section - notice that it says July 1? Now take a look at the diff i gave - notice how it says July 1. Mayhaps later someone else restored it - but you reintroduced it. So please get your facts straight! --Kim D. Petersen 02:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
IT doesn't matter how many times you re-state it Quack there's no consensus for the addition, it's disputed. Your argument is that the chemical property of propylene glycol is verifiable. My argument is that while that's true there is no source that verifies it occuring in e-cig vapour and there's no source even suggesting it's in e-cig vapour. It's OR to add that property of propylene glycol to an article about e-cigs. Once again a fact being verifiable doesn't mean it's appropriate for every article, or any article. It needs to be relevant to the scope of the article.SPACKlick (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You claim "My argument is that while that's true there is no source that verifies it occuring in e-cig vapour and there's no source even suggesting it's in e-cig vapour." We don't need multiple sources to verify the same claim as the current wording. I don't see consensus to delete sourced text cited to a high-quality review. How is it OR when the source said "When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide..."" It is obviously sourced and the source does suggest propylene glycol can turn into propylene oxide. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking for the claim to be multiply verified, I'm asking for something to show relevance. Copper, when heated in an earth like atmosphere, burns incredibly hot. This fact can be verified but would not be appropriate to include. Glycol turning into Propylene oxide is identically irrelevant to e-cigarettes. It's true but nowhere near the scope of this article. SPACKlick (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Since propylene glycol can turn into another chemical called propylene oxide it is relevant because it is a different chemical. They are not the same obviously. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not relevant, because this article is about the chemicals found in e-cig vapour and propylene oxide isn't one of them.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I previously provided verification propylene glycol can turn into propylene oxide. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So what? I asked for verification that it's found in e-cig vapour and you didn't provide any. Do you have a source that says it's found in the vapour or not? Because if you don't this issue is closed.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is not the same as verification that it DOES turn into propylene oxide in electronic cigarettes leading to its presence in the vapour. You're reaching here Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So what is this? "When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide..."" The MEDRS review confirmed when you heat propylene glycol it can turn into propylene oxide.
Grana 2014 cited another source which confirmed this.
"Consistent with our findings for glycerol,7 we discovered a new dehydration pathway for neutral propylene glycol based on the formation of propylene oxide"
Laino, Teodoro; Tuma, Christian; Moor, Philippe; Martin, Elyette; Stolz, Steffen; Curioni, Alessandro (2012). "Mechanisms of Propylene Glycol and Triacetin Pyrolysis". The Journal of Physical Chemistry A. 116 (18): 4602–4609. doi:10.1021/jp300997d. ISSN 1089-5639. PMID 22512236. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything there that says "Propylene oxide is found in e-cigarette vapour", so none of it is relevant.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It is relevant because this confirms PG converts into PO when heated. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
So what? That's not relevant.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But the scope of this article isn't "stuff that happens to PG" it's "Stuff that comes out of an e-cig" Until there is a source that shows PG becomes or likely becomes PO in an e-cig and thus PO comes out of an e-cig, any discussion of PO is irrelevant to this page. Can you confirm you UNDERSTAND that point rather than IDHTing it? SPACKlick (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Since PG can convert into PO it is within the scope of this article because when it converts into PO it can be found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Has it ever been found in the vapour? No. Case closed.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The review indicated PO can be formed from PG. That's all the text said. We don't need more sources to confirm this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't need more sources to confirm the fact that PO can form from PG. This source is sufficient to include that on a page about PG. We WOULD need more sources to include it on this page, showing that PO is or likely is formed from PG in THIS CONTEXT. The review doesn't even remotely indicate the PO is formed when PG is vaporised in e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The text did not indicate that PO is formed when PG is vaporised in e-cigs. It indicated the PO can be formed when PG is vaporised in e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But the source doesn't say that. It says there are conditions where it can be formed. It doesn't say whether or not those conditions are found, are likely found or even are possibly found in e-cigarettes. By relating the claim to e-cigarettes you are going beyond the content of the source.SPACKlick (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's review. The source stated "When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide"
It says there are conditions where it can be formed. Those conditions were included in the text that was deleted. See "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized." QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, now here's the bit missing from your argument. You're putting that in an article the scope of which is the chemical composition of e-cigarette vapour. The sourced text does not contextualise the information "PG can form PO" in e-cigarettes. So you are adding the context of it occurring in e-cigarettes, which is beyond the source. The assertion PG->PO is a relevant fact to e-cigarette vapour is the unsourced assertion. Just like the fact that copper can melt (at over 1000C by the way) isn't relevant to the safety of copper wiring in domestic applications, becuse those domestic uses cannot produce 1000C temperatures. However it would be relvant on a page about the risks to electronics in blast furnaces because they can generate that temperature.
As has been explained, repeatedly, the objection is not that the fact is false, or unverified but that there is no verification that the fact has contextual relevance. SPACKlick (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The source verified that it is contextual relevant because the source is about e-cigs and the review thought it was relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well yes and no. The Grana et al certainly considered it relevant to some point about e-cigarettes but they don't specify what. For us to assert that it's relevant to the contents of vapour is us going beyond what they say. You can;t interpret the completely absent intentions of the author. We can only go on what is said. And in this case it's not said that in e-cigarettes this can happen. The intent could have just as easily been "PG->PO can happen, somone should look into whether or not it can/does happen in e-cigs" We don't know. And because we don't know we shouldn't say. SPACKlick (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The text that was added to the article does not go beyond the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No disagreement here. That bare sentence is sourced and verifiable, however it is not within the scope of the article. In the context of this article it's not relevant any more than "propylene glycol can cause eye and respiratory irritation" is relevant to the article. That's what the entire discussion about context is about. It's relevant to the article on PG but not to the article on e-cig vapour because, as we've repeatedly said, the source doesn't verify its existence or even possible existence in e-cig vapour. It identifies it as a thing PG does not a thing it does in e-cig vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Since PG can form PO when vaporized it is relevant when the source is specifically about e-cigs. We are not using a random source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That statement is your opinion and is not verified by the source. Several editors have disagreed with you that the source makes it relevant to this article. It may well be relevant to some other article about the potential risks of e-cigarettes although depending on how it's worded that might be a stretch until further publications test it.
As a side note, the following (primary) source looked for PO and did not find it. It's the only source I could find that had looked for it and reported it. 1 It's not sufficient evidence to claim it's not produced but the evidence as to whether or not it can be ever produced in e-cigs is unclear and so it shouldn't be said in WP's voice in an article with the scope of this one that it can. SPACKlick (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
According to your previous statement you acknowledged the text is sourced but now you claim it is my opinion.
"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized." This sourced statement is not my opinion and it is relevant according to the review otherwise they would not of discussed PG can form PO when vaporized. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is not about whether PG can convert to PO when vapourised and heated. It's about whether or not PO is found in e-cig vapour. Do you have a source that says PO is found in e-cig vapour? Because if you don't the discussion is over and PO does not belong in this article.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not about what is always found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it about what's never been found in the vapour. Do you have a source that says PO has been found in the vapour, or not? If not then there's really nothing to discuss.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria is not what is in the vapor. We can include what could, might, or is sometimes found in the vapor and so on. There is no firm rule that says it must be found in the vapor to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is called "Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol". Has propylene oxide ever been found in e-cig vapour? Just answer yes or no.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not the inclusion criteria. I previously explained this. It is also about what could be in the aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely anything could be in the vapour, so that's obviously a ridiculous criterion. Now answer the question: Has propylene oxide ever been found in e-cig vapour? Please answer with one word: Either Yes or No.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I should also add that you don't WP:OWN this article, so you don't get to tell everyone what the inclusion criteria are. The article is called "Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol". To anyone who can actually read the title makes the inclusion criteria very clear: To be included it must be a chemical, and it must be found in e-cig vapour.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no MEDRS review that states anything can be found in the vapor. Please answer my question. Can propylene glycol produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized? QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant. What temperature does it need to be heated to before it can convert to PO? You don't know. Therefore you don't even know if it's possible for it to convert at the temperatures found in an e-cig, do you? Now answer my question: Has propylene oxide ever been found in e-cig vapour? Yes or no?--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The answer to your question is yes. The disagreement is over whether it's a relevant question. The question I would consider relevant is "Can propylene glycol produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized by an e-cigartte?" to which the honest answer is "We don't know"SPACKlick (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect we do know. The experiment cited by Grana found that PG converted to PO at 800K. PG boils at 461.3K. Therefore to get it to 800K it would need to be under several atmospheres of pressure. E-cigs aren't pressurized, so the answer would appear to be "probably not". Not that it matters because it's never been found in the vapour, so doesn't belong in an article about chemicals that are found in the vapour.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Even though propylene glycol is FDA approved for use in some products, the inhalation of vaporized nicotine in propylene glycol is not. Some studies show that heating propylene glycol changes its chemical composition, producing small amounts of propylene oxide, a known carcinogen.7" People do know it can be found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is hopeless. You clearly can't understand what the source is actually saying. You have no evidence at all that it can be, let alone is, found in the vapour. You have no idea what temperature PG has to be heated to before PO is produced, or whether those conditions exist in an e-cig. PO has never been found in the vapour. There is no reason to believe it would be found, because the temperature at which it is produced is several hundred K higher than the temperatures e-cigs operate at. Either produce a reliable source that says it's been found in the vapour or stop this nonsense.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's disingenuous Quack, First that's not a peer reviewed paper. Second that statement again DOESN'T refer to PO in e-cig vapour. The source it uses refers to PO in heat degredation of solar transfer fluids. So again we have no study showing it happening in e-cigarettes or e-cigarette like environments. I'm with OOCE, I just don't understand why the anti advocate is pushing POV so hard here? SPACKlick (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What people know PO can be found in the vapour? How do they know this? Where is their evidence? Do you have a reliable source you can cite to support this evidence?--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is another source. "E-cigarettes commonly contain nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerol, flavorings and other chemicals. This study showed that when heated/vaporized, propylene glycol forms propylene oxide, a probable human carcinogen according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency." Outside of Misplaced Pages people read it can be found in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all not a WP:RS, and secondly the study they refer to is this - which just as within the Grana study is not about e-cigs: .... verification failed. --Kim D. Petersen 02:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now you present a barely edited website that cites back to the same study as Grana. Decomposing Propylene glycol at 800K. The website itself STILL doesn't claim PO formation in e-cig like environments. So you're still lying when you say people can read it's found in the vapour. Not one of your sources has said that so far. SPACKlick (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Furthermore, when heated and vaporized, propylene glycol--often used in e-cigarettes to form aerosol particles--can form propylene oxide, a recognized carcinogen." People outside can read about it but not this page? QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

QG, Where can people outside read about it? You have not linked to anything that shows PO has been, or even can be, formed in an e-cig. You're just repeating the same lies over and over. Either produce a source or drop this. You don't have consensus for the claim.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another non-rs, pointing to no source, still not claiming it is or likely is in the vapour so no. Misplaced Pages cannot make scare-mongering claims based on speculation, it can only present fact(oid)s based on verification. And again, if you want to present a health risk claim, which the last few links you've posted have been focused on, you should take this discussion to the safety page. SPACKlick (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than that. I just searched the entire document he linked to. It doesn't mention propylene oxide at all. He's just throwing sources at us to hide the fact he doesn't have any real evidence. Strike that; I followed the wrong link--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It does, last line of Paragraph 2 about half way down the page. The quote provided is accurate to the source.SPACKlick (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have a MEDRS compliant source to verify the claim but you deleted it from the page. I was giving examples above to show others outside of Misplaced Pages have read Grana 2014 and have summarised the facts. We can do the same. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No we don't. Serious question: Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Because you seem to be seeing something in the sources that isn't there. None of the sources you have linked say PO has been found in e-cig vapour. None of them say it can be formed in the conditions found in an e-cig. Your sources don't say what you seem to think they do.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No Quack, we don't. The MEDRS source verifies the chemical property of PG to thermally decompose to PO. It does not verify the ability of e-cigs, or the likelihood of e-cigs or even the possibility of e-cigs to thermally decompose PG to PO. SPACKlick (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized. Sourced, verified fact.
This sourced statement}...{is relevant according to the review otherwise that would not of mentioned PG can form PO when vaporized. Your opinion.
We've reached the nub of our disagreement and I don't see further discussion between the two of us on this a productive. There is a fundamental disagreement about the scope of the article or the scope of the statement in the review. These are both interpretational, without further evidence neither of us is likely to change our mind. I'll leave this discussion until another editor or another argument appears to support inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
To get back to the OP of this subthread, if the study shows that it took heat levels far in excess of what e-cigs can do, in order to produce the chemical in question, then blatant WP:OR is happening. You can't use a source that says "X happens under condition Y" to source a statement or implication that "X also happens under condition Z". That's WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

To my shock User:OutOfCheeseError deleted sourced content was a sock account. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CheesyAppleFlake. I have reverted the WP:SOCK and as a bonus have expanded the page.

"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71"

"Glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) is non-toxic, but can produce toxic acrolein when heated to higher tem-peratures. Acrolein was detected in the aerosol of some EC brands, but at levels much lower than in cigarette smoke."

