Wikipedia

Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14

< Talk:Electronic cigarette
Latest comment: 9 years ago by CheesyAppleFlake in topic Renaming of "Health effects" section
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Removal of Variable Wattage Section

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

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

Please use only high-quality, independent sources. Commercial press releases and manufacturer's websites are unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT. Anonymous enthusiast blog postings are also problematic. Per WP:BURDEN if unsourced content is challenged, for example with a revert, it is up to the editor interested in having the content remain in the article to find acceptable sourcing for it. I will be reviewing the rest of the section to ensure the sourcing complies with standards. Zad68 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thats fine, look ll you want. Please discuss it first before removing whole sections. I would like to keep up the notability of the section in case there is a split. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I will follow WP:BRD. Generally if it's been WP:BOLDly added recently but doesn't appear to meet standards I will WP:REVERT remove it. If there's an editor who wishes to see the content in the article they can start a Talk page discussion making their case in support. We will then discuss. Zad68 15:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Only the last two little sections were recently added, and that was at least a week ago, the main section has been here a long time. I have a problem with this removal it is referenced to a site that is not just an enthusiasts "blog". Per its disclosure statement. " We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers" AlbinoFerret 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like the content to stay please find independent reliable sources that both have a reputation for fact-checking and can be used to established WP:WEIGHT. The "ecigadvanced" website's own statements clearly show the website is closely allied with the manufacturers and so the site can be expected to have competing interests. There's nothing to indicate they fact-check or have a responsibility to anything other than their advertisers. At a minimum this site cannot be used to establish WP:WEIGHT. Zad68 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:BIASED financial biased sources may be used by attributing in the text. As for fact checking, there are "teams" of writers. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
For this particular section of the article, the level of reliability of the sources seem to be adequate. We need a section on these 3rd gen devices. If you have better suggestions for sources, then feel free to help :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I am working in my sandbox to strengthen the references and clean up the area. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The main thing this article should say about customizable e-cigarettes (I see two sections about mods and variable stuff) is how many people use them. If that number is a low percentage, consider giving one sentence about it in a higher level section, linking to a new article you create about all the wonderful ways you can adjust your 'vapor' from day to day. Preferably that article should be larger than the sections here, large enough to accommodate, for example, an explanation of why people do this. There was a suggestion to split the article above and this seems like a natural line of cleavage. Wnt (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Mods are different that Variable devices though they can both sometimes be generically called mods but they differ in construction. Mods in the true sense are pure mechanical devices without wires or boards. They are unregulated giving power strait from the battery kind of like a flashlight. Variables have power regulation through boards and use wires. They also are usually different in shape. Mechanicals are usually a cylinder, Variables are usually a box shape. How many people use them has not been studied, but they are commonly used by anyone who doesnt use a cigalike so use is pretty wide.
If you are planing on moving Construction during a split you may have issues of notability where the section is just moved back in a few days. While it is important to the discussion of the E-cigarette it is harder to prove notability. As Kim said above, the sources it uses to explain parts are usually good enough to prove something exists in an article that already has notability. But proving stand alone notability is another thing. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Coupla points here. (a) We need to explain in quite basic terms what a customisable/non-ready-made e-cigarette is. This is old news to people in the vaping world but it's quite possibly entirely unfamiliar to many non-vaping readers. An analogy could be useful (hi-fi is an obvious one that springs to mind but may not be the best). (b) If we're talking about penetration of customisables we should remember that this varies a *lot* from one country to another. Some are much more cigalike cultures than others. Barnabypage (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact in an article about electronic cigarettes we should dedicate more effort to explaining what e-cigarettes are than to completely hypothetical health risks that are unsupported by, or even conflict with, all the available evidence. More descriptions of mods, less scaremongering.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with this statement. I've been off wiki for a couple of months and the health section has exploded. I still don't think health effects should come before Usage and Construction, the two sections that tell you what one is and what it does. The health section needs some serious pruning. SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gopal Bhatnagar presentation to Canda's health minister

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was recently Linked to Dr Gopal Bhatnagar's letter to the Minister of Health Canada as well as the powerpoint presentation he used. Some interesting conclusions drawn from a range of sources which I thought might be useful with the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities RFC

Latest comment: 9 years ago52 comments13 people in discussion
RfC withdrawn by the poster. A uninvolved editor, Kingofaces43, has given me much to think about and the RFC may not be the way to go. AlbinoFerret 16:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article? AlbinoFerret 12:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Comments please start your response with Yes or No

Yes

  • Opposed to proposal Cannot answer Yes or No as question is inappropriately worded
The proposal is far too broadly worded. If an article showed up tomorrow showing that an unusual number of vapers were turning up with a rare form of lung cancer, that information would represent "Unknown, unclear, uncertain and possibilities" until the data was overwhelming that there was a cause-and-effect relationship. But of course we would add it.
The wording of the proposal is biased. How about "Should information about important potential health risks continue to be added to the article"? One version emphasises only the reasons not to add info, the other emphasises reasons to do so. Neither is really fair. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The words are all synonyms, or put a different way, used to bring in speculative information, so , no its not to broad. "If an article showed up tomorrow showing that an unusual number of vapers were turning up with a rare form of lung cancer" the fact could be added as "An unusual number of vapers are turning up with a rare form of lung cancer" It is not biased, it applies to all comments of the speculative kind. Feel free to make a Yes or No comment. AlbinoFerret
I'm also unsure what this proposal means. When relevant high quality sources say that something is unknown, or that they're concerned about thus and such, it would be inaccurate to say they said anything else. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Cloudjpk, this proposal seems like an attempt to prevent future edits when a source says the evidence is unknown, unclear, or uncertain. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It does. Cloudjpk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Why focus on unknowns? The whole point about them is we don't know anything, so they are not informative. Let's focus on what we do know, instead of all this hypothetical BS.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No

  • No The article already has enough of these types of statements and they lead to a ever increasing negative bias when little is known. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No because the reviews of a larger number of primary sources reach definitive and prescriptive conclusions. The uncertain conclusions in reviews of a smaller number of primary sources should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No Just because there are a lot of papers saying "we found nothing but can't rule out that we missed it" doesn't mean the article should be filled with a list of things we aren't certain we didn't miss. The article needs a lot of pruning to make established facts clear and potential facts separated off as the (as yet) unfounded concerns that they are. SPACKlick (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC goes against policy

