Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ruyan patent section (history)

The claim that the Ruyan device was the first ever patented was sourced with this. The only statement there that might support the claim is the title of Ruyan's presentation, "The Introduction of the First and Only Patented Electronic Cigarette." Since this title was chosen by the company, it's hardy actual proof of the claim. I've removed the entire section, as it was only worthy of noting if Ruyan was indeed the first patent. Otherwise, Ruyan is just another manufacturer with a unique design, and there are many of those. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the most stupid thing I have ever read. What about all patents held by Ruyan and the fact they are winning in court of law agains copycat manufacturers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phammarberg (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) PATENT HOLDER (worldwide). Other copycats can only copy the design but not the core technique. And they are ruining the market reputation by very poor quality control. RUYAN are also taking all kinds of the legal actions against those copiers now, please stay tuned.

The number of RUYANS EU patent is 1618803. Patent was granted by EU office. Please check the details on www.epo.org

Irregardless of the patent they hold and the decided or pending court cases, the section states that they had the first patent. That encyclopedic statement needs a reference. It needs a source cited or it could be rewritten and/or deleted.

With that said, I believe that it is an interesting bit about the history of the device that should be kept if it can be verified.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... just getting started on this article myself, I see that this discussion is taking place further down the talk page. I'll make all of my future comments there.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

History?

I believe it would be helpful if a section on the history of these devices was included in this article. Shanoman (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a history based on what I could source. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a history of electronic cigarettes is fine, but it shouldn't read like advertising for Ruyan. There is a Wiki page for this company already. DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the history section. The article would benefit from this information. If you think it's too promotional-sounding, fix it! Don't just remove everything. Equazcion (talk) 01:30, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The section was in worse condition than I thought. I had to whiddle it down. Removed most of the Ruyan award stuff, and other statements sourced from their website or from blogs. Equazcion (talk) 02:09, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not work for Ruyan. As per it 'reading like an ad', its hard NOT to talk about Ruyan, since they ARE the history. They have fought, and WON every legal battle they have pursued, based on their patent. I put the awards in, since they DID win those awards, and I believe it shows that electronic cigarettes are an innovative product worth more than a passing look. Yes, I'm vaping on a Joyetech 510 as I type this. I've been asking ops, admins, and others in IRC to do reviews, and have been adding to this article based on their advice. My goal is to get this FA worthy. So far, 'reading like an ad' is NOT the complaint, ESPECIALLY since I had sourced. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 05:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources weren't really reliable, they were from the Ruyan site or from blogs. Awards given to a particular company don't have much to do with the electronic cigarette itself. They belong in the company's own article instead, in my opinion. Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's why I put them in "Innovation Award for Product of Greatest Social Significance" and "Business 2.0's list of Top 10 Innovative Products" the other two are company only and I will concede the point on them. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the business 2.0 award, because as I understood it the honor was bestowed upon the concept rather than a company. I see now that Ruyan claims the award was given to them specifically, but the CNN source says nothing about the top-10 list or any award. Since the Ruyan site isn't reliable for this claim, and I couldn't find another source in my cursory search, I've removed the statement. If someone can find the business 2.0 article with the "innovative product" list that includes the Ruyan device, that might be reason to replace the statement. Equazcion (talk) 06:38, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Someone with more time on their hands should have a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/history2.html and see about weaving in some comparison/contrast to the previous attempts at battery-powered/vapor-based cigarette products. Everything's got a history, and the current design is a synthesis - or independent development - of some of the ideas, minus the wads of tobacco so with a better hope of delivering a 'pure' product if the liquid used is 'pure.' (Yes, I'm the same dude who just posted the link on ECF, just think it bears mention here, too.) The unheated/unpowered pharmaceutical nicotine inhalers probably deserve a mention as well. 64.252.202.60 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In depth reply, to shed light on prehistoric context and prepare additional lines for the History chapter:

During the last 3 months I have been reading through more than 100 patents, googled the Internet and compiled a document of 33 pages to shed some light on all corners of the e-cigarette history. I for sure agree with 64.252.202.60, that the article would benefit to get expanded with more historic info. In the next two days, I will work to write a short contribution to the History chapter, in order to share the main findings from my big document (all referenced). When having a look into the history, I found a lot of interesting stuff. So much, that I had to limit my historic search without reading anything about the development of the earlier invented “healthier tobacco based cigarettes” (showed by the link posted above by 64.252.202.60). In my point of view its also best to narrow down the historic chapter in the Wikipedia article, so that it doesnt contain info about the “healthier tobacco based cigarettes”. The small chapter that I now will start to write, will focus mainly on the tobacco-free “smoke simulating electronic nicotine inhalers”.

One of the arguments to omit the “healthier tobacco based cigaretes” from the history, is also their unsuccesful attempt to actualy be healthy. The best devices inside this category, still contained minimum 10% of the dangerous compounds stemming from evaporation/combustion of their special tobacco blends. So that’s why I find it reasonable to focus the “history chapter”, to only provide info about the completely tobacco-free devices, that only by a speciel aerosol carrier will administer nicotine to the loungs.

After expanding the history chapter a bit in the wikipedia article, with more info about “smoke simulating electronic nicotine inhalers” (with the currently selling e-cigarettes from China being the latest significant invention), my plan is to also write a few general lines about the “Prehistoric context”. These lines will feature some of the info provided below (all with a written reference), to compile an overview of all the significant “prehistoric” products:

History of smoking combustible stimulants:

5000 BC: Smoking of tobacco and hallucinogenic drugs were performed in religious rituals in the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Andes.

2000 BC: Smoking of cannabis, were performed by many people in Ancient India.

Around 0: Smoking of tobacco for recreational use is believed to be common among all civilaziations in South and Central America.

History of tobacco cigarettes:

800: First cigarettes (with tobacco in reeds and smoking tubes) were invented by the Maya people, as an alternative to “stone pipes”.

1518: Cigarettes in the form of tobacco smoked in maize wrappers were "discovered" by Spanish soldiers, when they conquered Yucatan, and rapidly imported to a new habit in Spain.

16xx: Cigarettes were improved by Spanish manufactureres, who started to use fine paper as the wrapping material, instead of maize.

History of first technology to make smoking of tobacco more healthy (with no further look into developments after 1954):

15xx: The water pipe called a Hookah is invented by the Indian physician Hakim Abul Fateh Gilani, to purify the smoke through water.

1893: First filter for tobacco pipes (a perforated metal disc with a spong/absorbant material below, to arrest tar/nicotine) is invented in UK.

1899: Invention of an improved proces for tobacco production, to remove or lower the amount of nicotine in the tobacco material.

1925: First cigarette filter was invented by Boris Aivaz in Hungary. The filter was produced since 1927, but a rare item as it was expensive.

1954: Cigarette filters become commonly used, as big manufactures now cheaply can add them by using a new invented filter machine.

History of approved Nicotine Replacement Therapies:

1968: First nicotine chewing gum (Nicorette) is invented by AB Leo in Sweeden, and approved as medical NRT product in 1978.

19xx: First nicotine lozenges gets approved as a NRT product.

1991: First nicotine patch (Nicorette) gets approved as a NRT product. Patent might have been filed several years ahead.

1994: First nicotine inhalator (Nicorette) gets approved as a NRT product. Patent might have been filed several years ahead.

1994: First nicotine nasal spray (Nicorette) gets approved as a NRT product. Patent was filed in UK, already in 1983.

1996: First nicotine microtabs (Nicorette) gets approved as a NRT product. Patent might have been filed several years ahead.

NB: E-cigarettes, Topical gels and Oral forms, are 3 new categories of Nicotine Containing Products (NCP), not yet approved as NRT.

History of inhalers shaped in other forms than a cigar/cigarette/pipe (with a medical substance getting vaporized/nebulized):

1554 BC: Inhalation of vapor from black henbane by threwing the weed onto hot bricks, has been recorded by the Egyptian Ebers papyrus.

xxxx BC: Inhalation of vapor from vessels with aromatic oils, were also reported to be used in Ancient Egypt, to provide a parfumic smell.

400 BC: Inhalation of vapor from herbs+resins boiled with winegar+oil through a handheld tube, was described by Hippocrates in Greece.

12xx AD: Inhalation of vapor from a spong soaked with a soporific agent, was used by Theodore de Lucca to impose anesthesia during operations.

14xx AD: Inhalation of vapor from sulforic ether, was discovered by the physician Paracelsus to have a pain relieving and anesthetic effect.

1654: First handheld inhaler was invented in UK by Christopher Bennet, that provide fumigations and remind of a modern “Turbohaler”.