Both reviews confirm glycerol can form acrolein, but they did not say glycerol can form acrolein in the vapor because they do not want to repeat after every sentence "in the vapor". It is very clear from both sources what they stated. Someone may claim the review is speculating but it is not our job to speculate if they are speculating. The inclusion criteria is not that it must be found in the vapor every time an e-cig user puffs an e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Quack, it is dishonest to include expansions in with reverts, seperate your edits so other users can track changes to build consensus. You have been told before. Please note the sockpuppet was one of three voices objecting to your inclusion of the fact about propylene glycol. Two other users were objecting to it as outside of scope.
The reviews most certainyl DO confirm acrolein in the vapour and DO confirm acrolein formation in e-cigarettes. Neither of the reviews confirm or state either of those things, or the likelihood of those things or the possibility of those things when it comes to Propylene Oxide.SPACKlick (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Three different editors have restored the sourced sentence referring to propylene oxide, including Doc James and CFCF. It is routine to revert socks edits. The sock account restarted the discussion when I thought it was pretty much over. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
CFCF has not engaged in the consensus process and just follows your lead as per usual. And you may have thought the discussion was over but nobody else did. At the very least this topic is still controversial. Consensus still needs to be reached to justify inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The title has changed to "Electronic cigarette aerosol". Now there is no doubt the sentence is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not even slightly. The doubt has always been its relevance as part of the vapour. That's what the WHOLE discussion has been about. "Do the sources say, or imply, or denote that PG->PO occurs, or can occur or likely occurs or possibly occurs or probably occurs or may occur in e-cigs producing vapour?" The answer to nearly every combination of the above question is no. It might jut about be yes to "Do the sources imply PG->PO may possibly occur in some e-cigs producing vapour" but implying something isn't saying it and doesn't meet the WP Standards.SPACKlick (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
They clearly don't. PS: Sockpuppetry is a red herring here, a distraction, and has nothing to do with the content issue at hand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Re introduction again

CFCF has taken it upon himself to determine that lack of consensus for conclusion is irrelevant to inclusion in the article. Reverted to revision 670400504 by QuackGuru (talk): A claim doesn't have consensus, it has veracity. Consensus on its inclusion is something else entirely.. I have reverted a couple of bad edits today and would appreciate someone else catching this one. SPACKlick (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is completely unverifiable, so it is rather interesting to claim that it has veracity, not to mention that hir thinks that hir can ignore consensus about it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye. There's neither consensus that it's properly sourced, nor consensus to include it even if it were.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If it is "completely unverifiable" then what is this? The review found "When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71" QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I note no comments assessing the actual dispute of whether or not referencing a property of Propylene glycol at 800 degrees is relevant to an article about e-cigarettes. But aah well, that's how the cabal rolls I guess. SPACKlick (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The review does not mention anything about "propylene glycol at 800 degrees". But I'm sure there will be more reviews covering PO in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a list

Resolved – Title changed to remove "list".

This article isn't a list. This article is called a list. This article should either be a list or should not be called a list. I prefer making it a list but I'd appreciate other views. SPACKlick (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to make it a list. That way there's less potential for POV-pushing. If it's been found in the vapour, as attested by a reliable source, it goes on the list. If it hasn't it doesn't.--OutOfCheeseError (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Without context a bare list is meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Title Change

Stale – This thread has been mooted by more involved article titling discussion, below.

I think the title of this article is not COMMONNAME. something like List of constituents of e-cigarette Vapor would be my preference. I'm less tied to the constituents/chemicals switch as the "Aerosol of electronic cigarettes" to "electronic cigarette Vapor"SPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Even better, We could have a list of the chemicals in e-cigarette vapour in the article about e-cigarettes rather than having yet another daughter article simply because one editor cannot write concise english? SPACKlick (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
List of chemicals in the e-cigarette vapor or Chemicals in the e-cigarette vapor are the titles that can work. Since it is not a list the title can be changed sooner rather than later to Chemicals in the e-cigarette vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal was struck by nominator. Discussion has moved on, to a thread lower on the page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes → Chemicals in e-cigarette vapor – Per WP:COMMONNAME and simpler title or List of chemicals in e-cigarette vapor.QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)(Comment update. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC))

The discussion above 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.

Discussion

The current title does not match the content. Since the article is not a list what is the benefit with keeping the wrong title? A bare list does not tell the reader much, anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

First I think we need to work out what this article's scope is. Second I think we need to work out if that scope is worth an independent article or should be part of the safety article. Then the name will be obvious. SPACKlick (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You moved the article without awaiting consensus. You didn't allow any discussion of the scope of the article and once again your ownership is showing.

In order to have a productive discussion of the scope of this article;

I think this article should include details of the chemicals found in the vapor of e-cigarettes. I think it is appropriate to discuss the source and concentration of those chemicals. I think it is inappropriate to discuss the health effects of those chemicals, that is covered by another article. I think it is inappropriate to discuss the individual chemicals to any level of detail, they each have their own page for that. Any thoughtsSPACKlick (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is very short. I think we can have more details and continue to expand the page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent move to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol

CFCF, despite ongoing discussion about move, scope and title on the talk page has moved the article to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol away from the Chemicals in it was previously at. I feel this broadened scope will lead to a lot of duplication of this article with other articles. SPACKlick (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors were claiming that certain things found in the vapor were not a chemical. Now the simplified title fixed the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Copper? Failed verification

Where does it state in Grana that copper is part of the aerosol? The only mention of copper i can find is the following:

Both the e-liquid and the Poly-fil fibers that are used to absorb the e-liquid for heating and conversion to an aerosol come into contact with heating elements that contain heavy metals (tin, nickel, copper, lead, chromium).

Which is not a statement of emission - but contact with, no where is there a statement about copper being in the aerosol... Are we even trying to comprehend the sources? --Kim D. Petersen 22:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Both the e-liquid and the Poly-fil fibers that are used to absorb the e-liquid for heating and conversion to an aerosol come into contact with heating elements that contain heavy metals (tin, nickel, copper, lead, chromium). Williams et al58 found heavy metals in samples of e-cigarette liquids and aerosol. Tin, which appeared to originate from solder joints, was found as both particles and tin whiskers in the fluid and Poly-fil, and e-cigarette fluid containing tin was cytotoxic to human pulmonary fibroblasts. E-cigarette aerosol also contained other metals, including nickel, 2 to 100 times higher than found in Marlboro cigarette smoke" Please read the full text. Here is another source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
He says "other metals" that does not verify copper. SPACKlick (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
How about this source to verify copper? QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have access to Environmental Pollution so I can't confirm or deny that source, could you quote the results/discussion/conclusion that refers to copper in the emissions and give a rough outline of what was tested? SPACKlick (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Another source said "Williams et al. evaluated the presence of several metals in the aerosol emitted from one cartomizer and reported the results in amount per 10 puffs . The following metals were found: aluminum, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, strontium, tin, titanium, zinc and zirconium." QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copper and nickel are necessary nutrients. Yes, they are toxic in large quantities, but I don't think they should be lumped under "heavy metals". Chromium also isn't really toxic except for hexavalent chromium, and it's also taken as a suppliment. Lead is the only on in your list that could truly be called a heavy metal, but as far as I know it isn't an intentional component in any heating wire. Gigs (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The scope of this article is what is found in the vapor without getting into the specifics about safety. The section titled "heavy metals" was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That scope seems disingenuous. If we created an article called "list of chemicals found in milk" and listed "lead, mercury, copper" and the like, I'm sure it would be factually true, but without context that's misleading to readers. Gigs (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Then we should not have a bare list and each statement can have context to clarify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be an improvement nice to see. Why don't you just start doing this in your edits?--TMCk (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That would not be an improvement, that would make this a repeat of the safety article. This article should be merged with Saftey of Electronic cigarettes, maybe have a section listing (with a brief note) components. SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The source does verify the claim but I used another source that verified the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nanoparticles in the e-cigarette aerosol

See QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In English (and any other language), "contains A, B, C" doesn't exclude nanoparticles; it includes any size/form/variation.--TMCk (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I also see from this source that the only tested devices were the least sophisticated "cartomizers" and no other type of atomizer. This should be clarified considering the large variety there is, especially after three years of fast evolving technology (we even mention in the main article).--TMCk (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of anything specific to write. I was just going to summarize the following sentence: "Chromium, nickel and tin nanoparticles were found in EC aerosol." QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You already summarized it in the previous sentence. And if you have writer's block, just take a break and deep breath; or the other way around.--TMCk (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"Metal nanoparticles has been found in the vapor." Simple proposal. If you want to add more detail that's fine. For now we can just add the short sentence. The article does not mention anything about the nanoparticles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Where does the article mention nanoparticles? QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The Williams et al study is WP:PRIMARY, so why are we discussing it here? If information from a primary source from 2013 isn't being discussed in secondary WP:MEDRS reviews by now, then the findings are not considered important enough (or dodgy on methodology or ... or ... or ...) by reviewers. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Besides: Nanoparticles isn't a chemical, so it would belong elsewhere, even if it had been in a secondary source. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Nanoparticles are found in the vapor. It does belong in the list. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Particles of different size were found and the article reflects that already by omitting specifics. Banana!--TMCk (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Where does the article specifically state there are "nanoparticles" in the vapor? QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
English, you know. It's a language but if you don't understand it I can't help you.--TMCk (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You omitted there are nanoparticles in the vapor. This is not repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"There are bananas growing on a tree. There are small bananas growing on a tree."--TMCk (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This should be clarified obviously. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Are all bananas on the tree small?--TMCk (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There are different sizes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
How different? What are the sizes? Are all sizes bananas? And do they taste different?--TMCk (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So, if I would ask you to count the bananas on a tree, you wouldn't count the small ones unless I would tell you to count the small bananas too?--TMCk (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you leave out any other sizes?--TMCk (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The article "List of banana cultivars" clarifies there are different bananas. The image in the banana article even shows there are different sizes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And if instead of bananas on a tree it would be a box full of chromium or nickel or tin?--TMCk (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be a box (vapor) with or without nanoparticles in it. Some would be regular size and others would be nanoparticles to clarify the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So you would like everybody else count all sizes, right? Why do you say I didn't count all sizes then? .--TMCk (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Parsing a sentence

I cannot parse this sentence:

Tin, cadmium, lead, aluminum, copper, silver, iron, and nickel and chromium nanoparticles

What does the extra "and" mean - and how many of these have been found as nanoparticles - and why do we even mention that they are particulates? Since nanoparticles isn't a chemical. --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference used is Farsalinos&Polosa (ref 7) - but they do not mention particular metals as nano-particles - but instead generalize it as "Metal and silica nanoparticles may also be present , but, in general, emissions from ECs are incomparable to environmental particulate matter or cigarette smoke microparticles.", Grana et al(2014)(ref 6) only mentions nickel and chromium as nanoparticles. I assume this is the reason for my failure in parsing - this sentence should really have been two sentences? --Kim D. Petersen 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I clarified the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Better - now we are back to the issue about nanoparticles not being a chemical. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
They are metal nanoparticles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Metal is the chemical, nanoparticles is the size. There is no chemical difference between Tin, Tin blocks and Tin nanoparticles. --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tin blocks and Tin nanoparticles are different. If they were the same they would not call it nanoparticles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, their size differs. But the chemical is the same. Size!=Chemical. What chemical is a 3x3x3 meter rectangle? --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were exactly the same then the high-quality reviews would not mention "nanoparticles". QuackGuru (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
They mention it in a different context QG. A nanoparticle has different medical properties when inhaled - it can bypass tissue and go directly into the bloodstream. But it is still the same chemical. I'm amazed that you do not know this. Are you certain that you actually read, and try to understand, the papers that you cite? --Kim D. Petersen 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If a nanoparticle has different medical properties when inhaled then it is different. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you faking it? And that is a serious question. --Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A Sledgehammer made of steel dropped on your foot, will have a different impact on you medically, than a granule of steel dropped on your foot. But it is still the same chemical. If you ingest a cubic meter of water, it will have a different medical impact than if you drink a deciliter of water - but the chemical (water) is the same. --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The reviews think there is a difference. That is the reason they are discussing nanoparticles. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, they do not QG. You apparently just aren't capable of actually understanding the text. I'm sorry, but it really is getting hard to take you serious. Do you also think that lungs are chemicals? They are also mentioned in the reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 01:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Researchers think nanopaticles are part of the conversion. See Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol. There is a distinction according the sources presented. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nutsSPACKlick (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nanoparticles is obviously a different chemical according to reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Nanoparticles is a different chemical??? Ah? What? Huh? --Kim D. Petersen 23:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"The aerosol contained particles >1 µm comprised of tin, silver, iron, nickel, aluminum, and silicate and nanoparticles (<100 nm) of tin, chromium and nickel." Tin is listed twice in the same sentence. Researchers believe there is a difference. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh! Quite frankly you've disqualified yourself from science discussions by this, and you really shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles, if you aren't capable of understanding the concept of context. --Kim D. Petersen 00:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is something for you to ponder: The size of an object is important when inhaled, because it influences where it physiologically ends up in the body. This particular property is entirely different from the chemical composition of the objects. On the other hand, both of those properties (size, chemical) have a combination influence on the body (toxicological, metabolic etc). Quite frankly: It is rather sad that this has to be explained to you when you are so active on medical pages. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You previously suggested there is no difference. The source indicated above differentiates tin from tin nanoparticles in the same sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Context! Context! Context! There is no chemical difference. Another way: Same chemical different size. Yet another way: Size does not define the chemical. Sigh! You are really digging yourself deeper and deeper. --Kim D. Petersen 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Tin and tin nanoparticles are not the same thing. That is the reason researchers explain the difference. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about chemicals. And Tin nuggets, Tin blocks, Tin granules, Tin socks and Tin nanoparticles are all made of the same chemical .... called: Tin. --Kim D. Petersen 01:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nanoparticles is obviously a different chemical according to reliable sources. ~ QuackGuru 30 June 2015. I could quote that for days. Not only is the english mangled (plural noun singular verb, no contextual referent of "different chemical") but the science is so broken it hurts. Quack, The reliable sources, distinguish tin, and tin nanoparticles, because there is a relevant difference in how they interact. If we were discussing the interaction of these chemicals with a system it may be relevant. However Tin, in any shape or size is always, chemically, tin. That's the only chemical in tin particles, tin nanoparticles and tin atoms. It always will be and no source says otherwise. SPACKlick (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I clarified the wording with context. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you didn't. You just put in something that is speculative, and WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
See "The nickel and chromium nanoparticles (<100 nm) possibly originated from the heating element." The text is clearly sourced in accordance with V. The context makes the sentence even clearly for the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the discussion? Nanoparticles are not chemicals! What you quote is irrelevant for this article, since it is a list of chemicals - not a list of things that QuackGuru finds interesting about electronic cigarettes --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This has to do with the text is sourced not speculation. This is not a bare list. Editors wanted context. This is context. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is sourced, but it is just not relevant, since this is about chemicals, not the size of chemicals. You dodge, and you weave - but you do not listen or reflect on consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is relevant in part because the context indicated that the nickel and chromium nanoparticles may have came from the e-cigarette heating element. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
More fingers in ear and singing "la la la la la"? --Kim D. Petersen 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Quack if your point is "likely comes from the element rather than the e-liquid" we're already covered in that paragraph. Nanoparticles or large particulates doesn't affect the chemical. Do you understand the point being made? SPACKlick (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is that the text is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