  • This RFC goes against policy. It appears to suggest eliminating the possibility of using potentially high-quality, authoritative sources that may be published in the future, but only if they have a particular conclusion; presumably, other sources that get published but don't have that particular conclusion would be OK to use. If this RFC were "successful" it would lock in a WP:NPOV problem for future edits. Zad68 04:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree, this would be a WP:LOCALCON to overturn policy. For neutrality, the article shall fairly mirror the content of reliable sources, and that is not negotiable. This RfC is disruptive and should be closed. I am also concerned that as it is running some editors appear to have taken it as giving them authority to remove well-sourced content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Disagree, Here is the policy it follows WP:CBALL. It does not talk about the position of such statements that is the opinions of some responders, but it is not set forth in the RFC. It is neutral. For those that may wonder which policy it follows I have added that to the top section. I understand that it is hard to remember all the Wikipedia policies that exist.
@Alexbrn Responding to your concern about removing speculative claims, the consensus for adding speculative claims has never existed. They have been removed and and more editors revert them. Thats the purpose of this RFC, to see if consensus exists to add them and perhaps limit content battles a little. AlbinoFerret 12:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret, I think this RFC is to designed to unilaterally delete sourced conclusions like this. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentally to delete conclusions you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus for adding speculative statements to the article. There never has been, they have been removed and then replaced by a larger group of editors. But WP is founded on policy and consensus not who the larger group is. This RFC is based on the policy WP:CBALL, the essay WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT does not apply, at least on my part, as I am pointing out a WP policy. As for a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, no, thats why I started this RFC, to see where consensus lies in a civil way. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not a speculative statement you deleted and you are trying to achieve WP:LOCALCON to thwart policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a speculative statement but it is a pointless one. The role of e-cigs in THR is "unclear". Well so what? What information is that adding? It's just more negativity.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Any conclusions derived from something that isnt known is speculation. Saying something is unclear says something is not known and the conclusion. AlbinoFerret 06:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball WP:CBALL is Wikipedia policy its scope is Wikipedia wide. It is not local or only applied to this article. Your citing WP:LOCALCON does not apply because the RFC relies on Wikipedia wide policy. Unless you can site a reason WP:CBALL does not apply to the speculative comments, and I do not think you can, the RFC will run to its conclusion, whatever that may be.AlbinoFerret 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
See WP:CBALL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." There is no unverifiable speculation. The text are sourced conclusions from recent MEDRS sources. This is a misapplication of WP:CBALL. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you forgot to read it all the way through. Here let me help you. From WP:CBALL "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." (my bold). They may be included, they may not be included thats a choice the editors of the article have to make, by consensus. That last part is also important "editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.". AlbinoFerret 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
There are no predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories from the sourced conclusions that were added. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Is english your native language? AlbinoFerret 05:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is for discussion regarding improvements to the article and should not be used to start pointless RFCs or to needle other editors. Discussion regarding WP:CBALL belongs on some other page—it should only be mentioned here in relation to a specific edit. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, they belong on the talk page of the article to improve it. AlbinoFerret 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Your reply does not engage with the substance of what I wrote. In "they belong", what is "they"? In "improve it", what is "it"? Your comment starts, "I disagree"—but do you disagree with something in the comment you are replying to? What? Why would you want to talk about WP:CBALL on this page unless in relation to a specific edit for this article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The text is sourced. This is a case of you don't like what the sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect, the question doesnt point out the bias of the statements, be they positive or negative. They could also be added by consensus. The problem is that we have to many, they often duplicate each other, and they are adding to an overall bias in the article. Regardless of which direction they lean it needs to end. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression you think the sourced text in the article is bias (too many) and that is the reason you want to delete them. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)(Updated comment. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC))
I dont see a word about deleting anything in the article in the RFC wording. AlbinoFerret 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Then I assume this RFC is to delete future edits that are sourced conclusions made by MEDRS compliant sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
What happens in the future will depend on the result of the RFC and consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are making a far too broad of a proposal in this RFC to deleted future edits from sourced conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of things are removed from this article every day. AlbinoFerret 23:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of sourced text are removed from time to time[1][2] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I undid the removal of text an edit or two later. Its still in the article. If you have a comment on the RFC, please go ahead, but this off topic and speculative discussion is going nowhere. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
"Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?"
You have not given a reason to delete sourced conclusions. That is irrelevant you think it leads to negative bias. On Wikipedia we report what the MEDRS compliant sources say.
You wrote "I don't see a word about deleting anything in the article in the RFC wording." In that regard, there is no point to continuing this discussion for future edits. You should not try to prevent editors from making improvements because you think the sources are bias. You seem to have a disagreement with what the sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually a comment such as "That is irrelevant you think it leads to negative bias. On Wikipedia we report what the MEDRS compliant sources say." is about as far from Wikipedia's pillars as it could possibly be. You can't just stuff in negatives, even when they are verifiable, without balancing these according to the weight of the literature as a whole. This should be obvious to experienced editors. WP:NPOV is a central pillar of Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
For example, the lede says "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[4][5]"
Until the evidence changes we should use words like this. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You actually didn't respond to my comment. That there are uncertainties does not mean that these uncertainties are infinite and can just be piled up. That would give a False balance, and does not follow WP:NPOV. You seem to have forgotten that the huge majority of our reviews state that e-cigarettes are less dangerous (probably by orders of magnitude) than cigarettes despite the uncertainties, likely as dangerous as NRT's. --Kim D. Petersen 02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The lede, for example, does not present a false balance when there is still uncertainty. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider two situations: medical sources say Ebola can't be spread by casual contact; medical sources say it's unknown whether Ebola can be spread by casual contact. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear from looking at the lede that there does exist an issue in the presentation of claims
  1. The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain
  2. Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products.
  3. The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.
  4. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.
  5. They may possibly be as safe as other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.
  6. Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke,
  7. but there is no evidence of ongoing use among those who have never smoked.
  8. They may promote delaying or deterring to quit smoking.
  9. Emissions from e-cigarette may contain tiny particles of flavors, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens, heavy metals, and other chemicals. The evidence indicates the levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards.
  10. E-cigarette mist has fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke.
  11. They are likely to be less harmful to users and bystanders.
  12. Less serious complaints from e-cigarette users include throat and mouth inflammation, nausea, vomiting, and coughing.
1 General Statement overarching the below
2,6,9,10,12 Claim sourced to positive evidence.
3,4 Uncertainty of claim referring to lack of evidence
5 Claim with some support in literature made but lack of conclusive evidence highlighted
7 RS Doubt of claim reference to lack of evidence after seeking
8 Claim sourced to speculation in paper.
11 Uncertain claim sourced to positive evidence


Of those only 8 would really come under the scope of this RFC. I would be tempted to argue about 6 because the WHO provide no source for that claim but that's my POV not the scope of the RFC.
For 8, a review author has speculated in discussion that there may be an effect of e-cigarettes. He has not claimed that using evidence it is speculation. Is there any reason for that claim to be highlighted here? If there is how would you feel about similar speculation in the opposite direction being included, I will try and find the source but the quote is something like "Could indicate a quite rate 3 to 4 times higher than traditional NRTs". I ignored it for the article when I read it because even though it's written in a MEDRS it's speculation of the author not a scientific conclusion.
There are many more examples of this throughout the health section of the article, these speculations should be trimmed or seperated from the actual evidence based consensus (such as it is in these early days of the research) on the effects and likely effects of e-cigarettes SPACKlick (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is now a vote to topic ban me, citing this rfc as part of my disruptive acts. Sad indeed, to try and ban someone for trying to find where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 07:10, 13 November 2014 (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.