1764: First handheld inhaler using boiling water as heating means, was named “Pewter vessel” and invented in UK by Philip Stern.

1778: First handheld inhaler using both boiling water and airstream passing through the medical liquid for evaporation, invented by John Mudge.

1798: A glass vessel inhaler, with volatile substances vaporized by the warmth of a hand, was invented in UK by Dr.Withering.

1858: First pressurised inhaler using a hand pump to pressure and spray out an atomized medical liquid, was invented by Sales-Girons.

1862: First nebulisation inhaler named “Siegle’s steam spray inhaler”, with steam from boiling water passing through a medical liquid.

1936: Electric vaporizers are invented with a heating bulp warming up a liquid in a jar to fertilize an efficient evaporation.

193x: Electric nebulisers are invented (ie the Pneumostat), where the pressuring power is provided by an electric compressor.

1955: First pressurised metered dose inhaler, using the gas Freon/HFA as propellant and metering valves to deliver an exact medical dose.

1988: Inhaler device is invented, that use ultrasonic waves to vibrate a piezoelectric element, and thereby atomize liquids into aerosols.

History of inhalers shaped as a cigar/cigarette/pipe (without any combustible products being used):

1890: First inhaler shaped as a cigarette, was sold in USA as the “Cushman menthol inhaler”, with air passing through menthol crystals.

1899: Next inhaler shaped as a cigarette, was the “Antiseptic Cigar inhaler”, with drops of Gomenol into charcoal, vaporized by air stream.

1900: The tubalar inhaler shaped as a cigar, mixed the vapors of HCL and ammonia to form a white mist of ammonia hydrochlorate.

1909: The tubular inhaler described from 1900 is improved, by providing a third vapor supplying chamber, to add menthol taste to the mist.

1950: First electronic cigar, was actualy not an inhaler device, but shaped as a cigar, and having a mouth actuated light simulating a lit cigar.

1956: First nicotine inhaler shaped as a cigar, that mention the idea to have a nicotine solution absorbed in cotton, with drawn air to vaporize.

1963: First electronic cigarette, with air drawn through a cartridge to release a tastefull vapor, and a battery driven heating bulp to heat the flavored air.

1978: Invention of an improved nicotine inhaler device shaped as a cigarette, that for the first time efficiently delivered nicotine aerosols for inhalation without any external heating means or pressure means. The device was sold in 1984-1987 with the product name “FAVOR smokefree cigarette” in Europe and USA, but got banned by the American FDA in Feb.1987 as it had not recieved a medical approval. The medical company Pharmacia Leo (formerly known as AB Leo, and the company inventing the Nicorette chewing gum), then bought the patent rights from the company having invented the FAVOR inhaler (Advanced Tobacco Products) with the purpose to get it approved as a medical product. This happened in 1994 were the improved product named “Nicorette inhaler” was launched. By checking the public account from ATP in 2000, a significant income of royaltees payed by Pharmacia Leo from the sale of this product, can still be found.

1987: First electronic cigarette where the nicotine liquid is vaporized by heating chamber, and droplets formed by air stream venturi channel.

2003: A special electronic cigarette with the trade name “Nicstic” was invented in Germany, with nicotine vaporized by electric heating.

2003: First electronic cigarette where the nicotine liquid is atomized by a combination of ultrasonic vibrational waves and a heating nozzle.*

2004: First electronic cigarette with a liquid absorbing atomizer, where the airflow drive the liquid stream into an aerosolizing chamber.*

NB(*): Last two invention patents from April 2003 and April 2004 were both filed by Hon Lik (the inventor and chief executive of Ruyan), but its important to note that his first patent from 2003 only was a theoretical patent, with no products ever being produced. The core technology that we now are familair with in the currently sold e-cigarettes (and the first e-cigarette sold in China around May 2004), are all based upon the later invention patent from April 2004. In the following years, additional design improvements were also made and filed by Ruyan in regards of charging means, the atomizer, liquid bottle and how these 3 units are assembled, but the core technology used has remained the same. I have written down some more details about these design improvements subsequently made by Ruyan. When I get time, a short summary of these details will also be added to the Historic chapter in the Wikipedia article.

I look forward to start working a bit more with the historic chapter, and hope for a start that you all found the info here at the discussion page interesting to read (eventough the references were omitted to make it more readible). Any comments or response will be more than welcome. :-)

Danish Expert (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought this link would help: This is an informational website with a ton of links about the E-cig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleibanez801 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Component terminology and Nicotine Solution

Yes, I need to get signed up. Sigh. Added a Common Terminology section which states its based on industry and community accepted terms. Added with the intent of helping researchers who aren't well versed and may come into many of the various terms thrown around in the ecig arena. I kept it short, sweet, and simple and about the components of the ecig, and the two most common used eliquid bases. I sourced appropriately to two suppliers, as well as a the glossary available on a large-size community site.

To the recipe section, I added a 5th recipe, which is based on the lab reports of one supplier (yes, sourced). While putting in my reference links for the various compounds, the best link I could find for one to explain what it is (a flavoring compound) was at an about.com url. The linkbot didn't like it. If anyone can find a better source that shows that it is a flavoring compound used in foodstuffs, it would be appreciated, I am having no luck. 72.186.110.175 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Starter kits; blue LEDs

Resolved

 – Do not add alleged facts without reliable sources for them.

The comment rm html comment, rm claim that most starter kits have blue LED, no RS for that, seems dubious) is showing you did not investigate the site I referenced. You'll note the reviewer there has reviewed models from most manufacturers, and always shows the assembled device. the LED is blue on 75% of the starter kit batteries. amber/red make up the rest FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the source was a video review posted at a forum site, which isn't a reliable source. See WP:RS. Equazcion (talk) 06:14, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have one made by Gamucci, which has a green LED.Jason404 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No one cares. I don't mean that in any kind of personal or snotty way. I mean that you and your possessions are of no interest to our readers. You are not a reliable source. Neither are random people's reviews on forum sites, or personal blogs, or anything else that is not from a reputable publisher. It's not that we don't believe you, we just cannot add unconfirmed information to articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for information on adaptability

Unlike conventional cigarettes, the e-cigarette has far more adaptability. If possible, details on this would be useful to have in the article. Some examples: If the liquid solution turned out to have unhealthy long term side effects then it would not be a stretch to change to an alternative less harmful solution (something nearly impossible with combustion cigarettes). Similarly, the same applies to the currently sponge like substrate for storing the liquid. This potential for improvement in the context of health should be described in the article. I expect some might be speculative, but I'm sure there must be some scientific speculation that can be applied.

The question here is, is that trait notable enough that there are reliable sources talking about it?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question Garrett. The question of adaptability does not need to cite sources as far as I can see. A simple examination of the construction of the device in the article its self can lead to that conclusion. In short, if it falls upon common sense (can be verified by) then sources should not be needed. Personally, I've seen people replacing the normal combination of a fiberous sponge like subtrate soaked in the solutions with Swedish Snus soaked in vegetable glycerol (can be found on youtube). Given that ultimately all it does is heat something up and vapourise it, it can be easily seen that any mixture that falls within the same evapourating temperature range is a candidate for an alternative. Some commercial recognition of this is appearing as custom mixing kits are being made available. Mention of what specific alternatives may potentially be used or what limits such alternatives must fall into (such as evapouration temperature range) however may certainly require citation of sources. The question of adaptability, noticable or not, should make perfect sense to anyone when presented as a trait along with basic information on the devices construction and method of operation. Of course, as I have already predicted, alternate e-liquids have been introduced to attempt to increase healthiness simply in that they source more reliable european compounds. This trend of healthier liquid blends is one that can be expected to continue in the future with far more complex arrangements. The best place to find info on this is on the online shops themselves (for a start, not necessary sources). The customisability of the modular design is obvious in the same way the customisability of roll up cigarettes is, where it is immediately clear to anyone with a reasonable level of comprehension that you can intermix papers, tobacco and filters. However, these reach a limit when it comes to combinations designed to mitigate negative health effects, because regardless of the mix, combustion must by used, and smoke inhaled. Please excuse my mistaking notable for noticable.