God your infuriating. You've ignored or failed to respond to all points raised so let's try some basic questions

1) Which point are you refering to above? (That the nickel and chrome specifically come from the heating element, that they are found as nanoparticles or another?) 2) What do you think that point is relevant to? (an understanding of what chemicals are in e-cigarette vapor, an understanding of the effects of the chemicals in e-cigarette vapor, an understanding of the source of the chemicals in e-cigarette vapor, another) 3) Do you understand, even if you disagree with, the objections raised above? If you want to build consensus please answer those three points. SPACKlick (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in continuing to answer your question after question. The text is obviously relevant because it does give the reader context how the nanoparticles may have gotten into the vapor. I think the reader would want to know that there could be nanoparticles in the vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The reader may want to know there are nanoparticles in the vapor, but they would also want to know why that's relevant and this isn't the article for that. That discussion properly belongs in the safety article. This article, which I'm still not convinced could ever have enough content to justify the split, is about the chemical constituents. So again why is it relevant to this article? SPACKlick (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The text does not make any safety claims. I agree it is about the chemical constituents and the nanoparticles is one of the things that can be found in the vapor. It is that simple. The text does give context how they can get in the vapor. Editors wanted context instead of a bare list. That's what I'm doing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"Editors wanted context" which editors are you talking about QG? As far as i can tell, no one wants more context in this case. No one except you seem to think that size is a chemical. --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Two other editors restored the term nanoparticles to this article. Without context the wording would not make much sense for this article. You previously wrote "Context!" matters and that is what I did. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
One other editor restored the term, the other editor bulk reverted, and indicated that it was because of something entirely different that he did so. So once more you are fiddling with the truthvalue of your sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC) - not to mention that consensus is formed on the talk-page - not by the number of reverts. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merge to Safety of electronic cigarettes

I have begun a discussion of the merge at the target article.SPACKlick (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Metals compared to cigarette smoke...

The mention in Farsalinos&Polosa has a huge caveat about this particular finding in Williams et al(2013)- which should be mentioned if you are going to compare it to cigarette smoke. We use reviews for a reason, and that reason is to ensure that the results from individual studies is put into context and compared to similar studies. --Kim D. Petersen 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The source is a review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
How does that answer my comment? --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand your concern when the text is sourced with context to a review. Editors did not want a bare list. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat: The mention in Farsalinos&Polosa has a huge caveat about this particular finding in Williams et al(2013)- which should be mentioned if you are going to compare it to cigarette smoke. --Kim D. Petersen 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What is the "huge caveat"? QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Haven't you read the paper? --Kim D. Petersen 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The text is sourced to the review not Williams et al (2013). QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Imagine that! And i didn't even know that. Irony may occur in the previous sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Bekki et al

Is not a review but a study - we need to use reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a review. "Kanae Bekki reviewed articles on e-cigarette study and wrote the paper." QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you unfortunately only read the parts that you want to - the whole thing (author contributions) is:
Kanae Bekki reviewed articles on e-cigarette study and wrote the paper. Shigehisa Uchiyama improved the analytical method (HQ-DNPH method) for e-cigarette. Kazushi Ohta and Shigehisa Uchiyama measured 363 e-cigarettes (13 brands) using HQ-DNPH method. Kazushi Ohta performed additional experiments to understand the generation mechanism of carbonyl compounds from e-cigarette. Yohei Inaba prepared experimental equipment and all e-cigarettes tested in this study. Shigehisa Uchiyama, Naoki Kunugita and Hideki Nakagome provided writing assistance and technical advice on the regulatory aspects of the paper. All contributors approved the final version of the manuscript.
You chose to use the first sentence, and completely ignored that the rest of the contributions are research based, and that is where the results of the study come from. This is not a review. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is a review. See "In this article, we review the results of our research over the past four years, and incorporate the current literature found in Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from journal articles published between 2010 and 2014. Various combinations of keywords, such as “e-cigarette”, “electronic cigarette”, “chemical components” and “carbonyl compounds” were used to find the relevant literature." QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So what we have is a "review" of their own research? Interesting. Do you think that matches what we usually call a secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is a "review" regardless of what they researched. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Does PubMed list it as a review - or are you doing original research here? --Kim D. Petersen 21:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The review says it is a review and you said it is a "review". QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sigh! X does some research in A - X reviews his own research in B - does that make B a secondary source QG? --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"...and incorporate the current literature found in Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from journal articles published between 2010 and 2014." They also reviewed the current literature and the their own research over the last 4 years. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It might suit you to actually respond to what i write, instead of quoting the authors. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The quote from the source confirmed it is a review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Quack, you've been kept around because you're supposedly good at this sort of thing, do you honestly not know what a review is? A source can call itself a review all it wants, what wikipedia's standards care about is whether or not it's an independent review of several data sources. This is not. This is not a review in the traditional sense and it's crazy to think it is. Please get some help for your english as a second language issues. SPACKlick (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The source is reviewing evidence over the past four years and it explicitly stated it is a "review". QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)]
No, the source is a primary source. Where they talk about reviewing their own evidence that doesn't make it a review. A review must review evidence from several sources. A source could call itself a "Reliable, peer reviewed, review of flying elephants" that wouldn't make any of it true. It is not a review in the sense meant in any of WP's guidelines and policies.SPACKlick (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You stated "A review must review evidence from several sources." The review is also reviewing evidence from other sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are not actually reading what people write? Are you? --Kim D. Petersen 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It is evident from the source that they are reviewing the evidence over the past four years. That shows that it is definitely a review. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe we're discussing this. There's nothing wrong with the source. It's a review. It reviews numerous sources that include some by the authors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health publishes it as a review. There is no question that it's a review. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But it is quite obvious that you haven't read the paper - else you would have noticed that the most cited references are the ones by the authors (and only those of the authors when we are talking chemical data). It is a "review" in quotation marks, because it really isn't a review, but instead a summary of the authors own research put into the context that the authors themselves like. --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The review summarised the evidence of their own past research and other research too. That makes it a secondary MEDRS review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that what you say is incorrect. A useful review is an independent assessment of all research available on the topic that is being reviewed. This is neither independent, nor is it an assessment of all research. That makes it a "review"/summary of the authors own research. --Kim D. Petersen 01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is also a review of independent research on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You have a very bad case of WP:IDHT going QG. --Kim D. Petersen 15:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at what the paper actually does. They take their own results and use pre-existing literature to source facts they didn't study. Every paper does that with pre-existing literature, it's how you write papers. Do they specify which paper's results they are meta-analysing? No. Do they specify a methodology for selecting papers? No, they give the vague "Various combinations of keywords, such as “e-cigarette”, “electronic cigarette”, “chemical components” and “carbonyl compounds” were used to find the relevant literature.". Do they analyse or review the results of any other tests? No. They simply quote facts from other papers and then analyse their own data.

In section 2 "Carbonyl Compounds Emitted from Japanese E-Cigarettes" They talk about Uchiyama(author)'s results of a trial from a pair of previous papers. The onyl independent source is used for the methodology taken from a canadian cigarette tar study. In Section 3 "Mechanism for Generation of Carbonyl Compounds from E-Cigarettes" there are many references to the previous self authored papers and then 3 other references, 1 for the fact that battery power affects carbonyl output, 1 for the design of an e-cig and 1 for the composition of cigarette smoke. Then we're on to the discussion. Their results are not a REVIEW of any of the independent sources, the independent sources are being used as facts. The fact we're sourcing to this study comes from the author's own work. It'd be worth finding a review of this because the data looks solid but this is not a satisfactory source for the claim.SPACKlick (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please: your argument is with Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, not with anyone here. You're welcome to take it to them. It has little relevance here. The source is a review published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Can we move on now? Cloudjpk (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, the issue is with using the source. We need highquality independent sources, and this isn't such a source. Please read WP:V and other relevant policies and guides... nowhere is it a requirement to use a source if it exists. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Standard isn't review vs not review. It's Independent secondary vs not independant/not secondary. This "review" is not an independent secondary source, it's a primary source.SPACKlick (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This "review" is an independent secondary source. They reviewed their own previous evidence and reviewed numerous other sources too. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that they "reviewed" other sources. As opposed to merely referring to them. In particular show where they reviewed other sources with respect to the fact that we are sourcing to the paper. SPACKlick (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The high-quality review stated "In this article, we review the results of our research over the past four years, and incorporate the current literature found in Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from journal articles published between 2010 and 2014. Various combinations of keywords, such as “e-cigarette”, “electronic cigarette”, “chemical components” and “carbonyl compounds” were used to find the relevant literature." The confirms they also incorporated the latest literature up to 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The facts your sourcing to it come direct from literature already published by the authors. No data assessed in the paper comes from any source that isn't self published. Your IDHT attitude doesn't change that. It's not an independent source for the claims you're sourcing. SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
How is it not an independent source when there are also reviewing independent evidence over the past four years? QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Its explained above QG. WP:IDHT much? --Kim D. Petersen 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
A peer-reviewed scientific journal publishes it as a review; the authors call it a review; it reviews numerous sources including some by the authors and others; it's a review. This is not controversial. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying "this is not controversial" doesn't change the fact that half the editors discussing it disagree with you. It's you not listening. Whether or not it's a review IS NOT THE POLICY STANDARD. Whether or not it's an independent secondary source is the standard. The fact carbonyl compounds such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and glyoxal can inadvertently be produced when the nichrome wire that touches the e-liquid is heated and chemically reacts with the liquid Is not a result of reviewing data from independent sources, or reviewing conclusions from independent sources. It's sourced to their own primary material. This factoid needs a better source because currently the source is so self dependent it's no better than a primary source. I thought Farsalinos had referred to this formation of carbonyls in one of his papers since but I couldn't find it when I looked through them.SPACKlick (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a review because they are reviewing previous published evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Way to not hear the argument. Review or not is not the policy standard. Independent secondary or not is the standard. This "review" is not independent and hardly secondary for the claim about carbonyls. Have you looked for an independent source. As I said before, I'm pretty sure I've seen this claim or one similar in a review previously but haven't been able to track it down since we started this discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The review is not a primary source and they are citing 36 references. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The number of references in a text is not an indication of anything, i find it amazing that you would even claim it to be so. A primary source can (and often has) more references than a secondary source. In this particular case, the meat of the paper is based entirely on references that are to the authors own papers - which is the crux of the problem. --Kim D. Petersen 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(note from an uninvolved editor) The source in question is not a review article per MEDRS. Authors who write review articles are very careful not to give undue weight to their own research. Thirty-six references is a very good indicator that the article in question is not a review article. Good review articles will have over a hundred and sometimes 200 references.
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