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago41 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

It applies to the fact that the section is named Ultrafine Particles and then mixes up practicals of different sizes, one after the other, mixing definitions and problems. But I cant move it just now as it would be a revert to remove it, swap it out if you want, I placed the wrong tag in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 03:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I've moved and changed to the template. On the face of it, I would not have thought that "mixes up practicals of different sizes, one after the other, mixing definitions and problems" would constitute OR, but I'll leave the issue for another day or another editor. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking back through this talk page I see you mention synthesis. Possibly the {{Section OR}} should be replaced by {{Synthesis|section}}. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

In the spirit of the ceasefire I have reviewed the sources in connection with the problem I saw. I will not edit the page at all today to avoid problems. I am posting here to try and deflate the situation. I will remove the tag, and change the start of the last sentence from Fine to Ultrafine. The source bears this out and it will remove a seeming OR by synthesis problem. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what can I say? I'm humbled by the gesture of goodwill. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Working through problems on the talk pages with cool heads solves a lot of issues. Probably my fault for not looking closely and just editing that word.
In response to metals being found, well sourced information is always good to add. But I do have hopes that these findings be noted to be from used and corroded first generation devices because that was what was tested in the original study that was reviewed. Here is another point where knowledge of the device components and their evolution comes into play. First generation devices tend to use nickel-chromium wire generally. But there is a switch in coil for the second and third generation atomizers which use Kanthal wire, because it doesn’t contain nickel and they are not soldered together like first generation cartages. This will be in a future expansion of components. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no OR. "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and..."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

This change was a bit inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what part was inaccurate? AlbinoFerret 20:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Part of the word you added. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: The source bears it out to me, but if you dont think it does it becomes a Original Research by synthesis problem because you would be mixing fine and ultrafine in a section titled Ultrafine particles. AlbinoFerret 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding. I think the text can be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the only thing I did in the edit you posted a diff to was remove the OR tag and change fine to ultrafine. Im not sure how that can be "improved". AlbinoFerret 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a new section and it can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh great, ANOTHER new section on entirely hypothetical health effects. Quack, just f**king stop this POV-pushing, would you?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range." But the section does not explain this. Thus, it is inaccurate. We should think broadly on expanding the section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Grana has that statement in a paragraph on Ultrafine particles. But looking at the original study it is linked to in Grana, the original study doesnt talk about e-cigarettes at all, but air pollution. Im not sure it can be in the article in its present form, used to describe the particles in e-cigarettes. You should find another reference that talks directly about e-cigarettes. AlbinoFerret 22:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The review is directly about e-cigarettes. You are not allowed to question reviews like this. We are citing the review not the other article you mentioned. You should not be conducting your own review of MEDRS compliant sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The review is about e-cigarettes, but the statements it makes about particles are not about e-cigarettes and in fact have nothing at all to do with e-cigarettes. It doesn't matter what effect diesel exhaust particulates have on health because e-cig vapor is entirely different. This sort of crap is why so many people are concerned about the WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues surrounding the Grana paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And yes, Quack, we are allowed to question reviews like this. For example if a review is claiming that particles from e-cigs are a health hazard, but the research that's based on is about truck exhaust smoke, then we can question why such a biased, poor quality review is being cited so Goddammned much.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
We are allowed to see what the application is. The statement in Grana itself does not mention e-cigarettes particles. It appears to be talking about particles in general. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not questioning the review, this is finding out how a sentence is used in a review. Reviews also include general as well as specific language. Looking at the source used in the review can tell us if the language is specifically about the subject, or something in general. That is not deciding if something is correct or not. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You are questioning the review again that is about e-cigarettes. You seem to disagree with the review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I disagree with how your using talk about things in general to talk about something specific without any notice to the reader. I have seen this thing from you before, its a reading comprehension skill. Its why I keep asking you if you are a native english speaker, or is english your second language. Its a nuance thing. AlbinoFerret 00:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke."[4]
The "uncertainties" are what? The previous sentence are the uncertainties. QuackGuru (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to read the paragraph in the article. You go from describing what e-liquid components are in the droplets in the sentence before, to a sentence that in its original context suggests its talking in general talking about how they are complex and we cant tell what harms are in general, not talking about eliquid components. It is joined to a sentence thats septate in the original that says we dont know if they will be harmful. That's Original Research by synthesis. Taking 2 or 3 statements that dont go together in a source and by proximity add up to "We dont know if the eliquid ingredients are toxic." AlbinoFerret 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence is about particles not e-liquids. They are separate sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
They're separate things, Quack. The ultrafine particles Glantz/Grana are talking about are burnt hydrocarbons in vehicle exhaust gas, and tobacco smoke. Both are completely irrelevant to e-cigs, because e-cigs don't burn anything.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why would you expect ultrafine droplets of PG and nicotine to have the same health effects as ultrafine particles of burnt tobacco or diesel? That's pretty dumb. Stop all this WP:UNDUE nonsense with the biased Grana/Glantz paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Each sentence is different but sourced. I did explain the "uncertainties" is referring to the previous sentence.
The ultrafine droplets and ultrafine particles are the same thing. I can expand the section and tweak the text if you still think it is confusing. If you find more information from theses or other sources let me know. I want to expand the section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Quack, previously you linked the phrase "ultrafine particles" to the Wiki article on atmospheric pollution - exhaust fumes. That was inexcusable. You want to expand the section because you are pushing a POV, but you have no consensus to do so. If you try to pursue this obsession with particles, a "risk" mentioned by only one notable paper, I am going to start deleting your excesses.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Quack said "The ultrafine droplets and ultrafine particles are the same thing." Thats the problem, and you had the sentences right next to each other. I have just worked on the section, split the sentences to make two paragraphs, and I rewrote the sentences that were almost exact copies of Grana to avoid copyright issues. AlbinoFerret 04:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Nicotine is repetitive. You are saying it twice in a row. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the first sentence says the e-cigarette delivers nicotine, the second says its in the vapor. AlbinoFerret

After the discussion was over and found that there was no OR in the section, there is another discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ultrafine_Particles.2C_the_name_of_the_section_is_inaccurate. I previously explained, "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

After this discussion was over I changed fine to ultrafine in the section to fix a seeming OR problem. Looking at the source that the comment was taken from it is indeed talking about fine, not ultrafine. Quack changed Ultrafine back to fine, which is ok. So now the section talks about Fine, Ultrafine, and larger particles added in a recent edit. This discussion ended prematurely. I added another section to deal with the naming of the section that now contains 3 sizes of particles. Ultrafine is inaccurate and is a problem. Discussion and consensous should move this issue to a resolution by renaming the section somehow to be more accurate. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence from the source did not use the word ultrafine in that context. But in another sentence it did use the word ultrafine. I clarified the text.
"In summary, the particle size distribution and number of particles delivered by e-cigarettes are similar to those of conventional cigarettes, with most particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm)."[6] QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This section is on an older situation and does not follow the present facts. Please comment in the new section. Anyone wanting background information on this discussion can follow your link in the new one. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Editors did discuss the section is about the particles being in the nanometer size range. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Endless Reshuffling