I must point out that the liquid substrate fibery sponge thing (cartridge) is woefully undocumented. Few, if any articles or sites (a few personal observations by users on public forums at the most) go into details about it's composition and the effect of heat upon it. It can be visibly seen to degrade over periods of use due to the heat from the element. I have not seen documentation detailing the effects of the degregation. Further more, if it is not kept adequately stocked with liquid, it can its self "evapourate" or gaseously denature which is detectable via a change in taste. This is definitely an area worthy of some research and attention. If good information on this cannot be found, the lack of information its self should be highlighted as in reference to health effects this component has as much a part to play as the eliquid its self. This observation is made by myself, a heavy user of the device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This would fall under WP:Original research, and it's not allowed here. Common sense alone is subjective, and thus isn't sufficient rationale for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, no matter how obviously correct it might seem. That's sort of a cardinal rule here. Different people find different things obvious, so for an encyclopedia, editors must rely on outside sources for all information. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:38, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my request. I am not asking for anything that I have typed to be put into the article directly, but for anyone editing it or seeking to add information to examine these areas and attempt to find information and sources for it. As for common sense being subjective, I tend to disagree in this context. Contrary to your statement common sense is not always subjective. Common sense means that it is common. In this context, it means sense that is universal amongst individuals rather than unique hence being common, consensual. It's laughable to make claim that by being individuals all sub aspect of that being must also be individual. By such logic, there can be no such thing as a human. I must point out that what is a reliable source can also be considered entirely subjective. Given my knowledge of media/news (having worked jobs that given me a glipse into this industry) I can tell you that news articles are not a reliable source of information. Yet they are cited frequently in wikipedia. Anyway, that is besides the point. If I thought this suitable to go into the article I would have put it there. Instead I am requesting that someone investigate these leads for sources and otherwise. Outside of wikipedia's bureaucracit doctrine these details are fact. Is it that difficult for someone to port it over? I've given some pointers as to where sources can be found. If you can't do it, or for some other reason don't want to volunteer don't fob of with some nonsense about whether it fits the wikipedia rules (as what I am asking is for someone to fit it into the wikipedia rules), instead just leave it for someone else who is willing. For example, I'm pointing out missing information, you can't deny the composition of the cartridge is missing information. It must be made of SOMETHING. Does that make any sense to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned it being common sense, and that's what I was responding to. If you're not advocating use of original research, then we are in agreement. As for missing information, there are lots of things that could be said to be "missing" from many articles. No article is ever complete, in that sense. If you feel the article would benefit from an addition, and you have some idea where to look for sources, you could just find them yourself and make the additions. We're always happy to have new volunteers pitching in where they see a need. Suggesting an uncontroversial change to an article on Wikipedia can tend to fall on deaf ears, because we're all sitting here reading it and thinking "He could do it just as easily as we could... why is he requesting it of others, rather than doing it himself?" You seem interested in the subject, so I invite you to dive in :) Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. I bought these areas up because I believe they are particularly important missing aspects of the comparison of the healthiness of ecigs versus combustable cigarettes. If I find the time I'll see if I can dig up some of the sources myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk) 19:47, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It's only small, but a few (unreliable unfortunately) sources state the substrate as being a poly-ester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.4.184 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Smoking (terminology)

The recent edit which implies that e-cigarette use is a new form of smoking is disingenuous. I will change it again shortly, but please discuss it here in the meantime if you object. To DivaNtrainin in particular, what "some people" may think e-cigarette use is does not change the definition of smoking, nor the established facts about what comes out of an e-cigarette. --ReturningTarzan (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (87.194.118.244, I was not logged in when I first reverted the edit, apologies)

Agreed. Equazcion (talk) 17:51, 31 Oct 2009 (UTC)

In the traditional vs real debate, I agree with 'real smoking devices' as traditional definitely implies that personal vaporizers produce smoke. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dash in e-cigarette (terminology)

See User talk:Mariociccolini for the main discussion that's occurred up until now. Mario thinks that the term "e-cigarette" is linguistically inaccurate and shouldn't be used, because the "e-" prefix denotes software rather than hardware. He therefore thinks the term should be "ecigarette" instead. My stance is that "e-cigarette" (with the dash) is the way the media refers to the product, so that's the name we should be using in the article, rather than questioning its linguistic accuracy. I know it seems like a silly thing to argue over, but we haven't been able to make much headway. Hoping some outside input will help. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:56, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this is Mario, i don't know if is polite to write here, and if isn't polite, i apologize in advance.

I'm ready to provide Univerisity Press regarding the discussion. Thanks to Equazcion for taking this in consideration.

I'm available to any question from other contributors.

Regards, Mario Ciccolini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.67.89 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to comment here Mario, you should feel free to do so. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:52, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Then please argue why the commonly accepted use of the hyphen is wrong. Don't simply keep editing it when everyone else disagrees with you (including all the article sources; in the end your opinion, however qualified and professional it may be, matters nil if not supported by independent citations from reliable sources).

And bear in mind that what readers will be looking for is the term "e-cigarette", not "ecigarette", so if do we reach a consensus to drop the hyphen, the article still needs to address that concern and mention "e-cigarette" somewhere, however much that hurts you. --ReturningTarzan (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning Tarzan, i did provide tons of documents about it, please read the links in the talk with Equazcion. What i don't realize, is HOW people can search e-cigarette if in google the dash is a word separator, and who decided that e-cigarette is correct, where it's not linguistically (see links) and we have 2 trademark registrations for each term, with and without dash. Please read my valuable sources (valuable for Wikipedia, now we have to realize WHO IS Wikipedia), then we can decide about this. Thank you. P.S. Try to search e cigarette, then try to search e-cigarette. Some magic happens, look at it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.67.89 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How the dash affects Google searches doesn't factor into what we do in articles. That's neither here nor there. The question of linguistic correctness similarly doesn't factor in. We go by the sources, and those that use the term use it with a dash. That's pretty much the end of the discussion. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says about "e-" prefixes. All due respect, Mario, but I think you're fairly new at editing this encyclopedia, and if you were more experienced you'd understand that this is how things are done. Hopefully others will come straighten this out. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:58, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Tarzan came and asked me to argue, when i provide tons of link from Oxford University, Cambridge, Toronto University, Registered Trademarks, ecigarette (without dash) vendors in internet. Nobody bring a source, the words are "in this way the people know, they have seen it on tv, they have read it in newspaper". I'm new, you are right, but i believe that intellectual honesty doesn't come from tv or newspapers, or what FDA says. There are most reliable sources. Much talking, but very few sources from people here. I haven't see a link from Tarzan. I read below: "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." What to say? The Acer Sub Notebook is dead, now we got the Netbook. The Laptop is dead. When you will study the lectures i gave you in my links, you will realize that the e- is dead the moment it made a step outside internet and became of common use (Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries). The dash is dead, you will chase this ghost unless the tv will say to you that the "ecigarette" is having success worldwide. In that moment you will modify that article and everything will be the same. I'm sorry for Wikipedia when i hear that is pretty much the end of discussion. I think, in this way, is pretty much the end of Wikipedia. It'sad to be in late, my friend. I'll drink a beer on it with my friend Noam Chomsky in MIT during our reading of "Il Manifesto", punctually daily delivered to him from Italy. And i will say about this experience that i met nice people on Wikipedia, but that Wikipedia is not useful. We got the TV, what we gonna do with Wikipedia if Wikipedia follow the TV rules? I think this mentality is 50 years in late. From my pockets some fireworks and fireflies make light on a little thing. That's an hyphen! I'm going to put it back, where the tv said it should rest. Cheers and goodbye ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.67.89 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's beautiful man :) But, hopefully you can understand that this is pretty much a name we're dealing with here. It's not up to anyone writing an encyclopedia to question that or try to change it -- we only report what currently IS. Grammar arguments for a name are just not relevant. I don't know how else to explain it. This is not a sad state of affairs, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. Any encyclopedia would need to handle this the same way. You could say it's sad that the sources have chosen the "incorrect" way (which I think is a silly thing to be sad about, and excessively pedantic), but correcting the sources is not one of the duties of an encyclopedia. I hope you spend some more time editing Wikipedia and grow to understand it better. And thank you for editing the dash back in :) Equazcion ^(talk) 13:00, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice that all the citations were on another page. (Why?) So my apologies for missing that. But that doesn't really change anything. As wrong as "e-cigarette" may be from a grammatical point of view, it's the shorthand that's emerged for "electronic cigarette" (which in itself is a lousy name, mind you). And we won't be correcting "Snoop Dogg" either. ;) --ReturningTarzan (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: Three editors are now involved in this discussion, so a third opinion under WP:3O is no longer available or appropriate. Moreover, an RfC has been requested and it is inappropriate to attempt to utilize more than one form of dispute resolution at the same time. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Outside response to RfC I found e-cigarette most often but also ecigarette and e cigarette in newspaper stories and press releases. It is a very stupid name, but I agree with Equazcion, Wikipedia uses the name in the sources. MiRroar (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Outside response to RfC It has been stated from both sides of the fence that e-cigarette is grammatically incorrect when, in fact, it is very correct. Although cumbersome, electronic is required as further description to differentiate an electronic cigarette from what a 'cigarette' is typically understood to be (as with e-mail's distinction from mail). For the sake of shorthand, we minimize that further descriptive element to the word's initial. Having done that does not change the fact that it is, technically, still two words. One of the many functions a hyphen serves is 'to join ordinarily separate words into single words' and as such, its use in this situation is perfectly valid. If issue was to be taken with anything, it would have to be the truncation of electronic, however, seeing as how e- has become commonly accepted shorthand for the word, it would be a tough complaint to justify (and I don't think anyone here is taking issue with it).
  Now, the proposed alternative, 'ecigarette' doesn't just fly in the face of basic grammar, it lends to potential confusion as someone encountering it with no awareness of the product would not only have a helluva time with its pronunciation, they would have little hope of establishing context to determine what it was (whereas 'e-cigarette' would atleast be promptly identifiable as some variant of a cigarette). The point is, we don't need to make integration more difficult when we, as a people, welcome our new insect overlords.
  Unless ecigarette becomes established as an identifiable brand name, use of the word combination in that form should be avoided.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