TSNAs

I think a couple of examples of TNSAs found in the vapor will help with the context. The article is very short and expanding it with relevant content will improve the page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? But if you add context, then it would be pertinent to mention that the amount of TSNA is equivalent to that amount found in NRT products. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The page does say "...comparable to amounts found in nicotine replacement products." QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Aerosol/Vapor

We may have had the discussion before but the conclusion was that BOTH terms were accurate. Every example of a vapor commonly used in the english language is technically an aerosol, because it's when the Physical vapor condenses to a visible aerosol. e-cigarettes emit vapor. Googling vapor will give you significant numbers of e-cig hits over and above any uses of the technical term. People will search for vapor or vapour not aerosol. WP:Commonname applies. SPACKlick (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Both terms are not accurate according to MEDRS. For the title I think it would be best to have an accurate title. The text in the body of the article does use the word vapor over and over again, however. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
1) This is not a medical page, MEDRS does not apply.
2) The term e-cigarette vapor is more commonly used in WP:RS with about 26,000 results in google scholar using the term (compared with 21,000 for aerosol)
3) Vapor is the commonname per WP:COMMONNAME Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

Your opinion of the accuracy of aerosol vs vapor using the technical definitions rather than colloquial definitions of those words is irrelevant to all relevant policies. This article should be named vapor not aerosol. SPACKlick (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The so-called common name is a misnomer. I feel accuracy is important. Cloudjpk reverted your change to the title. I agree with the change. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So no policy reason then. The common name is not a misnomer, it's what the word vapor usualyy means. I'll wait for others to weigh in. SPACKlick (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas. Both the particulate and gas phases are mixtures of chemical substances in e-cigarette aerosols." It does appear to be a misnomer according to MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Medrs for etymology now? All these RS use vapour in titles. And there are thousands more. The common definition of vapour is as a visible cloud, see;
  1. A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: Definition 1 Oxford dictionaries
  2. a visible exhalation, as fog, mist, steam, smoke, or noxious gas, diffused through or suspended in the air: Definition 1 Dictionary reference .com
  3. (General Physics) particles of moisture or other substance suspended in air and visible as clouds, smoke, etc Definition 1 the free dictionary .com
  4. This visible aerosol is also commonly referred to as vapor. Misplaced Pages
  5. particles of moisture or other substance suspended in air and visible as clouds, smoke, etc Definition 1 collins dictionary.com
  6. gas or extremely small drops of liquid that result from the heating of a liquid or solid: definition 1 cambridge dictionaries online
  7. diffused matter (as smoke or fog) suspended floating in the air and impairing its transparency Defiition 1 merriam webster

So it's clear it's used both in RS and is the overwhelmingly most common usage in the vernacular. So what does WP:Commonname say?

"Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. ... Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic....Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred."

It goes on to say

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Misplaced Pages". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books)."

Reliable encyclopedias like the US national library of medicine's medline call it vapor "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and electronic hookahs (e-hookahs) allow the user to inhale a vapor"1 or how about Dartmouth Hitchcock's health encyclopedia "Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that turn liquid nicotine into a vapor that you inhale."2 or even Rochester university's encyclopedia which shows them as synonymous here "It turns the nicotine-containing liquid in the tank or cartridge into an aerosol. Users then breathe in this vapor." We could look at english language media outlets.

  • CNN "Anti-tobacco activists who disingenuously equate vapor and tobacco smoke may perversely convince smokers to reject far safer e-cigarette alternatives."
  • BBC "The WHO warns exhaled e-cigarette vapour could increase the background air levels of some toxicants and nicotine."
  • FOX "E-cigarette vapor contains nicotine, not other toxins"
  • MSNBC "E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that produce an odorless vapor that typically contains nicotine and flavorings."
  • CBS "E-cigarette vapor filled with cancer-causing chemicals"
  • ABC "E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat liquid nicotine to produce an odorless vapor inhaled by users."

We could use google search (all searches were limited to english language and wikipedia was excluded from relevant searches)

Search Engine Search Term Vapor OR Vapour Aerosol
Google Electronic Cigarette 507 374
Google Books "Electronic Cigarette" 631 284
Google Scholar Electronic Cigarette (inc plurals) 27,800 22,600
Google Scholar "Electronic Cigarette" (inc plurals) 3,020 951
Google News Electronic Cigarette (inc plurals) 23,600 3170
Google News "Electronic Cigarette" (inc plurals) 7,270 424

However you skin it, the common, reliable, accurate and verifiable term is vapor/Vapour. That is the term policy dictates should be used in titles relating to e-cig vapour, that is the term people will be searching for, will understand, will recognise, will call it when they see it. I could go on but clearly your mind is closed. Your opinion of what is accurate doesn't change the fact the whole English speaking world generally means a thing a state physicist would call an aerosol when they say vapour or that most people call the emissions of an e-cigarette vapor or that these are both technically correct definitions of the term. SPACKlick (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The more reliable MEDRS review clarified the issue. It said "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’"
Per WP:Commonname: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
One MEDRS review doesn't overwhelm the majority of RS reviews. This is not a MEDRS issue. It's a physical and etymological issue about the meaning of words. What the word vapour means to the general public is not determined by MEDRS. Vapour is NOT INACCURATE because this is what vapour means to everyone apart from a tiny subset of technical users of the word. Even so Vapour is a more common term even in MEDRS. There is ambiguity in vapor and aerosol because the common meanings are different from the technical meanings. The common understanding of an aerosol is a cold spray. The common understanding of a vapour is a smoke or mist. We should write for the common understanding. Who are you writing for.SPACKlick (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The MEDRS presented has not been contradicted by other reviews that clarify the issue in detail. Thus, we should not use an inaccurate WP:Commonname even though vapor is frequently used.
We should use a WP:NPOVNAME because "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Misplaced Pages normally avoids".
"At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products." The term vapor is commonly used as a marketing term. I think the title should be neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The MEDRS presented presents one view, the technical "state physics" view. The majority of MEDRS present the alternative view as do the majority of RS (note, this is not a medical claim so MEDRS standards do not apply) as do the majority of people referring to the term. Water Vapour isn't relevant here because nobody is suggesting indicating the output is water vapor, a long debunked and inaccurate position. Vapour isn't POV, vapour is the common word for the type of substances that these emissions are as can be seen from the relevant sources provided. SPACKlick (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The majority of MEDRS do not present an alternative view. The other sources do not claim e-cig do not produce aerosol. Other sources use vapor but according to the WP:TRUTH in accordance with MEDRS, aerosol is the correct terminology. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
They do present an alternative view, that the emissions can be accurately referred to as vapour. Nobody is claiming that the emission is not an aerosol. The claim is that the common term vapour is synonymous with the technical term aerosol as can be seen from the myriad sources provided which you have chosen to ignore. MEDRS DOES NOT APPLY. This argument is not medical in nature it is etymological. All wikipedia policies and guidelines on titles say to use the common term where that term is not misleading. This is a clear case of one editor choosing a technical term over the common term. You are flat out against policy here Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The e-cig page WP:ASSERTS "The user inhales an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke." MEDRS does confirm e-cigs do not produce vapor and no alternative view claims vapor is accurate and aerosol is inaccurate. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Cheng2014_5-0. The common inaccurate term vapor is synonymous with the technical term aerosol but WP:Commonname clearly states Misplaced Pages should not use inaccurate common names. QuackGuru (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources disagree that vapour is inaccurate. Remember the calim isn't vapour is accurate and aerosol isn't but that vapour is accurate and the more common term. One source caliming it's inaccurate is underwhelming in the face of every dictionary, every encyclopedia and the vast majority of reliable sources using it as the accurate term. Cheng is in the minority to consider it inaccurate and that consideration is necessarily an opinion because it is about the definition of words which are not facts to be discovered. The leading sources on the meanings of words (well respected dictionaries such as the OED) all claim that vapour is a valid word for this state of matter. SPACKlick (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You have provided evidence that the term vapor is common but the science clearly states aerosol is accurate. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. The sources you presented are using the common term but MEDRS confirms vapor is not accurate. Another MEDRS review WP:ASSERTS "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents (Figure 1) invented in their current form by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in the early 2000s.1" QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And that doesn't dispute my point. We (you, me and the authors above cited) agree vapour is the common term. We agree aerosol is the accurate technical term. Where you seem to be disagreeing with me and every source that comments on the matter except cheng is that Vapour is also an accurate term. It's not the technical term but the common term. In the instance of two accurate synonyms one technical, one commonly used, wikpedia naming policies prefer the commonly used term. Now do you have any dispute that, with the weight of linguistic sources describing vapour to mean this state of matter against the single source of cheng claiming vapour cannot be used in this fashion, that the reliable sources show vapour is not inaccurate for this instance? SPACKlick (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Title RFC

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

Should the title of this page refer to e-cigarette emissions as vapor or aerosol? Related RFC on parent page SPACKlick (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Vapor Per WP:COMMONNAME, SPACKlick and Wugapodes. People will use the search term "vapor" over "aerosol". Readers can be schooled on the distinction between the terms once they've found the article. petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol. Per WP:COMMONNAME, which states "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Aerosol is the correct term, so should be the one that is used. Yobol (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I should also note that navigational concerns can easily be remedied by a redirect to this article from Chemicals in electronic cigarette vapor, and is not a good argument to use an inaccurate term.
  • Vapor. Vapor is the correct colloquial term, and thus should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. Aerosol is technically more accurate, but has little relevance to the casual reader. Even in the WP:MEDRS literature there is no consensus on using either term, so WP:WEIGHT couldn't even help us when assessing the scientific/medical literature to figure out what we should use. Vapor is thus the one that must take preference. --Kim D. Petersen 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol we use the correct terminology in line with the science, not the buzzword in line with the industry's marketing departments' preferences. Alexbrn (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol agree with Doc James and Alexbrn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs)
  • Vapor In my humble opinion, WP:COMMONNAME is extremely clear on this:

    Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.