Latest comment: 9 years ago43 comments6 people in discussion

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

Are you proposing they should be listed in chronological order? My concern is this may degenerate into yet another bitter argument, this time over WP:RECENTism. Mihaister (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There has to be some kind of order. This constant bringing of one review from the middle to the forefront is crazy. We have 4 reviews saying basically positive things, and one so so and the so so one if brought to the top. It could be the oldest first, it doesnt have to be the recent one.AlbinoFerret 03:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Mihaister After sleeping on it, I have a feeling its already a mistaken WP:RECENTism problem. Without knowing the page you linked to and knowing there is a problem like this its why I added the months to the reference tags. As I said in my last comment, I was ok with the oldest being first, and I have tried that order. The oldest first may actually may help with understanding the progression of thought on the section topic. I even added the months to the readable text. But that was deleted in one of the edits that placed them out of order, or an edit slightly before, not 100% sure which right now without looking at the history. The whole purpose of this talk page section is to get the reasons, whatever they are from the editors that keep mixing them up, and hopefully work out the best order. I even posted a small text on the talk page of Johnuniq with a link to this section asking him to comment, but it was just deleted and no response was posted here. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Chronological order is far better and the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top of the section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Translates to "The medical conclusion that I like should be right at the top.."--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru:, Which order, ascending or descending? If you believe that chronological order is the best way to go, are you willing to leave them in that order? AlbinoFerret 01:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I previously explained that "the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top".[7] See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Lets keep this simple so that no misunderstandings happen. Lets just deal with the order of the reviews first, without diff's. You have said that a chronological order is best. I personally dont care if its ascending or descending. So I will let you set the order. Do you want ascending (starting with 2011) or descending (starting with 2014)? AlbinoFerret 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I won't let him set the order. It's not his article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@CheesyAppleFlake:It really doesnt matter which chronological order its in, let him pick unless you have reason why ascending (starting with 2011) or descending (starting with 2014) is better. The purpose of this section is to come to an agreement and the order is not changed.@QuackGuru: please make a choice. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If it does not matter to you then you will stop discussing this. I did explain the medical conclusion should be at the top (regardless of the date[8]). QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: The order doesnt matter, that they are constantly reshuffled does. Please pick an order. After that we can move on to the rest. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Recentism. This is not about a chronological order. This is about a chronological order and some text should be close to the top. Even if some text is older it still may be put at the top. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Wikipedia:Recentism is about focusing on recent events to the detriment of older. It is not a directive to avoid a chronological order. If you want to follow Wikipedia:Recentism, which isnt a policy but an essay, fine. Should we start with a ascending (starting with 2011) order to not focus on recent things from 2014? You need to make a decision on the order for this to move forward. One step at a time is preferable to discussing things as a whole to make progress. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you have been dragging your feet and avoiding giving an answer I placed Drummand back into chronological order since you said it was best. If you want to work with me more on this section, make a decision. AlbinoFerret 04:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not dragging my feet. You don't like what the source said (you did delete the source from the article before) and now you moved it to the wrong place. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect, its in chronological order, which you said was best. Hajek was published in July of 2014, Saitta was published in March of 2014, and Drummand was published in February of 2014, not matter if you start with 2014 or 2011 to avoid Recentism its in the middle of the paragraph. If we start with 2011 its nearer to the bottom. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.
I previously wrote: "This is not about a chronological order. This is about a chronological order and some text should be close to the top. Even if some text is older it still may be put at the top." QuackGuru (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Your words "Chronological order is the best". AlbinoFerret 05:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
They are in Chronological order. You said it was best. We are not going to play the "But the one I want to be out of chronological order should be at the top" game. Because if thats the case I will but Drummond at the bottom of the section. Its called compromise and placing it in a non arbitrary order. AlbinoFerret 05:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth again.
The diff you provided showed I wrote: "Chronological order is far better and the medical conclusion should be right at the top or close to the top of the section."[9]
You placed it in an arbitrary order because you don't like it.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed it, 14 days ago, because if says that the science was unclear, when others said there were facts. Not because I didnt "like it". But its in the article now. In an order that is not up to likes or dislikes. Its in an order you said was best. If you want older references at the top, in a chronological order. That can happen, but I dont think you will want the 2011 review in that place. AlbinoFerret 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you denying you said "Chronological order is the best" ? AlbinoFerret 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It seemed as if you removed it because you did not like it says the science was unclear. Others don't say it is clear when there is limited evidence. I did not say that order was best. You are ignoring I did said the medical conclusion should be close to the top or at the top. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The conclusions at the top, in chronological order are all from medical journals. You just dont seem to get it. If its left to an arbitrary order of "whoever likes it at the moment is at the top" this article will be very unstable. Because if we do that its going to be in endless flux. AlbinoFerret 06:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry moved the text to the top of the section that is the medical conclusion about harm reduction. User:Bluerasberry,[11], User:Johnuniq,[12] and I disagree with your view. You don't seem to like the medical conclusion for harm reduction shows the evidence is unclear. You previously said in part: "So I will let you set the order." QuackGuru (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I asked User:Bluerasberry to pop over since you are bringing up edits they have done. I asked Johnuniq to comment on his talk page, including a link to this section, but he deleted the request, has visited the page since, and has not posted in this section. I still offer to let you pick which chronological order you want. Either acceding (starting at 2011 to avoid Recentism) and working up or descending (working at 2014, as it is now). Chose one. Then we will leave it. I have no problem with Drummond being in the section, but I would prefer the 2011 one at the top to avoid Recentism. But to be fair it can be in the chronological order it is now if you prefer. AlbinoFerret 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I previously explained it is about the medical conclusion such as this edit. Then the other text can go in the chronological order in general. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
All of the reviews are medical conclusions. AlbinoFerret 07:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I look at what's going on from time to time, and I still don't see anything specific in this section that needs my view. The activity on this talk is much more than an article of this nature warrants. It seems very likely that the key concern for a general reader would be the safety of e-cigs, and their efficacy for reducing the harm of smoking. The article should present what is known about those concerns, and starting the section with "may be less harmful" gives an undue rosy-glow when the key fact is that no long-term studies have been done on e-cigarettes' safety. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the key fact method is its subjective to what each editor thinks is the "key Point". The key point of the section for me would best be shown by the 2011 review statement. Someone else may choose another. Whats needed imho is a non subjective method. There is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. The available evidence from a huge majority of the sources is they are less harmful because you have to look at the harm being done with tobacco cigarettes. Ecigs safer and the risk less as said in multiple MEDRS. You cant just compare absolute safety because of this. You are placing a review that is looking at safety as if all the other reviews have not happened. Drummond a lone wolf. Placing it in a position of prominence creates a WP:UNDUE issue. AlbinoFerret 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If I may interject my 2 pen'orth. It's not about key points or about chronology. This should be a summary of the harm reduction position. As it stands the section reads really repetetive because everything is saying the same thing. Consider not directly stating the position of each study and give the position given as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That may be a good idea, but a little hard to do at this point, but if time allows... Im not tied to the chronological order, but we need a non subjective method. If someone can find another non subjective order please suggest it, the key method is way to subjective. One thing I noticed is the actual statement in Drummond isnt all about harm reduction, but quitting. I may be moving it.
From Drummond "Although some data demonstrate that electronic cigarettes may be effective in reducing conventional cigarette consumption, there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation. Until robust longitudinal evaluations demonstrate the safety of electronic cigarettes and efficacy in treatment of tobacco dependence, their role as a harm reduction tool is unclear."
This isnt talking about harm reduction as a substitute, its talking about quitting and dependence and the harm done by not quitting. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The actual harm reduction claims in the section as it stands are: E-cigarettes "show great promise in the fight to decrease tobacco related death and disease.", "may lower tobacco cigarette use, however no long-term studies have been done on their safety", "as a substitute for tobacco products, in tobacco harm reduction is unclear.", "may be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes to users and bystanders.", " may be recommended to smokers who are reluctant to quit by way of other methods as a safer alternative to smoking.", "should be regulated in a fashion similar to dietary supplements or cosmetic products to not limit the potential for harm reduction with them replacing tobacco.", and "appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period.".
To summarise that's 'E-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco and could be useful in tobacco harm reduction. A 2014 review argued that regulations should be similar to those for dietary supplements to avoid limiting this potential. Concerns have been raised, however, that there are no long term studies on their safety and as they deliver a reduced amount of nicotine when compared with tobacco questions are raised as to whether they can substitute it in the long term.
Now what I wrote above wasn't elegant but it presents the claims in a clear and understandable fashion 1) Some people claim x 2) Some people argue y because x 3) Some people caution against x because z. Reordering 1),3),2) would also be viable.SPACKlick (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be willing to copy/paste that suggestion as is. But as someone new to this discussion, would you please comment on my last post on the meaning of the Drummond quote? AlbinoFerret 17:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you want me to comment on? it says e-cigs may be effective on reducing consumption, we don't yet have positive data for cessation, long term safety or long term dependence reduction so the overall effect on tobacco harm reduction isn't yet determined. What about it?
@SPACKlick: Is the statement about harm reduction as a replacement for cigarettes, or harm reduction as a result of quitting? 18:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any difference? I have practiced harm reduction by replacing my cigarettes with vaping. I have replaced all my cigarettes, so I've also quit.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. The doubt about harm reduction is doubt about whether people will use them long term rather than whether they will do less harm long term when used. SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes SPACKlick, because if its the latter, in a place where the source is talking about dependence and quitting, and I think it is, its in the wrong section. The claim about safety in quitting is quite common in other sources. But the way that claim is phrased in the source is strange and I think someone copied this in thinking it was a the same based on the words when in fact its probably a different usage of the term. The point the sentence in the article may be making is true (that no long term safety studies have been done), but the source probably isnt using it in the same way as the topic of the section. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is a mass WP:ASSERT violation. Different sources do say different things and sources often disagree. In-text attribution is required in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, bear in mind the above was not intended as final language, simply as form. The discussed papers say almost identical things and there is broad consensus about the facts stated. WP:Assert applies to opinions. The only opinion in the above is attributed to a 2014 study which should have the body named (I didn't have it open when I wrote it) and obviously all sentences will have the relevant sources. There is no serious dispute in sources about any of the other claims which are 1) e-cigarettes may be less harmful than tobacco. 2) e-cigarettes may help contribute to THR 3) (Concerns have been raised that) there are no long term studies on their health effects 4) they deliver a reduced amount of Nicotine 5) (Questions have been raised) about their effectiveness as a long term cessation aid. Is any of that in dispute? SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Of the statements made the only thing that is in dispute, and its a little thing, is that #4 is making a conclusion on first generation devices, and this is not mentioned. We have no MEDRS on the nicotine being provided in second and third generation devices. But this is a common problem in the article. Its also not a topic we have not discussed in this discussion. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor Poll