postscript: even if ecigarette became established as the accepted form of the word, e-cigarette would still be valid use, as hyphens can be used between syllables in a word for any reason whatsoever and, technically, still be proper (if not hackneyed) grammar
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Health concerns over propylene glycol

I have removed MNoisy's edits which state that the main concern has risen over the safety of propylene glycol. After looking at the various criticisms and warnings from the FDA, WHO, and Health Canada, I can't find any concerns raised over propylene glycol by these agencies. Has anyone seen any real criticism over the use of propylene glycol in e-cigarettes? The edits that MNoisy is making are copy and pastes from the reference she links to. However the reference doesn't really explain the scientific rational or expand on why propylene glycol is a safety concern. Has anyone seen a scientific rational for not using propylene glycol in e-cigarettes? DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't, and I'd say it's fine to remove MNoisy's edits without being too concerned. They seem to mostly be copied from here, a retailer's site. If MNoisy isn't affiliated with that company, s/he is at least operating on bad info. Equazcion (talk) 21:48, 29 Nov 2009 (UTC)

PG has a very good safety record, and the concerns raised by the FDA made no mention of it. Of actual health concerns they only mentioned DEG (which is also sometimes discovered in "vegetable" glycerin products), TSNAs (which have no known connection to PG) and nicotine (which again is unrelated to PG). Of course, there are e-cig users who will swear that they experienced problems with PG that went away when they switched to VG, and vice versa (allergies etc.), but given MNoisy's recent record of introducing links to that prosmokestore site, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Sad as it may be, the market for e-cigarettes is ridden with spammers. --ReturningTarzan (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He did it again now? If I have a vote, my vote must be, unless MNoisy can provide some sort of rationale for the following claims, that he should be reported for abusing the site:

• Vapourisation of PG produces DEG as a byproduct (first time I've heard this claim, though can't dismiss it outright)
• No thorough testing of inhalation of PG (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html begs to differ, and there are other studies)
• "the FDA and others" raised concerns regarding PG
• VG is considered safer than PG "by the majority"
• VG gives similar "performance" to PG

The latter two could easily be true but are still uncited, except for a link to a retailer's FAQ. There is also no citation for the implied claim that VG is actually safer (should it happen to be true that vapourisation of PG produces DEG, is the same true of VG?) I fail to see how this is not very plainly commercial spamming. (See Propylene glycol for actual health and safety observations.) --ReturningTarzan (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal situation

In the legal section... it appears most of the list is based on the site (External Link) quit-smoking-cigs.com (see March 9) which does not cite any sources. As its a blog, and obviously personal opinion, and the main suppliers of ecigarettes are Hong Kong based and still shipping worldwide, I doubt the validity of most of the legal status section. I would very much like to see the unsourced legal information sourced, or removed, as its obviously a copy and paste job from a personal blog that is unsourced itself. It's not pretty, but I added citation needed to the possible misinformation. 72.186.110.175 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely the blog copy and pasted their info from Wikipedia. The blog posting is from March 9th, and if you check the March 5th revision of this article here, you'll see the same info, so we had it first. I'm assuming a lot of the legal info is uncited because editors in their respective countries are reporting what they know, or think they know, about their countries' laws. I don't think it's any emergency to remove that, but we should definitely replace those once sourced information is available. The ECA links to this article, actually, so it should be removed. The external link was added recently to the ECA section, but should probably go in a separate "External links" section. Equazcion (talk) 17:15, 31 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Legal classification in regards to "non-smoking" zones

It would be helpful if this article included information regarding the legality of using these devices (assuming it's in a jurisdiction where possession of the devices itself is allowed) in areas designated to be non-smoking, e.g. communities which have smoking bans. I suspect that there is a possibility that these could be allowed, but that anti-smoking/anti-tobacco prejudice and paranoia may very well work against it, which would be a shame if the real aim of anti-smoking legislation is to improve/protect the health of non-smokers and not to impose religious or health moralism onto everybody and/or to "punish" or "send a message" to tobacco companies (and/or other "smoking/cigarette-related" industries). Shanoman (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is even more difficult that legality of even having them. Since the devices themselves are only a few years old, almost none have put them on the books for whether they are allowed or not, let alone if they must be 'taken outside'. I know in the state of Florida, they do not qualify as a smoking product and can be used indoors, but that was 'not legal advice' by walking into the Hillsborough County District III Sheriff's office and asking. According to the sergeant on duty at the desk, they are not tobacco, aren't burned, so they would not count and would not be enforced. There's just simply not enough information about this part of the legality yet. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 10:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could find actual rulings that electronic cigarettes would be allowed in areas legally required to be non-smoking then that can be added to the Wiki page. However, no one has been able to find rulings like that. From what I have been able to find, electronic cigarettes haven't been ruled as "legal" in any country. It's more accurate to say that there aren't any laws or restrictions on the import or sale of the products in certain countries.

For many countries, decisions on indoor smoking is left to state or municipal governments. These governments would look incompetant if they ruled that electronic cigarettes could be used indoors, and then the federal government ruled that they couldn't be imported or sold. It's like saying you can use an electronic cigarette but you can't buy or aquire it in any way. I don't think any state will decide on the use of electronic cigarettes until the US FDA decides what it is.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the ones that state it have sources. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 05:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - legality in much of the USA is a SNAFU, but even if it is legal, property rights generally leave owners of private property other recourse for getting people off their premises if they don't want them there [tricky concepts like trespass or 'disturbing the peace,' which law enforcement may be happy to let the courts sort out for you]. It'll be hard to support a claim that it's a medical device, given the one precedent basically deciding it's not. I don't see a benefit in taking a combative stand for "vaper's rights," but if you do, just be aware that can be the cost of 'civil' disobedience, and there are a lot of other legal things that people won't always permit you to do on their property, either. (If you're looking to pick an argument you might win, you could press your luck in a government building - but expect them to pass an ordinance soon after so it doesn't happen again!) Come to think of it, the big test case will probably be when an establishment permits it in an area where it's legal but then another patron feels harmed enough to sue. 64.252.202.60 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal situation in Denmark

In the article, I have recently added 2 main sources as reference for the info about the legal situation in Denmark. In the last days my text lines were however deleted by DivaNtrainin, as they were claimed to contain unsupported info. Therefor I have now opened up this discussion, to ask for your general opinion, about how much info those two articles actualy provide, and to what extend its appropriate to copy this information into the Wikipedia. As a native Dane, I can report that we actualy have full clarity about the legal situation in Denmark, and this kind of clarity has therefore also been reflected in my contributed text, about the legal situation in Denmark. Often its however a problem, that one has to look up several secondary articles in Danish to get an overview of the complete picture and fully understand the situation.

The question I now would like your response about, is to what extend additional secondary references are needed, for allowing the additional text lines mentioned below, to be added in the article. My first personal thought is, that no additional references are needed, as the two sources I already added as reference to the article, in fact be found to cover the provided info in my additional text lines. Moreover the reference is quiet reliable, as Politiken.dk happens to be one of biggest daily newspapers in Denmark. To a small degree, I admit my additional text lines for some of the written info, also contain some common knowledge and additional info from a plethora of secondary sources in Denmark, but not to the extend that I found the need of adding more references, to back my "claim". But let me hear your opinion if you disagree, and think more references are needed for the new extra text lines, that I have written below in two seperate paragraphs:

Paragraph 1)

My proposed additional text lines:

There are no law that forbids the use of nicotine based electronic cigarettes in Denmark. The current smoking law only regulates the use of tobacco based products, and therefor the use of nicotine based electronic cigarettes is legally allowed in all public "no smoking areas" in Denmark. The use of the device has even been permitted in Copenhagen Airport, eventhough some airlines –among others SAS- has chosen to prohibit its use on board, in order not to risk offending other passengers in the airplain.