Seriously, I don't think anybody speaks about "aerosol", but the term "vapor" constitutes a neutral term that's supported by many pieces of RS (like user SPACKlick already well demonstrated above).
Moreover, like user SmcCandlish well presented in his post, even the science journals tend to use term "vapor" as a less technical alternative for "aerosol". As per WP:JARGON we should definately follow this practice and aim our text to the general reader. Hence, "vapor". Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Note. User:Jayaguru-Shishya changed his comment. He previously claimed "We're not dealing with a MEDRS article, and we should stick to what the reliable sources say." WP:JARGON is for the wording not the title for articles. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya is also misrepresenting the research I did. It showed that many (not all) MEDRS use "vapor" as a less technical alternative when it has already been made clear that the "vapor" is actually an aerosol or the distinction is just meaningless in the context. Neither of these conditions apply to this article's title.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  17:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol In an encyclopedia we should be using technically accurate terms and 'aerosol' is the accurate term. Redirects are perfectly adequate to satisfy anyone searching for other terms. I'm sure that e-cig makers and their shills would prefer to see our article titled as something that implied "water vapour" to give an impression of harmlessness, but our job is to present neutral accurate wording, not follow the advertisers' ploys. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol technically accurate. Can set up redirects for people to find this article using the e-cig industry's marketing language. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Aerosol, per my detailed rationale under #Threaded discussion, below. TL;DR version: Use "aerosol", as correct terminology, vs. "vapor", which is a marketing misnomer, thus it fails WP:NPOV. Meanwhile, zero sources have been found suggesting "aerosol" is a misnomer, but RS have explained why "vapor" is, even if some sources use it vaguely (in contexts in which the reader already knows it really means an aerosol, and WP is not such a context). This is a descriptive title disambiguation per WP:AT#Disambiguation #4; as such, WP:COMMONNAME does not control it, but rather it was arrived at because the common name is too ambiguous, even after attempts at disambiguation, otherwise this article's title would be at the poor name "Vapor (e-cigarette)". I've explained this step-by-step below. PS: It's okay for us to say that it's often called "vapor".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Vapor or Vapour is what everyone refers to it as, and what should be on our encyclopedia. I know a few acquaintances who smoke E-cigs and they all refer to it as vapor and smoking these things as "vaping". Google search results, listed below this discussion, back this up. I have seen some arguing that the term "vapor" is a marketing ploy used by the industry so we should fight the term on those grounds, but we have to remember that Misplaced Pages is not a SOAPBOX. When the term vapor is used in abundance in the real world, that's what we should also use. LesVegas (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • aerosol search can be handled via redirect. vapor is a marking term. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I started this RFC because this discussion needs more than two voices getting no closer to agreement. The above section lays out the detail of the two views of this discussion. All parties agree that aerosol is the technical term for the state of matter of the emissions of an e-cigarette. All parties agree that vapor is the most commonly used term across a broad array of sources. The disagreement is whether vapour is inaccurate to describe this type of matter. My argument is, and always has been, this is how the word vapour is used across the widest variety of contexts by the vast majority of sources and is thus the most natural search term for a wikipedia title. The opposing view seems to be that because there is a fixed distinction in technical language, the common meanings of the words are wrong/inaccurate/misleading/POV. SPACKlick (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While MEDRS does not apply RS does ally and says basically the same thing. Use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But RS in general use vapour to mean this. Several sources have been provided. Did you read them? None of them are marketing sources, they're medical and chemical papers, Dictionaries, encyclopedias, books on other vapours than e-cig emissions that are in a purely technical sense aerosols. There is no marketing issue. SPACKlick (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: You claim aerosol is neutral, I have yet to see any argument that vapour isn't. If there is one could you present it? Also, you seem to be using "proper scientific term" as an argument in the favour of aerosol. Policy says that where there is a technical term and a common synonym the common synonym is the preferred choice.SPACKlick (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Vapor would appear to be a push by the e-cig industry to use a more marketable term. IMO, I would rather inhale a vapor than an aerosol. Per DocJames above, as the effluent has condensed, it is an aerosol. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Water Vapour" was used as a marketing term and is clearly inaccurate but vapour has been used to describe this phase of matter for years before e-cigarettes were invented as you can tell from looking at pretty much any dictionary of the english language.
dictionaries quoted from above
  1. A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: Definition 1 Oxford dictionaries
  2. a visible exhalation, as fog, mist, steam, smoke, or noxious gas, diffused through or suspended in the air: Definition 1 Dictionary reference .com
  3. (General Physics) particles of moisture or other substance suspended in air and visible as clouds, smoke, etc Definition 1 the free dictionary .com
  4. This visible aerosol is also commonly referred to as vapor. Misplaced Pages
  5. particles of moisture or other substance suspended in air and visible as clouds, smoke, etc Definition 1 collins dictionary.com
  6. gas or extremely small drops of liquid that result from the heating of a liquid or solid: definition 1 cambridge dictionaries online
  7. diffused matter (as smoke or fog) suspended floating in the air and impairing its transparency Defiition 1 merriam webster
  8. An exhalation of the nature of steam, or an emanation consisting of imperceptible particles, usually due to the effect of heat upon moisture. In mod. scientific use, a fluid that fills a space like a gas but, being below its critical temperature, can be liquefied by pressure alone. OED on desk
It's clear that this is what vapour has commonly meant since at least 1382 "Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Joel ii. 30 Blood, and fijr, and vapour of smoke." This isn't something invented by e-cig marketers it's a development of the separation of technical and common language. SPACKlick (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The World Health Organization found "In summary, the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely “water vapour” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products." QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Water vapour =/= vapour. Were the argument for water vapour that would be clearly factually inaccurate. The discussion however refers to vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Use "aerosol", as correct terminology, vs. "vapor", which is a marketing falsehood, thus it fails WP:NPOV. Meanwhile, zero sources have been found suggesting "aerosol" is a misnomer, but RS have explained why "vapor" is, even if some sources use it vaguely (not nearly as many as JYTdog suggests!). This article is definitely within the scope of WP:MEDRS, even if other projects also claim scope, no matter how many times (too many times) that Jayaguru-Shishya simply asserts without any rationale that MEDRS does not apply. MEDRS applies broadly to all medical topics, including those regarding devices used by humans to inhale nicotine and other substances, by definition. The only difference between an e-cig and any other device, such as a hypodermic or a morphine suppository, used to deliver a bioactive substance to alleviate chemical dependency withdrawal symptoms, is social. This is not an article about "vaping" as a cultural practice, but is a medical chemistry article. That means MEDRS.

    I see no argument presented by anyone that would trump the facts, so MEDRS isn't even really necessary to resort to, anyway. "Vapor" is simply ambiguous. The fact that some actual RS use this term, in a context in which it's already understood to mean an aerosol, doesn't mean WP can use it that way, because WP is not a context in which we assume readers come pre-loaded with scientific facts. The observation that other RS distinguish the terms clearly, and label "vapor" a misnomer in this context (with a rationale that no one has disproven) is reason enough for us not to use it in the article title. Simply counting the number of sources that use the term vaguely and comparing this number to a count of the sources that point out the error is a farcical misunderstanding of how WP:UNDUE works and what it means; it's an apples-and-origins comparison.

    Next, a WP:COMMONNAME analysis doesn't really apply here. The entire title of the article is a Misplaced Pages-constructed descriptive title disambiguation, not a common term. See Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Disambiguation: "4. Descriptive name: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles." Even if someone wanted to force this round peg into a square COMMONNAME hole, read carefully what that policy says: "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Vapor" is both ambiguous and inaccurate here. Technically, e-cigs do emit vapor, consisting of the carrier component (water, propylene gylcol, or glycerine, as the case my be) of what they emit. But no one cares about that; the issue is the aerosol of other chemicals in that vapor, and that is the topic of the article! Even if there's a source somewhere addressing only the effects of the carrier vapor upon the bronchial system, that vapor is a component of the aerosol, so it's still covered by the present title; the opposite is not true of non-water aerosol components and a title replacing "aerosol" with "vapor". Anyone looking for "vapor" or "vapour" will still find the article via redirects.

    If we were to misapply COMMONNAME strictly (note that we are told by the policy not to) the article title we would go for would probably be Vapor (e-cigarette), since the person-on-the-street isn't going to prefix the concept with the words "electronic cigarette", but just call it "vapor", the actual common name. But just Vapor is ambiguous, so we then run through our disambiguation processes, and arrive first at "Vapor (electronic cigarette)" per WP:PRECISE, but shorten it to "Vapor (e-cigarette)" per WP:CONCISE while still satisfying all the rest of the criteria. But "Vapor (e-cigarette)" (or even "Vapor (electronic cigarette)") is a shite title. WP:NATURAL policy tells us to use natural English phrases when we can. Thus "electronic cigarette vapor", but that's technically incorrect, thus, finally, "electronic cigarette aerosol", per avoidance of ambiguous or inaccurate names. So, we already arrived at the present title by following the cascade of WP:AT processes. Re-running it back through this process brings us right back to the same title. Once we're using a descriptive title, not a name, then COMMONNAME and derived, imprecise concerns like "Vapor is the correct colloquial term" (which isn't true, it's an incorrect but colloquial term) are no longer applicable. This is not slangpedia or marketingpedia. WP generally uses precise (and, when pertinent, technical) wording when we use descriptive titles. This is why it's "electronic cigarette aerosol", not "e-cigarette aerosol", "e-cig aerosol" or "vaping aerosol"; again, COMMONNAME does not control descriptive titles.

    Finally, even our own article on e-cigs states "The user inhales an aerosol". Why would we get it correct at the article, then throw the facts out just to keep marketers and slang aficionados happy?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial PubMed search

Thank god someone else took the time to look at the RS. I don't find it bizarre because to most people outside of state physics, these are the terms used but thank you for taking the time to look into it. SPACKlick (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS compliant sources are eligible, but not necessary. This is not a MEDRS article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not a statistically significant search, and missing obvious results. I'm not sure what you did to bollix that search up, but its results are invalid, and only used the text of abstracts, not full papers, anyway.
As one example from your results, Farsalinos & Polosa actually use "aerosol" and "aerosolized" dozens of times, and clearly explain that the "vapor" is actually an aerosol. This proves that your search produced incorrect results, Jytdog.
Champan and Wu do not mention "aerosol", but look why: "We searched Google Scholar and PubMed in July of 2013 using the keywords e-cigarette, electronic cigarette, vaping, vaper, and vapor." They forgot to include the word "aerosol" from their own data! I couldn't make this up. Their "comprehensive" literature review is the furthest thing from one. I'm shocked it was published, the error is so glaring. It's like doing a literature review on "archeology" and forgetting to include the more correct spelling "archaeology" when looking for material to include. FFS. (Then again, that's a sociology review of material on adolescent use, not a medical, chemistry or other real science review, so we might forgive them for not even thinking to check whether their use of vernacularisms was excluding serious scholarship.) You can't cite a literature review as evidence against a term when the review specifically excluded it from consideration at all.
But this really points up the flaw in your methodology, even if the search hadn't been broken: A literature review doesn't tell us anything at all about terminology and its meaning, it just tells us what terms the authors of the reviews prefer. And you didn't even get correct results for that, given the actual content of the Farsalinos & Polosa article. It's notable that many of the abstracts on PubMed that have to do with this topic include "vapor" as a keyword added by the PubMed maintainers, further skewing the results off into left field.
In the interests of due dilligence, I've done a more detailed review of the RS material, using both PubMed (properly) and JSTOR, for starters. This is below, at #Researching this caefully. This also will double as source research for papers to use for the article, BTW.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 
  • The science tells us that "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas. Both the particulate and gas phases are mixtures of chemical substances in e-cigarette aerosols." QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Quack - one paper does not the science make. But i quite like that you ironically linked it to WP:TRUTH.. The trouble as with many other things, is that there isn't a black/white view here. Aerosol may be the technically correct term, but vapor is the commonly used term. Both in the scientific literature, as well as in the public media. --Kim D. Petersen 05:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Weight of reliable sources that describe what a vapour is, say this is a vapour.
The WP:Weight of reliable sources that describe these emissions, call them a vapour.
The WP:COMMONNAME of this type of thing, and this specific thing is vapour.
One source claims calling it vapour is inaccurate but that's 1 RS against thousands.SPACKlick (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the vast majority of RS uses the term "vapor". Besides, this ain't a MEDRS article, User:QuackGuru. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is; it's an article on the chemical output of an electronic nicotine delivery device.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Researching this carefully

PubMed re-examination

At #Initial PubMed search, above, I've outlined why that first take did not produce valid results, including some specific examples of how sources supposedly in favor of "vapor" were misreported, and actually prefer "aerosol".

But what else is missing? Even just looking on PubMed, starting with just those initial off-kilter search results, it took mere seconds to find these (it took far longer than that to format them to include here):

Examples

How about some proper PubMed research? Plug in this as the search construction: ("electronic cigarette" OR "electronic cigarettes" OR "e-cigarette" OR "e-cigarettes") AND ("aerosols" OR "aerosols" OR "aerosol" OR "aerosolize" OR "aerosolizes" OR "aerosolized" OR "aerosolizing" OR "aerosolization" OR "aerosolise" OR "aerosolises" OR "aerosolised" OR "aerosolising" OR "aerosolisation"). Results: 74 matches.
Next try this version (even accounts for Oxford spelling): ("electronic cigarette" OR "electronic cigarettes" OR "e-cigarette" OR "e-cigarettes") AND ("vapor" OR "vapors" OR "vapour" OR "vapours" OR "vaporize" OR "vaporizes" OR "vaporized" OR "vaporizing" OR "vaporization" OR "vapourise" OR "vapourises" OR "vapourised" OR "vapourising" OR "vapourisation" OR "vapourize" OR "vapourizes" OR "vapourized" OR "vapourizing" OR "vapourization"). Results: Only 58 results (56 actually, as the last two are duplicates), and at least 8 of them are are also in the first set of results, indicating papers that include "vapor" and derivatives of that word as keywords, and/or include it and explain that it means aerosol in this context. In going over the titles, it's clear quickly that the papers that prefer "vapor" over "aerosol" are primarily sociological (including regulatory), not strictly scientific, though some of the latter also preferred "aerosol", and some hard-science papers also used "vapor", mostly when focusing on something other than the devices themselves, e.g. second-hand effects, research problems like lack of adequate data, nicotine's effects on human health generally, comparative effects of electronic and traditional cigarettes, etc. In short, when the need to be precise is lower, the more likely it is for sources to use "vapor".

But, and this is crucial, these searches only search the content of abstracts, not the full texts of the articles. I actually took the time to look through the texts of the "vapor" articles that are freely available, every single one of them. I'm not going to format all of these with {{cite journal}}, it's too time-consuming.