Latest comment: 9 years ago71 comments7 people in discussion

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

On a five point scale, to what extent does your reading of Reliable Sources (MEDRS where it applies) indicate the following (0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree, X = The information avaialable from reliable sources does not allow us to make even a guess):
  1. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is less healthy than abstinence
  2. It is more likely than not that regular cigarette smokers can improve their health by switching completely to E-cigarettes
  3. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes is less harmful than second hand cigarette smoke
  4. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least some measurable health hazard
  5. It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes are a better aid to smoking cessation that nicotine patches or other aids that are now widely used.
  6. It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes prevent or delay smoking cessation
  7. Widespread availability of electronic cigarettes, in the absence of strict regulation, is more likely than not to increase the societal burden of tobacco related health problems.
  8. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is at least a moderate health risk.
  9. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least a moderate risk as a health hazard.

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

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


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

Submissions

A. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is significantly ("significantly" added after Kim's answer) less healthy than abstinence
B. It is more likely than not that regular cigarette smokers can signficantly (Again, "significantly" added after Kim's response to improve question) improve their health by switching completely to E-cigarettes
C. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes is less harmful than second hand cigarette smoke
D. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least some measurable health hazard
E.It is likely that for some people, E-cigarettes are a better aid to smoking cessation that nicotine patches or other aids that are now widely used.
The latest Polosa study using Ego/CE4 devices with 9mg liquid found a 36% cessation rate - among smokers who didn't want to quit.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 2.5 The MEDRS seem to be split on this one. There's limited data, some poor studies, some really spurious statistics on both sides, I believe that evidence exists and the overall result is no consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
F. It is likely that for some a signficant number of people (again, added "significantly" in response to Kim's answer), E-cigarettes prevent or delay smoking cessation