Exact translation from relevant phrases in the Danish reference (http://politiken.dk/tjek/dagligliv/sundhed/article705810.ece):

• Providers of e-cigarettes parades that the e-cigarette can be used everywhere, because they are not covered by the smoking law. In comments to the smoking law “passive smoking” is defined, as inhaling the mixture of air arising from different kinds of tobacco products. E-cigarette is in this sense not a tobacco product and therefore can legally be used in workplaces, restaurant and other places that would otherwise be subject to smoking law.
• The law on smoke-free environments should be revised in the next working year of the Danish parliament, and “Kræftens Bekæmpelse” believes that electronic cigarettes should be covered by the Act. Partly because the aggregates may contain nicotine, and partly because e-smoking creates a domino effect [being]: “Difficult to control”.
• At Copenhagen Airport the electronic cigarette is permitted, but some airlines, among others SAS, has chosen to prohibit its use on board.
• Mikkel Thrane (press officer at SAS Denmark): “By accepting it we might offend others, who do not find it enjoyable, though there is only water vapor”.

Based on those 4 direct citations of the translated reference, would you then approve my proposed text to be added in the article?

Or do we really need more references to be added, in order to support my text?

Paragraph 2)

My proposed additional text lines (with capitol section letters noted in parenthesis, in order to better navigate here in our discussion):

(A) In Denmark, the Ministry of Health and Prevention made a final ruling in May 2009, where the sale of electronic cigarettes with nicotine was banned, while the sale of electronic cigarettes without any nicotine was approved. This mean the device now legally can be sold by Danish resellers, as long as they only offer e-liquid/cartridges without any nicotine.

(B) The Danish authorities consider cartridges with nicotine for the electronic cigarette, to be a medication rather than a consumer product, and as such they now demand a full market authorisation of the product as a "medical device" first to be established, before allowing it to be sold by Danish resellers.

(C) In regards of any medical product being banned for sale in Denmark, the Danish Medicines Agency has however also confirmed, that according to the EU charter regulating the free movement of goods within the internal market, a Danish consumer will continue to be legally allowed to buy and import a medical product for personal use, as long as it is bought from a reseller or Internet reseller from another EU country, where the authorities has decided to approve the product for sale. In practical terms, it is therefore still legal for Danish users of the electronic cigarette to buy and import nicotine based cartridges for their personal use, as long as it is ordered from an EU country where the product currently is approved for sale (ie from UK, Netherlands and Slovenia).

Exact translation from relevant phrases in the Danish reference (http://politiken.dk/tjek/dagligliv/sundhed/article705808.ece):

• (A+C) The authorities’ ban on nicotine-containing e-cigarettes move the sale over at Internet, where they can be legally purchased.
• (A+C) This e-cigarette [from the Danish supermarket chain] Super Best is without nicotine. But at the Internet you can easily and legally buy the so-called nicotine refill, and this is a fact the supermarket chain doesnt hide.
• (A+C) “No nicotine”, writes Asp-Holmblad and Super Best in newspaper ads for their new steam cigarettes E-CIG. But the back of the package itself, which you buy in the supermarket kiosk, says that the E-CIG "lets you decide nicotine strength”. The contradictory information is an example of the dual market for electronic cigarettes. As communications manager in SuperBest explains it: "The reason that the producer writes in the package, that you can decide nicotine strength, is that the acquisition of nicotine to E-CIG is possible online. We have however in SuperBest chosen not to offer this product ", said Helle Andersen - and reasure that the chains e-cigarettes are nicotine free.

• (A+B) Legally there is nothing in the way that e-cigarettes without nicotine can be sold across the Danish grocery counters. But the Ministry of Health now conclusively determined [in a final ruling], that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes are not allowed to be sold in Denmark without a green light [meaning a market authorization/approval] from the Danish Medicines Agency.

• (C) Legitimate sales from Slovenia. E-cigarettes with nicotine is in practice no more than a few clicks away. In Slovenia for example, they are considered to be a stimulant, and therefore Danish dealers can now establish an internet shop in the Eastern European country, and then sell them. Mikael Rosanes (director of Nycigaret.dk) states: “There has been thousands of e-cigarette smokers at home, who want this product. The consequence of the authorities' ban is that we will now try to establish ourselves abroad and sell from a foreign website". The Danish firms “Acceptable Choice” and “U2 LifeStyle” established in autumn subsidiaries in Slovenia. Websites are Danish language, and prices are in dollars, but the goods are sent from Eastern Europe.

• (C) Legitimate circumvention of the ban in Denmark. Klaus Bryld (director of U2 Lifestyle) states: “The Slovenian authorities have approved our product and in accordance with a directive, we can freely sell to all countries in the EU, if just one other EU country has approved it." The Danish Medicines Agency concedes, that Internet sales from other EU countries is a legitimate circumvention of the ban: “A Danish consumer can buy a banned product over the Internet in another EU country, if authorities there think differently about the product. In this case the Danish consumers adopt it legally as a medicine for personal consumption", says special consultant from the Danish Medicines Agency, Gitte Albæk Christensen.

Based on those 6 direct citations of the translated reference, would you then approve my proposed text (written as section A+B+C) to be added in the article?

Or do we really need more references to be added, in order to support my text?

As a final comment to this discussion, I also want to add, that as part of my research on the subject, I have also checked the official notification of the most recent list of banned products by the Danish Medicines Agency, where they only list those e-cigarette products with nicotine, and none of the nicotine free products currently being sold in Denmark. Since my reference also claim in a very clear way, that only the sale of nicotine based e-cigarettes from Danish resellers have been banned, while the sale of nicotine free e-cigarettes are still allowed, I consider that to be an established fact by several sources. But if some of you need more proof, I can also provide you with a website adress to the first 5 Danish Internet webstores, that now only sell the devices without nicotine (and kindly refer to foreign resellers in UK/Netherlands if people want to buy nicotine cartridges). So in Denmark, we actualy have no uncertainty about the legal situation. Its a settled fact, that e-cigarettes without nicotine is allowed to be sold in Denmark. Its also a settled fact, that if just one EU country has approved the sale of a E-liquid/cartridge with nicotine, then Danish consumers can legally buy and import this product from a reseller in that particular country, as long as it is only for their own personal consumption. This rule by the way comply for all sorts of products sold in EU, and has been written and approved by all EU nations, as it is an essential part of the EU charter about “the free movement of goods within the internal European market”.

Based on all that, I believe my contributed new text lines in no way are unsubstantiated or controversial (as claimed by DivaNtrainin). If you somehow disagree, then please be specific about what term or line in my written text you find inappropriate, and please suggest an alternative formulation, and add your personal reason for making this change.

Danish Expert (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1)

You are inferring that electronic cigarettes can be used in all public places because one location (an airport) allows it. I have no problem with stating a single airport allows their use, but not stating they can be used it everywhere. I am aware that electronic cigarette companies make statements on a lot of things, but we need to find some reliable third party references. In relation to your comments on the Danish government changing legislation to allow e-cigarettes, that's not in the article and more importantly only when legislation changes should we change the wiki article.

I don't think we should put your edit into the article.

Paragraph 2)

Based on your exact quotes, I am unsure whether the Danish government considers electronic cigarettes to be a medical device or a medication, or a combination product. Could you please clarify that and then we can add it in a way that makes the section more readable.

In relation to your comments that the EU charter allows for the import of these devices for personal use, could you please provide more information on this. This quote is from special consultant Gitte Christensen Albaek. Why is this guy an authority? In addition, I would really like to know more about what part of the EU charter allows for the importation on non-market authorized products. What is the specific part of the charter that allows this to done. We can add this to the wiki article. In addition, here are other EU countries and if this applies to more than one country we should edit the Wikipedia article accordingly.

The article also states there are a lot of contradictory information in the marketing of electronic cigarettes, which is all the more reason to try and find more information, including statements from the Danish Medicines Agency, to support your statements. You state "Its a settled fact, that e-cigarettes without nicotine is allowed to be sold in Denmark". However, the reference you quote also states electronic cigarettes can't be sold.I think more references are needed or at least greater clarification as to why electronic cigarettes are on the Danish market. It is possible that electronic cigarettes are on the market illegally. If that is the case, we shouldn't state that electronic cigarettes are legal product.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer to DivaNtrainin related to paragraph 1: Sorry but your observation about the info provided by the Danish article from Politiken.dk, is not accurate. I suspect its mostly related to a bad google translation. Below is my response, and the exact reasoning behind my proposed additional text for the Wikipedia article.