Detailed examination of each of the available supposedly pro-"vapor" sources
  • Jean-François Etter, "E-cigarettes: methodological and ideological issues and research priorities", BMC Med. 2015; 13: 32; doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0264-5. Actually does say aersol: "that produce a nicotine aerosol" (it also distinguishes some products that directly vaporize nicotine, but this is still encompassed by the word "aerosol", anyway.
  • Rosemary Hiscock, Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz, Andy McEwen, Susan Murray, Deborah Arnott, Martin Dockrell, Linda Bauld, "E-cigarettes: online survey of UK smoking cessation practitioners", Tob. Induc. Dis. 2014; 12(1): 13; doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-12-13. Does not mention "aerosol", but isn't a science article, or even about e-cigs as devices, it's a poll about real-cigarette quitting results.
  • Jimenez Ruiz C.A., Solano Reina S., de Granda Orive J.I., Signes-Costa Minaya J., de Higes Martinez E., Riesco Miranda J.A., Altet Gómez N., Lorza Blasco J.J., Barrueco Ferrero M., de Lucas Ramos P., "The electronic cigarette. Official statement of the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) on the efficacy, safety and regulation of electronic cigarettes", Arch. Bronconeumol. 2014 Aug;50(8):362-7; doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2014.02.006. Epub 2014 Mar 28. Doesn't use "aerosol", but is not a science article, it's a regulatory document. As such it approaches the topic in the vaguest possible way: "An EC is a battery-operated device that releases a vapor or mist (which may contain nicotine) that can be inhaled by the user." Shall we move this article to "Electronic cigarette mist"? Didn't think so. * Michael Weaver, Alison Breland, Tory Spindle, and Thomas Eissenberg, "Clinical Case Conference Electronic cigarettes: a review of safety and clinical issues", J. Addict. Med. 2014 Jul-Aug; 8(4): 234–240. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. Doesn't use "aerosol", but cites other sources that have it in their titles, so they know it's an aerosol and so do their readers. It's also not a science paper, it's a consolidation of three individuals' medical case histories, and unlike our articles does not focus in any way on e-cigs as devices and their mechanisms of delivery, but only on the health effects on three patients; that is a context in which the distinction between "aerosol" and "vapor" simply isn't relevant.
  • Ware G. Kuschner, Sunayana Reddy, Nidhi Mehrotra, and Harman S. Paintal, "Electronic cigarettes and thirdhand tobacco smoke: two emerging health care challenges for the primary care provider", Int. J. Gen. Med. 2011; 4: 115–120; doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S16908. Says "The device aerosolizes nicotine so that it is readily entrained into...", cites another paper with "aerosol" in the title (and none that use "vapor").
  • Youn Ok Lee, Arnab Mukherjea, Rachel Grana, "Hookah steam stones: smoking vapour expands from electronic cigarettes to waterpipes", Tobacco Control 2013 Mar; 22(2): 136–137; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050557. Doesn't use "aerosol", but cites other sources that have it in their titles. This isn't a science article, it's a regulatory warning summary article the point of which is: "Virtually nothing is known about potential health risks of inhaling vapour from use of steam stones in a hookah." E-cigs are only mentioned in passing.
  • Andy S. L. Tan, Cabral A. Bigman, Susan Mello, Ashley Sanders-Jackson, "Is exposure to e-cigarette communication associated with perceived harms of e-cigarette secondhand vapour? Results from a national survey of US adults", BMJ Open. 2015; 5(3): e007134; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007134. Does not use "vapor" in the voice of the study, even once, but only in quoting survey questions (it's not a science article anyway, it's a public survey report about whether people feel second-hand "vapor" is harmless because of advertising that misleadingly suggests that "vaping" is itself harmless).
  • Goniewicz Maciej Lukasz, Knysak Jakub, Gawron Michal, Kosmider Leon, Sobczak Andrzej, Christopher, Jacob Peyton III, Benowitz Neal, "Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapor from electronic cigarettes", Kurek Jolanta, Prokopowicz Adam, Jablonska-Czapla Magdalena, Rosik-Dulewska Czeslawa, Havel Tob. Control, 2014 Mar; 23(2): 133–139; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859. Uses "aerosol": "The study aimed to compare the results obtained for aerosol from Nicorette® inhalator with the results obtained for all examined e-cigarettes models"; later "neither was detected in aerosol from the Nicorette inhalator". Cites another source using "aerosol" in title. Also cites an industry, not scientific, paper that refers to "electronic cigarette smoke juice and vapor" in its title. Shall we move this article to "Electronic cigarette smoke juice"? Didn't think so. See a pattern here? "Vapor" is a vague vernacular term, associated closely with other colloquialisms like "smoke juice" and "mist".
  • Amanda M. Barbeau, Jennifer Burda, Michael Siegel, "Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach", Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 2013; 8(1): 5; doi: 10.1186/1940-0640-8-5. Doesn't mention "aerosol", but also not really a science paper, it's a review of what quitting real-cigarette smokers say about how well they feel e-cigs work for them. The distinction between "aerosol" and "vapor" (or "mist" or "smoke juice") simply isn't relevant there.
  • Stuck behind a paywall now despite supposedly being freely available: "Republished: Nicotine and health: Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin", BMJ. 2014 Nov 26;349:2014.7.0264rep. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2014.7.0264rep. Not relevant anyway, since it's some summary bulletin, not a science article.
  • Carol L. Schmitt, Youn Ok Lee, Laurel E. Curry, Matthew C. Farrelly, Todd Rogers, "Research support for effective state and community tobacco control programme response to electronic nicotine delivery systems", Tob. Control. 2014 Jul; 23(Suppl 3): iii54–iii57, doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051460. Uses "aerosol": "on the effects of secondhand aerosol on non-ENDS users", "the effects of secondhand aerosol on non-users".
  • Breland A. B., Spindle T., Weaver M., Eissenberg T., "Science and electronic cigarettes: current data, future needs", J. Addict. Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;8(4):223-33. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000049. Doesn't use "aerosol" directly, but cites others that do in their titles. This is kind of a science article, in that it's on what data science needs to better understand the effects of e-cigs, but it's not an in-depth piece about the e-cig chemistry. More importantly, it uses industry-insider jargon and marketing terminology without hesitation (see, e.g., "Electronic Cigarette Solutions (E-Liquids)", "a 'cig-alike' product", "'black line”'ECIG with 11 mg/ml nicotine", etc.. I.e., it is adopting the language of the industry, when talking about the products, even if it otherwise sticks to medical jargon when reviewing medical facts, e.g. "cigarette smoke decreases the efficacy of fibroblasts".
  • Chad A. Lerner, Isaac K. Sundar, Hongwei Yao, Janice Gerloff, Deborah J. Ossip, Scott McIntosh, Risa Robinson, Irfan Rahman, "Vapors Produced by Electronic Cigarettes and E-Juices with Flavorings Induce Toxicity, Oxidative Stress, and Inflammatory Response in Lung Epithelial Cells and in Mouse Lung", PLoS One 2015; 10(2): e0116732; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116732. Uses "aerosol": "The aerosols produced by vaporizing ENDS e-liquids exhibit oxidant reactivity", "the effects of ENDS aerosols on tissues and cells", "an air-liquid interface to ENDS aerosols from", etc., and that's just from the abstract. Cites 2 other sources using "aerosol" in their titles. Note again the association of "vapor" with other colloquialisms like "e-juice". They do this repeatedly, using "aerosol" literally dozens of times when being precise, but using phrases like "e-cig vapor or smoke", and later "e-cig vapor", when being vague or writing in vernacular as a shorthand. That's three papers just in this sort survey making the same bright-line usage distinction.
  • Konstantinos E. Farsalinos, Giorgio Romagna, Elena Allifranchini, Emiliano Ripamonti, Elena Bocchietto, Stefano Todeschi, Dimitris Tsiapras, Stamatis Kyrzopoulos, Vassilis Voudris, "Comparison of the Cytotoxic Potential of Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Vapour Extract on Cultured Myocardial Cells", Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013 Oct; 10(10): 5146–5162, doi: 10.3390/ijerph10105146. This is the only actual science article I've found so far that never uses "aerosol", though like most it cites others that do, so they an their readers know it really means aerosolization.
  • Otmar Geiss, Ivana Bianchi, Francisco Barahona, Josefa Barrero-Moreno, "Characterisation of mainstream and passive vapours emitted by selected electronic cigarettes", International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Volume 218, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 169–180; doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2014.10.001. Used "aerosol" right there in the abstract: "aerosol particulates", and repeatedly throughout: "analysed e-cigarette generated aerosols in terms of particle number concentrations", "Measurement of aerosol particulate concentrations", "detected formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein in aerosols of e-cigarettes", "Aerosol characterization", etc. Cites three papers with "aerosol" in their titles, and three that use "vapor"/"vapour", the most of any paper found so far (for both results). Interstingly, it also cites three that use "vaping", two of which "scare quote" the word as slang. Like other paper, this one has no problem using "vapor" to refer to the e-cig output, after they've established that it really refers to an aerosol.
  • Rodrigo Córdoba García, "El desafío de los cigarrillos electrónicos" , Atención Primaria 2014;46(6):307–312; DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2014.01.002. Not even in English and still uses "aerosol": "las partículas del aerosol de los e-cig". Like Farsalinos, et al., and some of the others above, uses "vapor" as more vernacular term, but clearly establishes that it refers in context to an aerosol.
  • Jessica K. Pepper, Paul L. Reiter, Annie-Laurie McRee, Linda D. Cameron, Melissa B. Gilkey, Noel T. Brewer, "Adolescent Males' Awareness of and Willingness to Try Electronic Cigarettes", J. Adolesc. Health 2013 Feb; 52(2): 144–150, doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.014. Doesn't use "aerosol", but cites other sources that have it in their titles. Also not a science article, but a results of a survey on youth attitudes. Has only one short paragraph on e-cigs and how they work at all, so the distinction between "aerosol" and "vapor" isn't meaningful in this case.

Summary: Many of the journal papers supposedly in the "vapor" camp in fact use "aerosol", and there's a clear pattern of favoring aerosol when writing precisely, but using "vapor" as a vernacular shorthand after the meaning is clear. It's fine if our own article does this. It just can't do it in the title, because that exists outside of that explanatory context. It's noteworthy that several of the sources link "vapor" with other colloquialisms like "e-cig mist" and "e-juice". Those that use "vapor" exclusively are almost never actual science papers, but are regulatory statements, surveys of the general public or of smoking-cessation programs, medical case reports focusing on internal medicine with little interest in e-cig mechanics, or otherwise not written in a context in which the distinction between the two words is pertinent.

Also, when "aerosol"-favoring papers use "vaporize" and related words, they are often (correctly) referring to the vaporizer, an internal device in the e-cig, and what it is doing to the glycol or gycerine carrier for the nicotine (or herbal, or whatever) aerosol. The presence of the character string "vapor" in such an article doesn't mean that these terms are always willy-nilly interchangeable.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just respond here to your response to my pubmed searching above and to this. Yes there are lots and lots of primary sources in pubmed. My search was for reviews - secondary sources. And the thing you wrote about "just abstracts" is ...really strange. Pubmed doesn't index the abstracts, it indexes the whole article. Anyway. Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, shouldn't we actually use the term "vapor"? I mean, if even the scientific journals distinct between "vapor" and "aerosol", the latter being a technical equivalent, shouldn't we aim the article for general readers and avoid WP:JARGON? This is, of course, in line with WP:COMMONNAME as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I refactored both of your searches to try and find a more accurate count. I took out the verbs related to aerosols because they will appear in articles whatever the term favoured. Using

("electronic cigarette" OR "electronic cigarettes" OR "e-cigarette" OR "e-cigarettes") AND ("aerosols" OR "aerosol") AND Review 12 results ("electronic cigarette" OR "electronic cigarettes" OR "e-cigarette" OR "e-cigarettes") AND (vapor OR vapour OR vapors OR vapours) AND Review 8 results Which are;

8 papers which use vapor
  1. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Aug;79(8):1180-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.04.032. Epub 2015 Apr 28. E-cigarettes: Considerations for the otolaryngologist. Biyani S1, Derkay CS2. I don't have access but the abstract uses vapor twice, no aerosol for context.
  2. Laryngoscope. 2014 Dec;124(12):2702-6. doi: 10.1002/lary.24750. Epub 2014 Oct 9. Do electronic cigarettes impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional tobacco cigarettes? Review on E-cigarette vapor versus tobacco smoke. Oh AY1, Kacker A. Aerosol does not exist as a noun in the paper but appears twice as part of the verb aerosolised, Vapor appears 8 times as a noun (outside of titles and footnotes) #J Addict Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;8(4):234-40. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043.

Electronic cigarettes: a review of safety and clinical issues. Weaver M1, Breland A, Spindle T, Eissenberg T. Aerosol 0 Vapor 6

  1. J Addict Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;8(4):223-33. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000049. Science and electronic cigarettes: current data, future needs. Breland AB1, Spindle T, Weaver M, Eissenberg T. Aerosol 16 uses as a noun, Vapor 16 uses as a noun.
  2. <smallJ Psychiatr Res. 2014 Jul;54:43-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 18. E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison. Carroll Chapman SL1, Wu LT2. Aerosol 0, Vapor 3 (excluding usage as a search term)
  3. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014 Feb;11(2):236-42. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201311-391FR. Electronic cigarettes. Potential harms and benefits. Drummond MB1, Upson D. Aerosol 3 as noun, Vapor 18
  4. Harm Reduct J. 2013 Oct 4;10:19. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-10-19. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette. Polosa R1, Rodu B, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Raciti C. Aerosol 0 uses, Vapor 12.