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

  • 1 No data indicates that cessation efforts are dampened, the concern here is that smokers will "cheat" cessation efforts because they can vape where they can't smoke - but this indicates that the smoker really doesn't want to stop, and those people are significantly less likely to stop in any case. That was the data - now the opinion: There is a larger chance that they actually will like the e-cig and cease smoking even if they didn't have that purpose originally in mind. Here again it is experience rather than data though. I am myself a "victim" of e-cigs being a gateway out of smoking. I just wanted to save money, i had given up cessation efforts because they didn't work on me. --Kim D. Petersen 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 0 I can't even think why this might happen.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 0/3This is really two questions. prevent or delay, so I have answered both. 0 for prevent, vaping is not smoking. If the smoker stops using tobacco cigarettes they have quit smoking, if they are still using tobacco cigarettes the e-cigarette didn’t stop them quitting. 3 for delay, because e-cigarettes let people slowly decrease their nicotine levels over timef instead of cold turkey even i they occasionally duel use. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 0 This statement is made by some MEDR sources under the implicit (and inaccurate) assumption that vaping==smoking. Sources that do not conflate vaping with smoking do not support this conclusion. Mihaister (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 0/3 To answer two different questions. There is no evidence I have seen that e-cigs delay or prevent tobacco smoke cessation. I have seen some evidence to suggest that it may delay or prevent nicotine cessation, which is often conflated within papers. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
H. It is more likely than not that E-cigarette use is at least a moderate health risk.
  • 2/X We don't know. 2 vectors here: PG/VG long-term massive usage may carry a risk that we haven't seen before. Even when we have had inhalators using PG/VG, the amounts were significantly lower and thus exposure also much lower. Flavoring is the other risk vector, and at least some flavourings can carry a moderate risk (diacetyl for instance - while lower than cigs, it is much higher than none). The particulate issue is one that only Grana really focuses on, and that in itself is problematic as this type of risk is generically uncertain, even in areas where it is an active research field. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 1/X Define "moderate". If drinking coffee is a "moderate" health risk then yes. Otherwise, no.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 3/X According to studies from MEDRS there is moderate risk to the user based on studies of First Generation e-cigs showing the presence of metals in the vapor. The risks are lower than tobacco cigarettes but need to be lowered more. More study is needed on Second and Third generation devices because they dont use solder and have changed the metal the coil is made of, kanthal wire is used which dose not include nickel. Flavourings need a lot of study done as does thermal breakdown of components when variable power devices are used. The community is already aware of the dangers and the industry has already tried to make some changes without regulation in these areas. But a troubling wattage race has started. AlbinoFerret 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think wattage matters. The important thing is temperature, and the DNA40 makes that a moot point. This time next year nobody will ever be overheating a coil.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Wattage matters, see the PBusardo review of the Segeli 100 watt after the first few minutes go to the 22 minute mark. The wattage race is dangerous. I think Phil is very knowledgeable on gear, he is an expert in a lot of ways. Its true the DNA40 is like a voice of reason to the madness. But 200 or 250 watt devices are out now and higher wattage is coming. The kind of heat they generate will produce all kinds of nasty stuff. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
CAF is kind of right though, if more and more devices have live temperature monitoring, the wattage risk disappears. The high watts will just heat more juice rather than heating juice more. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that temperature control will help to eliminate problems my concerns include:
  • The only device that can do it is the DNA40, and it maxes out at 30 watts, and it probably is in the process of becoming patented.
  • All the devices in the wattage race use control boards made in china, it may take years for them to develop this technology if past history proves accurate.
  • Higher wattage devices without temp control are announced all the time with no end in sight to higher wattages and thus dangerous heat which may stop being vaporizing and become combustion at some point if its not already happening.
  • Temperature control is either being ignored or described as a "late comer" because the board only does 30 watts. It may not look like a selling point to manufacturers in China, and profit seems to be the reason they add anything.
The temp control really is cutting edge technology. I doubt we will see anything on it in MEDRS anytime soon. But it looks like Farsalinos is trying to raise funding for a study on the subject. personally I would never buy a device over 20 watts without temperature control for my wife, or recommend it to her smoking/vaping friends. AlbinoFerret 14:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 0 If we are to understand "moderate risk" using the statutory definitions in US risk assessment guidance, this is demonstrably false. MEDR sources appear to converge on a "low risk" category for vaping with respect to users. Mihaister (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 1 This does depend on your definition of moderate. If you use moderate to mean much lower health risks than Standard risk assessment parlance I could go to a 2. That said I am sure we will discover some flavourings and some temperatures that when combined will be a moderate health risk. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I. It is more likely than not that "second hand vapor" from electronic cigarettes poses at least a moderate risk as a health hazard.

I wash my hands of this. It was clearly a waste of time and effort. Maybe after another year or two of bickering people will be interested in looking for areas of agreement and not just explaining to the other side how completely and totally wrong they are. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So we didn't all agree that e-cigs are a health hazard, and now you grab your ball and go home. Fine. See you when you finish elementary school.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98, you asked for opinions of what people see in MEDRS. You asked for nuanced answers, I know I tried to bring out the subtle details of why I answered how I did. It was almost impossible to answer just with a number. I am sorry you didnt get the results you wanted, but I know I honestly answered the questions. I have no reason to think that others did not answer them honestly as well. This poll may yet help. If both sides can see the views of the others it may help the editors of this article understand why there are constant disagreements. But the first thing that needs to be done is that those views have to be written and then read by everyone. AlbinoFerret 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually see the above as a bit of a success so far. More time for more of the page editors to answer might help focus in on where people disagree, these disagreements are the ones we should focus on finding good MEDRS meta-analyses to see what consensus is. So far there are really only 3 questions which aren't leaning in a clear direction.
D There is a clear lean towards agreement but some disagreement over the meaning/wording of the question
E Slight lean towards agree but a lot of uncertainty about the strength of the evidence, really would be good to try and collate some MEDRS on the actual quitting rates with e-cigs.
H The least consensus answer. slight lean disagreement with a lot of /X answers. It would seem from this there is general agreement that e-cigs will pose some level of health hazard but that there is little agreement (among editors here) over what level of risk. SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit to add: I see part of your issue is with a lot of 0 and 4 answers. Given that the questions are phrased as "more likely than not" and so are already slightly hedging it will encourage people to give more extreme answers. If there was an 11 point scale 0=definitely false 2=significantly likely to be false 5=equally likely true/false 8=significantly likely to be true 10 = definitely true and the questions were phrased without "more likely than not" then you'd get a broader range of answers. SPACKlick (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Practical implications of alternatives to smoke inhalation

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

It seems to me that some editors are not fully realizing the extent to which avoiding smoke from burning tobacco is beneficial. This recent primary study showed that mere contamination of tobacco smoke on room surfaces can be significantly harmful to room occupants hours after a cigarette has been smoked. Of course I'm not proposing adding it to the article, but would editors please take a minute to stop and reflect that the central idea of what we are discussing is an alternative to smoke inhalation, and the implications for the health of smokers and the people around them? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