Reason for formulating the text line: The current smoking law only regulates the use of tobacco based products, and therefor the use of nicotine based electronic cigarettes is legally allowed in all public "no smoking areas" in Denmark.

• The headline and introduction of the article is written by the journalist Jakob Kjær. He claim the following sentence to be true: "E-cigaretter er tilladt, hvor almindelige smøger er forbudt, men det skal laves om, mener WHO og Kræftens Bekæmpelse" (in english: "E-cigarettes are allowed, in those places where ordinary cigarettes are banned, but this should be changed according to the opinion of WHO and Kræftens Bekæmpelse").
• Moreover the following important part of the article, also constitutes an observation made by the journalist Jakob Kjær (without any quoting of an e-cigarette seller): "In comments to the smoking law “passive smoking” is defined, as inhaling the mixture of air arising from different kinds of tobacco products. E-cigarette is in this sense not a tobacco product and therefore can legally be used in workplaces, restaurant and other places that would otherwise be subject to smoking law."
• Finally I didnt mention anything about a possible change of the existing smoking law in Denmark, in my proposed text line for the Wikipedia guide. You should however be aware, that the journalist behind the referenced article from Politiken.dk asked Kræftens Bekæmpelse (third party) for their opinion about e-cigarettes, and then he wrote the following sentence: "Loven om røgfri miljøer skal revideres i det kommende folketingsår, og Kræftens Bekæmpelse mener, at e-cigaretter skal omfattes af loven." (in english: "The law on smoke-free environments should be revised in the next working year of the Danish parliament, and “Kræftens Bekæmpelse” believes that electronic cigarettes should be covered by the Act."). The next working year of the Danish parliament when stated in May 2009, is by the way covering the time frame of Oct.2009-June 2010. The viewpoint of Kræftens Bekæmpelse is clearly stated, that in their opinion the Danish parliament should change the existing smoking law, in order to also ban the use of e-cigarettes, in those places where smoking of ordinary cigarettes now already have been banned by the law. I didnt include anything of this info in my proposed text for Wikipedia, as it seemed to partly contain some speculations about the future, that might not come true. But I just want you to know, that you accidently misunderstood the current situation in Denmark. Currently the use of e-cigarettes are legally allowed in all areas, and not covered by any law. Something that Kræftens Bekæmpelse in May 2009 wanted to be changed, with a new revision of the law (yet to be written/proposed).

Therefor I still maintain my proposed text lines about the legal use of e-cigarettes in Denmark is good and valid, and indeed should be included without any further reservations about that. If you like and prefer, I am ready to change the formulation "legally allowed in all no-smoking areas" to "legally allowed in all workplaces, restaurant and other places that would otherwise be subject to the smoking law". In my point of view the two formulations communicate the same info, and I just prefered the short sentence "in all no-smoking areas" to keep it short and simple.

Answer to DivaNtrainin related to paragraph 2: Below is my response, and clarification of the information partly given by my proposed aditional text lines for the Wikipedia guide, and partly in the form of some extra background information that I have from additional sources.

• The Danish government has ruled, that e-cigarettes with nicotine and e-cigarettes without nicotine basicly is two different products. The sale of the first product has been banned by the government, as they consider the nicotine cartridges for being "medication", and an fully assembled e-cigarette with a nicotine cartridge as a "medical device". The e-cigarette with nicotine-free cartridge is however explained to be a consumer product, and therefor can be legally sold without any problems. So the Danish government has decided to differentiate the product into these two sub categories. I havent got a copy of the exact ruling from the Danish government, but the Danish Medicines Agency actualy had the same viewpoint as expressed by the Danish government, and this viewpoint you can read and get confirmed, here at their website (please note, that Gitte Albaek Christensen from the Danish Medicines Agency, in this article once again is mentioned as an expert for people to contact, in case of any questions about e-cigarettes): http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=14819&print=true.
• Once again I want to remind you, that not only the point above, but actualy also the original referenced article from Politiken.dk, has outlined that sale of nicotine based e-cigarettes has been ruled illegal in Denmark, while the sale of nicotine-free e-cigarettes continue to be legal. The referenced article mention the supermarket chain Super Best as an example. Today I can also update this point in our discussion with 5 more websites to Internet resellers in Denmark, who now have limited themself to only offer e-cigarettes, without any nicotine cartridges being sold. Prior to the governmental ruling in May 2009, all Danish resellers also had a sale of cartridges with nicotine, but this has now been removed from the shelves. Finaly the Danish Medicines Agency has published a list of those exact products they have banned and withdrawed from the market, within the last year. And when checking this list of withdrawed products, you ie find products like "Supercigaret with 6mg nicotin" and "Supercigaret with 16mg nicotine", but among those more than 100 types of e-cigarette products they demanded withdrawed from being sold from Danish stores, they never mentioned one with 0mg nicotine.
• Regarding the EU charter (part 1): Gitte Albaek Christensen is a special consultant working for the Danish Medicines Agency, who demanded towards the Danish Government to rule the sale of nicotinebased e-cigarettes illegal. In Denmark its the Danish Medicines Agency that governates all medical affairs, but in all cases of dispute it is the Health ministery that have the final say. The fact that Gitte Albaeck Christensen represent the Danish Medicines Agency, and concede that Danish consumers can continue legally to import e-cigarettes for personal consumption, from an EU-country where athorities have approved its sale, really should be proof enough about that.
• Regarding the EU charter (part 2): In regards of the EU charter, I didnt yet have time to search for it at the Internet (to read and check with the exact paragraphs). I agree with you, that it would be good if some of us manage to find it, and then add it as an additional reference for the Wikipedia article. As far as I know, this EU charter fully apply for all EU member states, and it simply just protect the principle of a free internal market in Europe, by stating that if one medical product or consumer product can be legally sold in one EU member country, than consumers in other EU member countries are legally allowed to import such a product from resellers in that particulair EU member country, as long as the product is only bought for their personal consumption. However, I admit not to have it referenced and further checked, so for a start I think we should limit the info in the Wikipedia article, to only cover what the first reference from Politiken.dk has stated: That Danish consumers are legally allowed to Import e-cigarettes for personal consumption from another EU member country, in case that particulair country has approved its sale. This is anyway based upon the statement of Gitte Albaeck Christensen (from the Danish Medicines Agency), and can therefor be regarded as reliable information in regards of the legal situation in Denmark.

After all this clarification, I now presume my additional text lines can be accepted (with the only correction, that we instead of writing anything about the EU-charter as explanation of the legal situation, instead just mention that these importation rules, just pure and simply apply for the Danish consumers, as the referenced article from Politiken.dk has explained)?

Danish Expert (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

DivaNTrainin says:

Paragraph 1): I'd caution you from making assumptions based on your personal or other people's opinion of what constitutes a smoking ban. You have inferred that the smoking ban covers only tobacco products and you infer that electronic cigarettes are non-tobacco products and therefore would not be covered under the current smoking ban. Given the novelty and uncertainty surronding electronic cigarettes, we need more evidence that consumers could use electronic cigarettes in non-smoking areas other than your say-so. I realize that the author of this one article has quoted e-cigarette sellers on their beliefs on the smoking ban, but I don't think that is sufficient. This is especially in light of the author saying the "World Health Organization does not recommend that e-cigarettes are exempted from smoking bans".

Currently, the stance authors of this Wikipedia article are taking in regards to uncertainity, is to not include it or to say that something is unknown. For example, the first sentence in the Health Effects section is to say "The health effects of using electronic cigarettes are currently unknown". In addition, if a country has yet to decide the legal status of an electronic cigarette, we don't say it's legal in that country. We just don't mention it in the article until a well-referenced citation can be found to support its legal status. I would recommend that until we have a well referenced article on whether e-cigarettes can be used in all areas that smoking is banned, we not include it in the article.

Paragraph 2) In relation to the mention of Denmark's EU charter, I am willing to revisit that when you have time to find a good reference or explaination or at least be able to point out where in the charter that you can import medical products for personal use from other EU countries. Until you can provide that, let's keep it out of the article.