So they're mostly exclusively vapour in reviews. However I'm not sure a flat count is the way to go. The argument is in two parts. The first is Whether or not Vapour is accurate. The bulk of Med and Etymological sources show that it is although in technical vs non-technical discourse the weight of evidence changes from Strong to Very strong over its accuracy. If this is where we disagree let us know, we can focus there. The second is whether or not vapour is POV or Marketing puff. I have yet to see an argument for this objection but that's a different conversation from the first. The third is of aerosol and vapour, both being accurate, which should be used in the title per common name. I would argue there's been no objection to this one because those favouring aerosol seem to disagree at the first. But it's a seperate fork of the argument. SMcCandish, are you arguing that Vapour is inaccurate to describe the state of matter emitted from an e-cigarette? SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I already addressed this. The reviews are not reflecting actual scientific usage (which I documented in more detail), but the personal preferences of the reviewers. Eight to 12 results is not statistically significant anyway. For I think the fifth time: The peer-reviewed literature is careful to indicate that the "vapor" is actually an aerosol, and resorts to "vapor", when it does so, only when the distinction is trivial in the context or it's already clear that the "vapor" is an aerosol, and neither of those conditions applies to this article's title. There is no way around this fact by playing with numbers (even when it's done misleadingly, by removing "the verbs related to aerosols because they will appear in articles whatever the term favoured", thus ignoring results you don't like to come up with fake numbers like "Aerosol 0 uses, Vapor 12". My searches were inclusive on purpose, specifically to prevent that skewing, so that the articles could be examined in detail. And again, you're only getting search results on what is in the abstracts, not the full text. PS: WP relies mostly on secondary sources for sourcing content; WP:AT does not prefer them for title determination; the word "secondary" appears nowhere in that policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't at all object to us making it clear that in a technical sense the vapour is an aerosol. I don't think anyone could dispute that. My argument is, and has always been, that vapour is the common term for that state of matter and that even in RS it's reasonably common to use vapour without calling it an inaccurate label.
As for the verb exclusion. I disagree with the point. Plenty of people will use the term vapour for the stuff that's aerosolised in the e-cig but call the process aerosolisation so the verb choice and noun choice have to be separated to determine the usage. However I agree playing with numbers is largely irrelevant. Also, my search is not only searching abstracts. It worked exactly as yours did and I showed an examination of the articles in detail. However I agree that this isn't about playing with numbers, I'm not aiming to show vapour is most common in technical RS's because I'd be surprised if it was. In a technical sense Aerosol is more common (I'm surprised vapour is as common as it is). The argument is simply that vapour isn't inaccurate according and therefore is the preferred term by commonname looking at non-technical RS's. SPACKlick (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
JSTOR results

I could do this all day on various journal search sites I have access to. Let's pick JSTOR (which is dominated by social-science and humanities journals), and use searches on "electronic cigarette" aerosol, "electronic cigarette" vapor, "electronic cigarettes" aerosol, "electronic cigarettes" vapor, "electronic cigarettes" aerosols, etc. (I don't have time to figure out their boolean search syntax, I just did a bunch of separate searches). These produced almost entirely overlapping results (i.e., finding articles that make it clear that the "vapor" is an aerosol here), across non-hard-science publications like Journal of Public Health Policy, Tobacco Control (also indexed in PubMed), and Environmental Health Perspectives; all are political/regulatory/law journals, not medical science journals, so have even less incentive that most of the PubMed journals to use terms they think could be stuffy or obtuse. The search result is the exact opposite of what one might expect from what the pro-"vapor" camp are trying to tell us. If they were right, social science journals should lean entirely in favor of "vapor", as closer to the "common name", but they do not. Almost all the "vapor" articles also contain "aerosol", and vice versa. The only search that produced even slightly divergent results was "e-cigarette" vapor, using even more vernacular wording than "electronic cigarette" vapor; this produced an abstract (not full text) of one book using "vapor" without "aerosol" (Nichter, Mimi (February 2015). Lighting Up The Rise of Social Smoking on College Campuses. NYU Press. ISBN 978-1-4798-1252-3. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 12 (help), and a use in fiction (in the Mississippi Review), as well two false positives (the words "vapor" and "e-cigarette" appearing without correlation in the lengthy index of New Scientist New Series, Vol. 211, and likewise in Henry Shue, "Avoidable Necessity: Global Warming, International Fairness and Alternative Energy", Theory and Practice (eds. Ian Shapiro, Judith Wagner DeCew; NYU Press). One of the "aerosol" searches also turned up a false positive ("Use of Human Lung Tissue for Studies of Structural Changes Associated with Chronic Ozone Exposure: Opportunities and Critical Issues", Morton Lippmann, which is about community pollution levels).

I can easily repeat examinations like this on other journal search sites, but I don't see the point. The suggestion that the RS are all using "vapor" is false, silly, and disingenuous. What's really happening is they're using the terms interchangeably, usually after explicitly equating them, in both social science and hard science RS, and not even favoring "vapor" in social science. Rather, they're tying aerosolization in electronic cigarettes to more vernacular terms like "vaping", "e-cig", etc., so that all readers are on the same page. Those political/legal/regulatory journals mentioned a moment ago all use both terms, often in the same article. This is also happening in academic book publishing, e.g. this one shows up in almost all of those searches, for both terms. Tell you what, I'll wager the cost of this book and its shipping on the bet that it explains that the "vapor" is an aerosol at least once:

  • Proctor, Robert N. (January 2012). Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. U. of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-95043-6.

Of the journal articles that use one not the other, it's usually "aerosol", and the term is preferred in titles that are actually in science journals. Remember, ours is a science article, not a subculture article on "vaping". As just two examples among many (I don't have endless time to do this, though I hope the sources I'm citing will be useful for the article, which is why I've taken the time to pre-format them properly):

Examples
  • Etter, Jean-François; Bullen, Chris; Flouris, Andreas D.; Laugesen, Murray; Eissenberg, Thomas (May 2011). "Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a research agenda" (PDF). Tobacco Control. 20 (3): 243–248. Retrieved July 8, 2015. Quotes: "... measurable levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ENDS aerosols ... the aerosol density decreased". Never once mentions the word "vapor", including in the titles of 51 cited references, some of which do contain the word "aerosol". But this result turns up in even a search for "e-cigarette" vapor on JSTOR, because someone in their database has added it as a keyword, as was also happening at PubMed.
  • Trtchounian, Anna; Talbot, Prue (January 2011). "Electronic nicotine delivery systems: Is there a need for regulation?" (PDF). Tobacco Control. 20 (1): 47–52. Retrieved July 8, 2015. Quotes: "flat surfaces that allowed aerosol to pass around the reservoir and into the mouthpiece ... released aerosol while held in our hands, apparently due to volatilisation of residual fluid ... stop producing aerosol after 100-200 puffs", etc. Never once mentions "vapor".

Where JSTOR journal articles do only include "vapor", let's look at why this might be, as I did for the PubMed results. I won't do this all night, but just give a couple of examples:

Examples
  • Cahn, Zachary; Siegel, Michael (February 2011). "Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?" (PDF). Journal of Public Health Policy. 32 (1): 16–31. Retrieved July 8, 2015. This is essentially a sociology article, on "harm reduction" strategies in regulation. The only source it cites that has "vapor" in its title is Alliance Technologies LLC (2009), Chemical Composition of 'Instead' Electronic Cigarette Smoke Juice and Vapor, Monmouth Junction, NJ: Alliance Technologies LLC – an industry report, using marketing language "juice" and "vapor". The paper also says "studies demonstrate that the primary components of electronic cigarette cartridges are propylene glycol (PG), glycerin, and nicotine"; i.e., they know it's an aerosol, they're simply writing for an audience that doesn't need to draw the distinction. Our audience is not such an audience. The authors also refer to "a vibrant online community of 'vapers' who compare and contrast the performance of various brands and models according to their durability, battery life, thickness of vapor, and other criteria", making it clear that "vaping" is slang, and putting the term "vapor" into their mouths, as a shorthand for "the stuff that comes out". It's clearly not intended as a technical term in this paper. But our WP article is, in fact, technically about the output of e-cigs from a pharmaco-chemical perspective. That should be the end of the matter right there, frankly.
  • Actually, I can't find a single other academic journal source via JSTOR that only uses "vapor" but not also "aerosol" (or just "aerosol" alone). After over an hour of this, the only other comparable sources are the already-examined ones like Polosa, et al.'s "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette", from the wonky PubMed search that started this reinvestigation. But they all clearly know it is aerosolization, since they cited other papers that mentioned e-cig aersols in their very titles. So why the terminology change? It's the exact same story as the last case. Polosa, et al., are writing for regulators and poli-sci students, in Harm Reduction Journal, an audience that focuses on the regulatory policy matters, and can't be bothered with the difference between aerosolization and vaporization. Their needs are quite unlike those of our readers, who are coming to this article to quite specifically learn about the exact chemical properties of what comes out of e-cigs.

Conclusion: RS usage in quality sources indicates that journal papers clearly distinguish between aerosols delivering biochemicals, vs. simple vapors, but see no problem using "vapor" as a vernacular term if a) the audience has already been informed the "vapor" is an aerosol, or b) the distinction does not matter at all in the context. Neither of these conditions apply to this article's title. It is probably fine for us to say something in the lead like "e-cigarette aersol is often referred to as 'vapor'", and thereafter use "aerosol" consistently when we're referring to the chemical payload, and "vapor" when we're referring to the vaporization of the glycol/glycerine carrier itself, and to "smoking" of e-cigs as a practice. We should use "aerosol" in the title, because this article is about the biochemistry of what comes out of e-cigs, not about e-cigs as a machine, nor about e-cigs as a cultural phenomenon. This is a science article not a "vaping" article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Marketing?

@Alexbrn: Do you have anything verifiable to back up aerosol being a buzzword as opposed to, you know, a word in English that means the thing we're trying to say? Does anyone? People are claiming vapour is NPOV, non neutral, marketing, but there's no justification given. It's pure I Just Like/Don't Like It based on opinion.SPACKlick (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There are several votes for aerosol but very little discussion.

@JYTdog: You yourself found that vapour was the more common language in reviews. You have seen the posts where I show that using vapour for this dates back to at least the 1300s. Where, and this question goes to everyone who's made the claim, do you source the assertion that calling these emissions vapour is a marketing claim? Or the implied assertion that vapour isn't accurate? SPACKlick (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is really clear that the e-cig industry and movement settled on "vapor/vaping" to contrast with "smoke/smoking" per the first entry in this random website and many others I looked at in a search for "vaping terminology" - there is a whole forest of these websites that introduce people to the culture and terminology of vaping. Some of them point out, like this one, that "aerosol" is "a scientifically more accurate description of e-cigarette 'vapour'..." Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Several of the editors on the RfC have claimed that the wording "vaping" is a pure marketing ploy, and that may be the case, although that wouldn't explain why so many PubMed reviews use the wording "vaping"/"vape"/"vaporize" etc. So my question is:

  1. What sources/references do these editors use to make this claim? Or is it just their personal opinion?
  2. Why do you think that the WP:WEIGHT of the word "vaping" has no relevance?
  3. Why is it that you think WP:COMMONNAME can be ignored?

Please elaborate :) --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The PubMed search was broken, as I've detailed above (as to the misinterpretation of the results it did find, and, separately, as to what it missed). A proper review of the journal sources leads to the opposite conclusion than was proposed. But no one made any claims about the slang and marketing term "vaping", anyway. It simply isn't relevant to this discussion except as something to ensure is covered by redirects. Whether the term "vaping" is "a pure marketing ploy", whatever that means, simply isn't germane. No one is proposing to move this article to a title with "vaping" or "vape" in it.

Secondly, you're misunderstanding WP:WEIGHT, which is about comparative reliability of sources presenting competing views of the same disputed facts, and has nothing to do with whether we prefer a precise term over a vague, ambiguous, or incorrect one. If you review the above, you'll see that the faulty WP:WEIGHT (a.k.a. WP:UNDUE) "analysis" being presented is an invalid comparison of RS explaining why "vapor" is a misnomer in this case and "aerosol" is more precise and less misleading, vs. a headcount of disparate types of sources allegedly preferring "vapor" (though if you actually go look at their full texts, not just search results from abstracts, this usually turns out not to be true anyway). A correct comparison would be with other RS presenting a counter-analysis showing that "vapor" is not an ambiguous, imprecise misnomer, and we have zero sources doing so. A simple headcount of vague sources doesn't make the sources using "vapor", despite its vagueness, more correct somehow. They're simply doing it as a shorthand when they know the target audience already understands that the "vapor" is really an aerosol, or where the distinction does not matter to the target audience. WP cannot make such presumptions about our readers.