But hey, it's also an alternative to very lucrative (but useless) NRTs, so the med crowd don't care if it saves lives or not. That's why they focus on trivial or hypothetical risks and refuse to let anything positive go in the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont know if anyone editing this article has ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But if they did it may be a COI. IMHO even the appearance of a COI should give anyone with such ties at least moments hesitation in editing the article when it comes to a comparison with NRT's, using them to quit, or harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow. It's common to find an occasional inappropriate comment on a talk page, but here there are three. Editors with knowledge of fringe topics (not this article) understand that science is littered with obvious conclusions that are not so obvious when put to the test of rigorous experimentation. It's more likely that someone is paying for the addition of promotional puffery to this article than the reverse, but regardless, editors have to focus on what sources actually say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine was on a hypothetical situation. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It is even more likely that editors such as myself, with an absolutely unbroken anti-manufacturer paid advocacy track record reflected in literally dozens of dispute resolution interactions, including several at both ANI and arbitration, are fascinated by the opportunity to finally side with manufacturers because that's the incontrovertible position of all the MEDRS reviews reaching substantive conclusions. But thanks for the implied accusation, I'm sure you didn't consider it an inappropriate comment at all. EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No explanation for this change

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

The text was changed from "can" to "may".[13] Explanation? QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are implying that there is any semantic difference at all, then please state what you think it amounts to. EllenCT (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Both can and may is OR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you know the section this was taken from Quack, just copy/paste the original quote here so the rest of us dont have to search for it. Then we can see whats wrong. You should do that every time you have this type of issue. AlbinoFerret 08:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I didnt mean for you to post the diff from the article, but the sentence in the source that the clam in the article is based on, and paste it into the section you are discussing it in. AlbinoFerret 09:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary shows the word "may" (and "can") was OR. The sentence from the source is in the edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No Quack. To say that the "indiscriminate" use of e-cigs is a public health hazard, based on one paper, is outrageous POV pushing. Again. Just stop it.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The original research was restored. Please read: "This would control their current indiscriminate use, which is not only a threat to public health, but may encourage young people to start smoking."[14] QuackGuru (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no scholarly consensus that "indiscriminate" use (whatever the fuck that even means) is a threat to health, and the "gateway" claims have been thoroughly busted. Stop trying to push your POV.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The in-text attribution is at the beginning of the paragraph: "The Spanish Society of Pneumonology and Thoracic Surgery released a position statement..." You did not provide verification for the text you added. I provided text from the source that shows the wording you added failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT. There is no consensus that e-cig use is a threat to anything, let alone public health. People I respect more than a Spanish trade org say they could be one of the greatest benefits to public health this century. And I didn't add any text. I changed one word for one I think is better. Stop chucking accusations about and learn how to cooperate.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale changing of "vapor" to "mist"

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I have changed the word mist in harm reduction where the source used the word vapor. I have also changed "mist" to vapor in hardware. When talking about hardware vapor is the common term. Changing vapor to mist is without consensus. AlbinoFerret 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Without consensus, and stupid.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Cloudjpk just reverted it back to mist citing consensus, I would like them to prove there is consensus for "mist over vapour. AlbinoFerret 01:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The consensus was for "mist" over "aerosol" and "vapor". As it happens "mist" wasn't my preferred term but I accepted consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect, the consensus was about one sentence in the lede, not the whole article. See the discussion here, and look at the last comment. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" It would be confusing to the reader to switch back and forth with the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesnt matter, you have no agreement to switch all the uses to "mist". That was never agreed to if it was mentioned you wanted to do that there would be no agreement in the lede. You are arguing accuracy here, but in the section above you want inaccuracy. Thats double talk. The original agreement was only made by me to stop the ever changing sentence in the lede. It is more confusing now with your changes that it was before you changed things first to aerosol, then mist. If anyone is at fault for making the reader become confused it is because of your edits and failure to hear anyone else WP:IDHT]AlbinoFerret 03:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will change every instance of the word Aerosol to Mist since thats what was agreed to in the lede. AlbinoFerret 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well then I am going to change every instance of "mist" back to "vapor". Nobody else in the entire fucking world calls e-cig vapor "mist" apart from this idiotic article. Can the mist advocates please grow up?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I cant revert them at this point. Doing so now would be edit warring and there is a vote to topic ban me. I wont be getting into revert wars, no one should at any time. AlbinoFerret 13:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

For the lede we can use the word "mist" or "aerosol". But it should be wikilinked to aerosol not mist. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on using "mist" it should be wikilinked to Mist - "small droplets of water suspended in air". Want to do that, or should we just not use the completely inaccurate "mist"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You have no consensus for any other uses of vapor to be changed to "mist or "aerosol". If you are trying to enforce a partial agreement for the lede only to the whole page. You have no consensus to wikilink every instance, or any instance, of "mist or "vapor" to Aerosol. Doing so is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the words "vape", "vaper", and "vapour" are the correct terminology according to the Oxford English Dictionary: [15]. Mihaister (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rfc on removal of "Mist"

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
Closed pending outcome of RFC above, per agreement with editor who opened this section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There doesn't look like any real support for the use of the inaccurate word "mist" in this article, apart from the editor who pushed for its use in the first place. I propose that we follow User:Barnabypage's suggestion; call it "A mist-like aerosol, usually referred to as vapor" in the lede, then "vapor" throughout the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Mist" ("small droplets of water suspended in air") is also misleading and isn't used anywhere except this article. We should be reflecting what the RS say, not carrying out OR and deciding that what every man and his dog call "vapor" is really gauzy skeins drifting over the creek at dawn.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Mist" is not misleading. RS when discussing which term is accurate and why, say "aerosol". And we've already had this discussion. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Mist ("small droplets of water suspended in air") is misleading. Go away, Quack.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course you do, because you're the one who's been violating consensus by changing everything to "mist".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually you violated consensus[16][17] and editors disagreed with your changes.[18][19] Mist can be used rather than vapor.[20][21] Vapor is promotional jargon. The companies claim it is merely vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There was consensus to use "mist" at one point in the lede. You have changed it everywhere in the article and, duh, editors disagreed with your changes. As for calling vapor "promotional jargon" that's just stupid, even by your standards.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, your links that allegedly show a consensus to use "mist" don't show that at all. And if you're happy with using a synonym for "vapor", what's your real problem with '"vapor'"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing here QuackGuru, is either a classic example of WP:IDHT or a deliberate false statement. There has never been consensus for changing all instances of aerosol and vapor into mist, and you've been informed about that numerous times, including several time just within the last couple of days. So please stop it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support seems like a good compromise to take it early in the lead, that way the reader won't be confused when encountering aerosol mixed with vapor elsewhere in the body. A consensus for whether to use vapo[u]r exclusively, aerosol exclusively or mixed aerosol/vapo[u]r depending on what the in context source says, is too soon to determine but this proposal would be useful no matter what :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mist or aerosol are accurate terms. "Mist" is plain and common enough to be understood by the general reader. "Vapor" is informal and inaccurate. If you're looking for a synonym you have to start with options that are sufficiently accurate. Zad68 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Mist ("small droplets of water suspended in air") is inaccurate. Vapor is the term in common usage and also the term used in the vast majority of RS. Insisting on "mist" is just weird.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait for the RFC to complete - there is already this RFC Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Vapor.2C_Mist.2C_.26_Aerosol_RFC, discussion here should be closed as duplicating that one. Zad68 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. The other one has a clear consensus against "mist". I'm not too bothered with "aerosol" because what comes out the end of an e-cig is a mix of aerosol and vapor. It is definitely not mist.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Harm reduction and smoking cessation summaries and international organization survey position

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I disagree with User:Alexbrn's revert of my recent edits claiming that they were "not an improvement." On the contrary, the RFCs and Editor Poll above show clear consensus for the additions on harm reduction and smoking cessation. The sources are both from MEDRSs in journals with above-median impact factors. None of the statements contradict any other MEDRSs, but the rejection of summaries of MEDRSs which do not reach definitive conclusions with conclusive statements from reviews of larger numbers of primary sources is absolutely good encyclopedic practice. And why should the positions of the several international organizations precede summaries of specific topics? How can that possibly serve the reader? EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed the part of the editor poll which states, "No one is required to take this poll, it is not on any specific edit, it will change nothing in the articles content now or in advance change anything because of the responses." Yobol (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
And the RfC was withdrawn. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The #RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions was not withdrawn, and the editors' poll is still useful for making judgements no matter how many disclaimers it has. Everything here is voluntary. EllenCT (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The RFC at the time of your revert had exactly one "support", which was yours. That you think this is in any way, shape, or form a "consensus" for your preferred version raises competency questions. The editors' poll specifically said it could not be used for determining consensus on content changes in the future, and your continued insistence that it can be, despite the very clear disclaimer that it can't be, also raises serious competency issues. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is clear from the prior discussion, where no reasons were give to doubt the reliability of either source, and no reasons were given that the inconclusive reviews of fewer numbers of sources were any more reliable. The survey responses were explicitly unopposed for several days. EllenCT (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yobol, the disclaimer on the poll expressly goes against its use in this fashion. Its purpose was not on any specific edit or future edits. Its purpose was to give other editors an understanding of the points of view of other editors in hopes of avoiding conflicts, nothing more. I cant agree with its use in any other way. I hope that other editors see this and take part in it for that purpose, and understand that I will post against its use in any other way. If I miss a post using it , please post a link to this comment in response. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yobol and Alexbrn that the RFC and editors poll I posted can not be used to show consensus. The editors poll especially because of the limited participation and statement on its purpose. Sadly more people didnt respond from the medical perspective, it still couldnt be used, but it may have helped in problems like this to see both sides pov. But there is a problem removing MEDRS claims from the article. AlbinoFerret 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to my #RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
That one's had one "response" - from you - and is undecided (if even validly put, which is questionable). If that's what you honestly meant by "shows clear consensus", I doubt you've assessed it impartially or accurately. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Yes, that RFC can be used, I had meant to vote in it, and had commented in it, thanks for linking to it so I could. I have had a lot going on. @Alexbrn: There are two support votes, you probably were writing your comment because I added a vote 1 minute before you commented. Though "clear consensus" cant really be shown by even that low number of votes considering all the editors who edit this article, it is useful to show some form. AlbinoFerret 15:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said above (and suggest replying there to keep threads from duplicating), the consensus is clear from the prior discussion, where no reasons were give to doubt the reliability of either source, and no reasons were given that the inconclusive reviews of fewer numbers of sources were any more reliable. The survey responses were explicitly unopposed for several days. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Alexbrn revert. Ellen's edit was not an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's get this article locked and properly reviewed by someone sane

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Collapse material from indef-blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is supposed to be an article about a consumer product. Thanks to the efforts of a small group of zealots it's been turned into a litany of speculative health claims, with any information about the actual topic - electronic cigarettes - cut to a minimum or completely excluded.

THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL ARTICLE

Get someone with a sense of perspective to review this mess, then let's make a sustained effort to add actual real information. And by the way, let's also make an effort to write it in something that resembles coherent English. Right now the "Health effects" section looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks, because the main zealots at work there no speaka da eenglish so good.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Renaming of "Health effects" section

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

As per WP:BRD I renamed the Health Effects section to "Speculation on health effects", which is more appropriate because there are no actual health effects described. I'll WP:AGF that when Doc James called this silliness and reverted it he really can't see the difference between speculation and real effects, but I think we should consider this renaming seriously. No health effects of e-cigs have been detected by any research, so all we have is speculation. The section heading should make that clear, and not imply something that on current evidence just isn't there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Section titles do not contain an editorial message. It is obvious that e-cig users are particularly interested in health effects, and the section has to be present and has to say what sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
E-cig users are not particularly interested in health effects at all. As long as they're healthier than actual cigarettes that's good enough. My issue here is that the section is called "Health effects" when no health effects have been found. It should be called "Speculation on health effects", because that's all that's in it - speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Doc James and Johnuniq, "Health effects" is concise, informative and neutral. Random editorializing does not make a neutral encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Health effects" is a great title - for a section about health effects. Problem is, right now we have a huge section under that title but there are no health effects in it. All the cited sources are very clear that they're talking about speculative health effects. If any real ones have been detected I'm sure someone will let me know, but until some are known that title needs to be changed. It's like having a section in the Jupiter article called "Goats", just because someone speculates there might be goats there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Health effects section certainly doesn't contain only speculation and it would be inappropriate to label all the content as such. There's no reason to rename the section from its more concise, general title. Zad68 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, what actual health effects of vaping does it describe?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "there is not enough evidence to determine whether they have Benefit X and Risk Y" and "they may have Benefit X and might have Risk Y"? If so please demonstrate. If not there's no point in continuing this further. Zad68 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. And if there's not enough evidence to say they have X and Y then X and Y are not health effects. They are speculation about health effects.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, and because I think further attempts to explain would be equally fruitless I'll stop now. Zad68 19:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not a medical article, and when the general reader sees a section called "Health effects" they're going to think health effects have been identified. Then they're going to get lost in a Wall Of Text riddled with "A study concluded" and "The Patagonian Homeopathic Venereal Disease Committee states..." that makes no sense at all. As it stands the section is misleading, because it implies health effects when none have been identified.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example. The "Health effects" section has EIGHT separate references to concerns about the so-called "gateway effect", the idea that e-cig use will encourage people to start smoking. However there is no evidence that this is happening. There is convincing evidence from multiple studies that it isn't happening. There has been no credible attempt to explain why it even might happen, because it's basically a stupid idea that was already used against Swedish snus and turned out to be completely wrong. But it's still listed repeatedly under "Health effects" when it's nothing more than unfounded, biased speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Health effects is the correct section heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Who died and left you in charge? That's only your opinion. Mine is different.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a Hint:
Cite: "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known. Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke. There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from tobacco smoke or air pollution can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death. (emphasis added) – Grana, Benowitz, Glantz, Circulation 2014."
I'm not interested in Glantz's manufactured crap about particles because it's junk science and intellectually dishonest.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_14&oldid=1136694067"