In relation to commenting that the assembled cartridge of electronic cigarettes are medical devices and the nicotine cartridges alone are medication, that's a good edit. The current version does reflect the different legal status of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine, so I only think some minor edits need to be done.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Second answer to DivaNtrainin related to paragraph 1:

Sorry, but you are still mixing it up, in regards of the exact info provided by the Politiken.dk reference. There is actualy no uncertainty about the meaning of the current Danish smoking law, to be found in the reference. On the contrary the journalist Jakob Kjær (first in the headline of the article, and later in the middle of the article) explain that e-cigarettes are allowed to be smoked in all those places, where conventional cigarettes have been banned. Then Jakob Kjær continue his article to point out that Kræftens Bekæmpelse (third party), argue that Danish politicians need to revise the existing law on smoking-free environments, to also include a ban for e-cigarettes to be used, in those regulated areas. So in the reference both the journalist Jakob Kjær and Kræftens bekæmpelse (third party) claim, that e-cigarettes are currently allowed to be used in those places where conventional cigarettes has been banned. The sentence written by Jakob Kjær about the smoking law, is in no way a quote of what he was told by a reseller (if that was the case, he would have noted it clearly in the article, and he didnt). Your argumention is upside down. We have no uncertainty in Denmark, about whether or not e-cigarettes are legally allowed to be used in public "no smoking areas". They are allowed! And the reference we now discuss, support this fact in a clear and sufficient way. In particular because the journalist asked a critical third party like Kræftens Bekæmpelse, about how they felt about this fact. The following additional sources also states the same (but wont be added the wikipedia article, in order to avoid a plethora of double references):

• Børsen - "Electronic cigarettes challenge the smoking law": http://borsen.dk/fodevarer/nyhed/133757/
• Ingeniøren - "Nicotine-hit without any smoke": http://ing.dk/artikel/89007-el-smoeger-nikotin-sus-uden-roeg

If you are able to find other references stating otherwise about the legal situation in Denmark, then we should of course immedeately change my proposed text lines. At his point of the discussion, I maintain that my proposed text lines for paragraph 1 are fully supported by the original reference from Politiken.dk, and thus ready to soon get added in the wikipedia article.

Second answer to DivaNtrainin related to paragraph 2:

I agree with you to keep out any explanatory claims about the EU-charter (until this can be found and documented by an extra reference, and then it can possibly be added as a seperate point for all EU member nations). The provided Danish reference we discuss, however still contain full support for including the info about importation rules for the Danish consumers, as this info has been provided by Gitte Albaeck Christensen from the Danish Medicines Agency, that happens to be the authority regulating all medical affairs in Denmark.

In my previous discussion reply, I posted this additional reference to explain and document how the Danish authorities has decided to define the electronic cigarette (and its legal situation): http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=14819&print=true. But I dont feel it will be appropriate to add any more additional text lines about it for the wikipedia article, as it would only help to explain why the Danish Medicine Agency decided to treat "e-cigarettes with nicotine" and "e-cigarettes without nicotine" as two different products. Instead I prefer, just to mention the ruling from the Danish authorities as a fact (to keep it short and relevant), and therefore continue to defend the sentence in my first original formulation (but possibly cooked down to a somewhat shorter version). We shall be carefull not to add too many details and explanations to the Wikipedia, as it then will grow to big.

In case you still want additional proof, about the facts provided by the Politiken.dk reference, that the sale of nicotine-free e-cigarettes indeed is legally allowed in Denmark. Then here you have two additional links (that I however wont add for the wikipedia article, as the original reference from Politiken.dk already fully support the info):

• Kræftens Bekæmpelse (2009-08-17) states "In Denmark its only allowed to sell e-cigarettes without nicotine": http://www.cancer.dk/Tobak/Rygning+og+helbred/Elektroniske_cigaretter/
• Danish Medical Agency (2010-02-18) "List of products ruled to be medications" (where for instance you can look at the company Acceptablechoice, and directly see the proof that all their refills with nicotine has been demanded withdrawed from the shelves, while their nicotine-free refills are still allowed to be sold in Denmark): http://www.laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/include/5905/produkter.asp?sort=Forhandler_

A few days ago, I made the mistake to add a long analysis to the wikipedia article about the legal situation in Europe and USA. You were quick to delete this material, and completely right to remove it, as it mainly was an analysis (and therefor not appropriate content for wikipedia). Unfortunately it seems like you however at that point of time got the wrong impression of my character, and thought that my added text for the legal situation in Denmark also was a written analysis, with informations that wasnt supported by the reference. As I have documented and explained in this long discussion, this is not the case. Accidently you jumped to some wrong conclusions and assumptions after reading the google-translation of the article, that we now have sorted out. The two Danish references that I added to the article, fully support my additional text lines for the legal situation in Denmark (except for the explanation about the EU charter, that I am now ready to remove). If people in here dont object, I will soon add a new cooked down version of my paragraph 1+2, to the wikipedia article.

Danish Expert (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion and final text

As there was a relevent call for clarification in my proposed text lines about the Danish decision (named as section A+B at paragraph 2, here in our discussion). I can now add the following additional text lines (just for a full detailed summary here in the discussion).

Paragraph 2 (section A+B): In Denmark, the Ministry of Health and Prevention ruled in May 2009, that the sale of electronic cigarettes with nicotine should be banned (as long as no market authorisation exist), while the sale of electronic cigarettes without any nicotine was approved. This mean the device now legally can be sold by Danish resellers, as long as they only combine it with cartridges/e-liquids without any nicotine. The Danish authorities decided to define cartridges/e-liquids without nicotine for the electronic cigarette, as consumer products, and thus approved for sale, as long as no claims are made from resellers that those products will work as a smoke cessation device. At the same time the Danish authorities decided to define cartridges/e-liquids with nicotine for the electronic cigarette, to be a medication rather than a consumer product, and as such they now demand a full market authorisation of these products as a "medical device" first to be established, before allowing those products to be sold by Danish resellers.

In my final edit for the wikipedia article, I have cooked down the text above so it still provide full clarity. And after also adding paragraph 1 and 2C (and including the decision from the Danish Medicines Agency as an extra reference), then here is how the final edit has ended up:

• In Denmark, the Ministry of Health and Prevention in May 2009 confirmed the initial ruling of the Danish Medicines Agency from Oct.2008, that the e-cigarettes with nicotine should be defined as a “medical device”, meaning they are banned for sale as long as no market authorisation exist, while the sale of e-cigarettes without any nicotine should be defined as a “consumer product”, and thus being approved for sale. This mean that e-cigarettes now legally can be sold by Danish resellers, as long as they only combine it with cartridges/e-liquids without any nicotine.

• In regards of any medical product being banned for sale in Denmark, the Danish Medicines Agency however also have confirmed, that according to the EU law, a Danish consumer will continue to be legally allowed to buy and import such a banned medical product (ie nicotine based cartridges) for personal consumption, as long as it is bought from a reseller or Internet reseller located in another EU member state, where the authorities decided to allow the product for sale (ie UK, Netherlands and Slovenia).

• The Danish smoking law only regulates the use of tobacco based products, and as no other law prohibit the use of e-cigarettes (and the recent ruling from the authorities only relate to its national sale), the nicotine based e-cigarettes continue with a status of being legal to use in all "no smoking areas" in Denmark. The use of e-cigarettes has even been permitted in Copenhagen Airport, eventhough some airlines -among others SAS- has decided to prohibit its use on board at the flight.

If its cooked down more than that, we will destroy the texts clarity, with the risk that readers of the wikipedia article might misunderstand the legal situation. So I recommend, that we let it stay this way, without any further "cook down". :-)

Danish Expert (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In relation to the first paragraph, I have just rewritten it to be consistant with the Danish Medicines Agency website and to improve the readability of the paragraph. It's a strong reference and I don't thinki more references are needed. In relation to the second paragraph, it's the same material in the second section, so I removed it. In relation to the third paragraph, you are inserting your own personal opinion on the article. You say the Danish smoking ban only bans tobacco products. That's an unsupported statements. Most smoking bans include the banning of non-tobaacco smoking products, such as herbal cigarettes, but not unsmoked tobacco products, such as chewing tobaccos. Now, maybe Denmark is different, but we need more than your say-so. Further your reference really doesn't support that authorities have supported allowing electronic cigarettes to be used in non-smoking zones. The article mentions a "special consultant" (whatever that is), but that doesn't explain why he is an authority figure.

It seems that your arguement has been that Google Translate is mis-translating the article and I don't understand the meaning of the reference. If that's the case then let's not use this reference. If the article is so difficult to translate that we can't use an online translating tool, then we shouldn't use the article as a reference. This is an english article and its assumed that all the readers are english speaking. There are other versions of Wikipedia in different languages and all references in those versions should be available in those languages.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal situation for EU member states:

As a follow up after the discussion about the legal situation in Denmark, here is a new addition that I have just written about the legal situation for all EU member states. In my point of view the text is ready to get added the article, so I was a little bold to do it right away. Feel free to comment here, and perhaps find additional reference for the text that I wrote. :-)

• In all EU member states, the controls on the movement of goods within the internal market have been abolished since Jan.1993, and the European Union is now trading-wise a single territory without internal frontiers. The article 28 and 29 of the EU treaty protects the “Free movement of goods within the internal market”, establishing the European Community prohibit import and export restrictions between all Member States. Only in cases where Member States can proof the existence of a reasonable threat to public health or the environment, the Member States may restrict the free movement of goods.
  This in practical terms mean, that if a certain product like e-cigarettes and nicotine containing cartridges/e-liquid are banned for sale in one EU member state, but continue to be allowed for sale in another EU member state (ie UK/Netherlands/Slovenia), then consumers in all EU member states are legally allowed to buy and import the products for their own personal consumption (but only if the product is bought from a reseller directly located in the EU member state, where the sale of the product has been approved). The only option for any of the EU member states to possibly block this legal importation between the EU member states, would be in case they manage to proof that that nicotine containing e-cigarettes, are a reasonable threath to the public health.

[EU treaty: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/free_movement_goods_general_framework/index_en.htm]

Danish Expert (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually article 28 and 29 of the [[Four Freedoms (European Union)| European Union Law}} refers only to the removal of tarrifs and taxes for products being moved across the border. It does not mean that a product being sold in one EU country can be imported into another country. According to the European Commission on Enterprise and Industry,

A medicinal product may only be placed on the market in the European EconomicArea (EEA) when a marketing authorisation has been issued by the competent authority of a Member State (or EEA country) for its own territory (national authorisation) or when an authorisation has been granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 for the entire Community (a Community authorisation). The marketing authorisation holder must be established within the EEA. Chapter 1, Marketing Authorization page 3

Since market authorization has not been given in any country for electronic cigarettes, they can not be allowed in any EU country. The fact that some countries don't restrict electronic cigarettes can not be considered market authorization. Based on this, I am removing the whole section on the legal situation for member states.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But market authorisation is only relevant for medicinal products, and the above quote seems to assume there is some EU-wide consensus on whether a product is medicinal or not. I agree that the legal circumstances around trading e-cigs across EU borders are tricky at best, so best not to mention them until there is citable material that directly addresses e-cigs, or at least addresses another product that is only recognised as medicinal in some EU countries.

I would add, though, that cross-border trade within the EU is not generally restricted by the EU, and there is no EU authority as such controlling border traffic. Rather, it is left to member states to police their own borders and regulate what citizens may legally buy, sell, own, use, import or export (of course in compliance with the EU, but as the e-cig case shows, those guidelines are often loose and/or sparse). Often very different rules apply to those six verbs, and this leaves a lot of open questions when you have open borders between nations with different sets of rules. The failure of all nations to classify nicotine itself as either a recreational or a medicinal drug only makes matters worse. So I guess the point is, don't assume anything about the situation is open-and-shut either way. At the moment, e-cigarettes and nicotine e-liquid are easily posted across borders, and at least in some parts of Europe no official objections have been raised yet.

For what it's worth. --ReturningTarzan (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I appoligise for my late reply, but had to leave this discussion and article for a while, as other working related matters had piled up. First of all I have to say, that DivaNtrainin once again chose to rebut my cited findings based on some false terms, and an incomplete understanding of the matter. The link about a needed market authorization for the sale of a medical or medical device in an EU member state is fine, but it has nothing to do with the importion rules between EU member states for a consumer! DivaNtrainin should be aware, that an EU member state might decide to prohibit the sale of a product by all resellers/distributors located in that particular country, but this has nothing to do with the importion rules applying for a consumer (who only buy the product for his/her own personal consumption). As I stated loud and clear in my earlier paragraph, the EU treaty from 1993 gurantee that consumers in one EU member state can import any goods for their own personal consumption from another EU member state, as long as the good is approved for sale in the EU member state where it has been bought (and doesnt impose a significant threath against public health or the environment).

Just to give a clear example, this mean that when Danish authoraties prohibit the sale of nicotine based cartridges in Denmark, this mean that no sale of those products are allowed by Danish resellers/distributors. Danish consumers however continue to be legally allowed to import those products from EU member states like UK/Netherlands, as those states currently has approved their sale. In UK the MHRA earlier granted an exemption for all Nicotine Containing Products (NCP), meaning they were approved for sale, without any demand to get a full market authorization of the product as a medical or medical device.

In Denmark the situation with a sales ban (but yet full legality for consumers to import the product for their own personal consumption), has been confirmed not only by the leading special consultant from the Danish Medicines Agency (as mentioned in my earlier posted reference), but also by the minister of Health, who in full public has confirmed that this is "unfortunately" how it works according to EU law, and that he therefor now would ask his fellow European colleagues in UK/Netherlands, to join the "Danish viewpoint" and stance about the product!

The first reference I provided from Politiken, is clearly good enough to support this finding in a Danish context! My earlier comment, that the Politiken article was a bit unclear in formulation and presentation of their sources, doesnt mean its a bad source. It only mean, that people like me had to dig up that the source entitled "special consultant" actualy was "the leading consultant working with the e-cigarette regulation in the Danish Medicine Agency", and thus a very credible source to cite! Only point I am ready to admit, is that the Politiken article "only" describe the Danish context, and perhaps doesnt provide enough info to conclude with 100% certainty, that the "EU charter" affect other EU member states in the same way, that it affects the importation rules in Denmark. With my additional source posted about the protection of the "free movement of goods", I believe it supports the assumption that this principle alone, is the one that basicly decides the matter for all EU member states (and not only Denmark). Yet I admit not to be an EU-expert on the subject.

Unless some of you object, I will soon re-instate this important information to the article. It was a great mistake just to delete it. Right now I am however ready to highlight the uncertainty about whether or not "the Danish context" appply for all "EU member states", and whether or not it is "the EU treaty" or "other charters" regulating the matter (as my mentioned sources didnt provide specific info about that). In all circumstances I would however also like to remind you, that the EU charter about "market authorization of medical drugs/devices", has nothing to say about the "importation rules" between EU member states, as it only regulate the "sale" inside each of the EU member states. ;-)

Danish Expert (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes from responses to request for peer review

• The article needs an in depth history (which I wrote and sourced, and had mostly deleted since someone else thought it was like advertising).
• The article needs standard formatting for references. I was told most appropriate was after punctuation. It should be the same throughout.
• The article needs NO single line paragraphs. I had condensed paragraphs to remove these, others made new ones.
• The article needs ALL questionable claims sourced. When you add new stuff, source it. I sourced the stuff I put in that was removed.
• Do NOT have any (citation needed)'s. If others start adding claims, I'll start requesting citations.
• History should come after introduction, and lead into the details.

I'll post more as I can get input, since others don't apparently care enough to try for C, B, A, or even FA status. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 05:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Where has all of this advice been posted by the admin(s)? Equazcion (talk) 06:03, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

In the chat history of IRC. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. When you speak to them it would be helpful to have them post their thoughts to the peer review page, or here, so everyone can get it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. Assuming you can convince them to do that. Equazcion (talk) 06:20, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

It was hard enough getting them to spend 2 minutes to glance over the article and offer advice. =/ FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't kill yourself on getting admin input. Anyone can give input, and admins aren't necessarily the best people to do it. Not that there aren't admins that are good with article content, but anyone can give input, and being an admin doesn't mean they're necessarily great at it. Also the peer review page was just created like a day ago, so I'd say let's wait and see how that pans out. There's really no rush here. Equazcion (talk) 06:27, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Removal/clean-up of excessive pictures

I would like to remove the large amount of pictures within this article. Some of the pictures seem to show similiar cigarettes as other pictures and don't necessarily add to the content of the article. The large amount of photos make the article unnecessarily long and based on this article's history it appears that more companies are going to post photos of their products.

I would like to remove the photos of the "Super-T Manufacturing's Precise", " ProVape-1", "Janty eGo", and "Jantystick V3" which appears to be advertising. Most regular authors of this article agree that posting information that is just advertising is not something allowed within this article, so it makes sense to remove these photos. Comments? DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. The pics also break up the flow of the article. It is hard to read. There's way too many of them in my opinion.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed one pic with an external link and looked over the whole article. It appears that the only other one was slipped in at the bottom on 5-16. I deleted it too. You might consider asking for semi-protected status if the link spamming is bad enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnarfhuhwef (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)