Thirdly, the existence and use (even in PubMed sources) of the neologism "to vape" doesn't relate to whether there are ambiguity and accuracy problems surrounding other words like "vapor" and "vaporize" that simply come from the same root. The term "vaporize" is even correct, in reference to what happens to the liquid carrier, as a liquid, turning into a gas. (Thus you'll see some sources that clearly prefer "aerosol" in reference to the nicotine delivery, nevertheless refer to the e-cig's "vaporizer" device; see Lerner, et al. (2015), cited in other post, for example.) But our article isn't about the change of matter state that happens to "e-juice", it's about the chemical makeup of e-cig aerosols.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Please read this. "Claims that a brand of electronic cigarettes is "completely harmless" have been banned after a watchdog ruled that they misled consumers (link is external).
  • The website for Nicolites, which sells electronic cigarettes containing a cartridge holding liquid nicotine, said the vapour inhaled and exhaled by users resembled smoke but was harmless."
  • "Claims on the website www.nicolitesonline.co.uk, for electronic cigarettes, included "Although the vapour inhaled and exhaled when using Nicolite resembles smoke, it's simply a completely harmless vapour."
  • You may want to change your vote. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What does any of your points have to do with the term "vaping" being marketing? Here is a hint: Nothing. Your example is a case of misleading advertising (harmless, safe...), which is wrong/illegal no matter what the product is. You may also want to consider: single instances do not a general case make. --Kim D. Petersen 06:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nb: Cancer UK is against a ban on indoor vaping, and thus in opposition to the WHO advisory, precisely because they recognize (now) that vaping is better than smoking. --Kim D. Petersen 06:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products." I explained this before. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Water vapor is a specific instance of the generic vapor. All vapors are not water vapor. That seems to be your misunderstanding here. All substances can produce vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 06:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
How about we check electronic cigarette websites directly. See "The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless."
"That said, ongoing independent research is showing that e-cigarette vapour is nothing to worry about." Nothing to worry about? QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Once more: What does that have to do with the general question i asked: What sources/references do these editors use to make this claim? Try focusing on the question at hand - and not do a Gish gallop. --Kim D. Petersen 07:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Or are you striving for the Chewbacca defense rather than a Gish gallop - its hard to determine --Kim D. Petersen 07:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarette brands have spent millions on marketing such as "Blu lets me enjoy smoking without it affecting the people around me, because it's vapour not tobacco smoke," says Stephen Dorff, the scruffy heartthrob star of The Immortals." Because it is "vapour" not smoke it does not affect the people around him? QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC) I moved your comment up here because it seemed to be addressing Kim's request for a source. Wugapodes (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@QuackGuru:The three camps seem to be "Vapor" because it's the common term, "Aerosol" because it's the scientific term, and "Aerosol" because we shouldn't give into the will of marketers. The third one is the point here, why should we care at all about what marketers say? Why should we ignore WP:COMMONNAME and disregarding numerous reliable sources that call it vapor? Even if aerosol is the more physically correct term, that doesn't make it non-neutral per WP:NPOV: Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality. Particularly since it seems the reasoning for not using "vapor" is to not give in to the will of a corporation which is in and of itself a pov push. Arguing that the term is inaccurate is a reasonable discussion, but I've yet to hear a reasonable argument for why we should give weight to arguments about the will of marketers which is why I think Kim started this thread, because if there is a good reason, it should be stated but we have yet to see one. Wugapodes (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Marketers do not get to decide the term for something" -Doc James, "we use the correct terminology in line with the science, not the buzzword in line with the industry's marketing departments' preferences." -Alexbrn, "I'm sure that e-cig makers and their shills would prefer to see our article titled as something that implied "water vapour"" -RexxS, "Can set up redirects for people to find this article using the e-cig industry's marketing language" -Jytdog
Not a cogent argument. There are not "three camps"; there are multiple severable reasons to favor "aerosol", but there is no conflict between them. No one has proposed anything as absurd as "the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality". You're coming at this backwards. "Vapor" has an obvious neutrality problem, independent of the fact that some people use it without intending to be nonneutral. Meanwhile "aerosol" has no such problem. It's not that using aerosol brings forth some magical power of netrality by force of will or divine provenance. Rather, not using vapor, at least not in the title, and not in the lead sentence, gets rid of the neutrality problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The multiple cases of "resembles smoke but just a harmless vapor" ads that QuackGuru cites are a really clear indicator why "vapor" has WP:NPOV problems, even if some RS use it without any such intent. WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. We cannot throw all other concerns out to slavishly follow WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:AT makes it very clear we should never do this, but consider all naming criteria in balance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  18:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that shows the point at all. If you assume vapour is the common term then of course they would say this. If you assume mist is the common term they'd say "resembles smoke but just a harmless mist". The same for Spray, the same for cloud. Aerosol would be less likely to be used like this because of the historic negative connotations of pressurised aerosols which, it could be just as easily argued is the NPOV issue with aerosol.
I don't think we should throw out any of the criteria of AT which are
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. I believe it's clear from the sources already provided and thousands more besides that non experts would recognise this state of matter outside of this context as a vapour, not an aerosol and in this context they would almost exclusively recognise it as such.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Again, it's pretty clear that most people would search for or write about e-cig vapour not e-cig aerosol outside a technical setting and there's not a universal swing to aerosol inside a technical setting.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) There's no ambiguity argument with either.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I could make a ridiculous argument about vapor being shorter than aerosol by two letters but this one favours neither
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. There are no other articles I can think of to compare to, although suggestions are appreciated, so I see this one as neutral
By my count that's two for vapour, three ties and none for aerosol. Even if there were some NPOV issues WP:POVNAME applies When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). I'm sorry SMcCandish. I can't work out where we disagree on the facts so it must be policy interpretation. SPACKlick (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Cigarette smoke

CFCF has unilaterally added a redirect to Cigarette smoke. When reverted per BRD on the grounds that such an inclusion is POV CFCF reverted to re-include without building consensus. I'd appreciate the opinion of others as I personally don't believe anyone searching for "E-cig vapor" was intending to go to "Cigarette Smoke" and the redirect will only serve to conflate the two. SPACKlick (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the added redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unbelievable. No, "vapor"/"aerosol" are not synonyms for "smoke". I'm quite sure the reason "vaporizers" and "vape pens" have become so popular is precisely because there is a distinction. petrarchan47คุก 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • E-smoke is another synonym for vapor. RS sometimes refer to vapor as smoke. "The thick flume of smoke streaming from Stephen Dorff's mouth creates the urge in smokers to reach for their pack, even as the seaside setting evokes associations of clean, fresh air, says Joseph Cappella, a professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania." QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
E-smoke may be a synonym for vapor but e-cig vapour is not a synonym for cigarette smoke which is what the redirect tag implies. SPACKlick (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a source of confusion according to RS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Source does not show confusion in the direction the link is intended to resolve. Fails verification. Are you being serious Quack?SPACKlick (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone thought it was "The thick flume of smoke..." That is the confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Visual confusion, not textual confusion. Nobody, typing "E-cig Vapour" is looking for "Cigarette Smoke". Seriously, don't be ridiculous. The reverse might be true because of the visual confusion, someone looking for this page might type "e-cigarette smoke" but the redirect template doesn't help them it only confuses them.SPACKlick (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article or section of an article (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page. Could you point to the part of Hatnote you find is relevant? Do you think people searching "e-cig vapour" or "e-cigarette aerosol" might actually be looking for the more common term "Cigarette smoke"? See WP:NAMB for why this is inappropriate. WP:Related also applies.SPACKlick (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously not. This clearly points out why this article needs to be absolutely precise about what e-cig aersol is (an aersol, not a vapor/vapour, a mist, a smoke, or a juice), no matter what the silly slang terms for it are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

When removed, with only one editor making a case for, and one a non-sequitur point to policy CFCF has once again reverted to include his preference over no clear consensus leaning away from inclusion. I'd appreciate other editors, if they interpret the lack of consensus for inclusion the same way I do, removing the pointless header. SPACKlick (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I also made a case for it. Readers may want to read about a related topic. There is a lot of comparison to regular cigarette smoke among recent reviews and in the media, and in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You were the one editor I was referring to Quack. However the fact they may want to read it is an argument for it going in See Also or Related Articles See WP:Related Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic:. It is not an argument for a hatnote per the relevant policy. The purpose of these hatnotes is for when an editor arrives at an article, usually through disambiguation, having been seeking another article. There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that someone would arrive at Electronic Cigarette Aerosol when looking for Cigarette Smoke.
Either way the inclusion is disputed and there is not yet consensus for inclusion. The politic and policy thing to do is to NOT include additions until there is consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I find the deletion of the cigarette smoke hat, to be kind of confusing. As I understand it, e-cig advocates want e-cig vapor to be contrasted with smoke, as a very different thing. I think this article makes it clear, that it is quite different. Having the hat lets readers interested in understanding effects of smoke or vapor (which are related - both are what people addicted to nicotine consume and both enter the environment) quickly consider the two of them. In the absence of the hat, I wonder if it would make sense to make some reference to cigarette smoke in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the purpose is an appropriately encyclopedic one, I imagine a lot of readers, having come here intentionally, will desire to compare with Cigarette smoke. That would make it appropriate to link to cigarette smoke in the See Also which already exists. However a Hatnote is intended to redirect people who may have arrived somewhere by accident when looking for something else. It may be appropriate to include a sentence in the article and/or in the lead making some comparison of the number, concentration and type of matter found in the two emissions although I don't have an idea for a draft. SPACKlick (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think adding content comparing vapor with smoke to the body, and then including reference to cigarette smoke in the lead, with a wikilink, would satisfy everybody - I think QG's impulse is a good one and this would be a better way to do it, and add content at the same time. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well we actually have a link from E-cig smoke, it should be important to differentiate the aerosol from cigarette smoke. Even if mentioned in the lede it should be hatnoted. We could also use:
Not to be confused with Cigarette smoke.
---- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF: Could you elaborate on why you feel there is a need for a hatnote to resolve confusion? What policy you believe that related to? Do you believe people will arrive at this article looking for cigarette smoke? If so why? Do you believe people searching for Ecig smoke, E-cig smoke, E-smoke, Electronic cigarette smoke or any other redirect you haven't created in the last two weeks, are actually looking for cigarette smoke?SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between these and cigarette smoke. All of those terms are used in the popular press and it seems to be supported for me that they remain. That the largest volume of text in the discussion is against the hatnote neither means that most editors support it or that the most wordy responses carry the most weight. To me consensus seems clear that it should be included and I suggest you start an RFC if you do not think it has enough input. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not how this works CFCF and you know it. 1) There isn't clear consensus for inclusion. BRD and general wiki principle says you need consensus to include. You should remove and then start the RFC. 2) The above discussion contains exactly 2 editors for inclusion, one who has made arguments (which are directly addressed in hatnote policy) and one, you, who has yet to make an argument. 5 of whom are against inclusion. You get consensus for addition before re-adding and stop ignoring consensus in your edits. SPACKlick (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No I meant you reposting things does not equal increased support. Also I do think we read the discussion differently, and I see at least 4 supporting and only 2 who have actually said anything negative about the inclusion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well let's ask the people I see as objecting to comment to see who's misreading them. I've objected, @Petrarchan47: Called the inclusion unbelievable. @KimDabelsteinPetersen: said it was obviously not right to include. So did @SMcCandlish:. @Jytdog: originally said the two needed to be distinguished in this way, then said distinguishing in the body and providing a link was the better way to do it.
Also I've never suggested me repeatedly asking for and discussing arguments for and against inclusions shows increased supportfor removal. What you seem to be missing is that no-one posting in support doesn't show support for inclusion.SPACKlick (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes this is exactly what I suggested you start an RfC for. You have now twice in the past few hours reverted to the stable version that has persisted for nearly a week.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Your addition has been repeatedly reverted by several editors since its addition. You need to find consensus for inclusion. Your version doesn't become stable in 5 days. If you want inclusion, you start the RFC. It seems clear from the comments here that you don't have consensus for inclusion, and that you didn't attempt to build consensus for inclusion for weeks of you insta reverting the removal. The process puts the onus on you for the disputed addition. SPACKlick (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that there is any support for this idea at all. We don't need an RfC. This proposal has failed, and it essentially cannot succeed because it's not cogent, and is attempting to do something WP:DAB does not permit. CFCF has been told enough times that Misplaced Pages disambiguation does not work this way. There is no possibility of ambiguity between this topic and cigarette smoke, ever. It essentially is not plausible that anyone will confuse this topic with actual cigarette smoke, then the entire point of e-cigs is that they produce an alternative to cigarette smoke. If CFCF just will not acknowledge this, oh well. Don't feed, just move on.

That said, some of the policy analysis above is incorrect. WP:BRD is not a mandatory process, and even it says it doesn't work well for everyone or in every situation. When an edit that doesn't make sense and which misapplies procedures is at issue, that's one of those cases where BRD is a waste of time. BRD is an essay to begin with that was recently savaged pretty hard at WP:VPPOL. It simply has no weight any longer as something anyone can try to demand. (BRD would be satisfied by now anyway. The B the R and the D have all already happened, and nothing emerged from it favoring that edit.) WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR policies do not permit someone to keep re-inserting something that others object to in good faith, which appears to be everyone involved. CDCD's weird pseudo-disambiguation does need to stay out, but not because of BRD and not because he didn't get "permission" first. Rather, because it's been examined in detail by multiple editors who've provided a detailed rationales based on policy and common sense why not to add it – valid reasons to revert – and his rationale for adding it has no such basis, no valid rationale to re-revert.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We link to cig smoke in the lead. IMO that is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I had misunderstood your position SMcCandlish. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Shipload of sources

All the sources specifically mentioned by name in #PubMed re-examination, above, are directly downloadable by anyone. Where I've not given a direct URL, just look it up on PubMed. If there's a "Free PMC Article" link, click that for the full text. If it says just "Free full text", click the "LinkOut - more resources" thing below that, and one or more full text links will be there.

All the sources specifically mentioned by name in #JSTOR results are available in full text, but mostly only with a JSTOR account. Let me know if you want one or more of them and I can send them to you. Just from two journal searches, there are enough freely available RS materials to work this up into a Good Article, and probably a Featured one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  09:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories: