Wikipedia

Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 21

< Talk:Electronic cigarette
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Everymorning in topic Potential new source
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Proposed removal of claim

Latest comment: 9 years ago47 comments15 people in discussion

Currently the article says this:

"Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this shows that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths."

The evidence shows no such thing; all it shows is that some non-smokers have tried e-cigs. Trying an e-cig - which may not even contain nicotine - once does not equate to becoming a nicotine user, so this claim is inaccurate and alarmist. It should be removed.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note: User:FergusM1970 had been topic banned again. User:FergusM1970 is making a proposal to delete the sourced text. Paid editing like this should not be tolerated. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are off the hocker there. At that time (May) Fergus was topic-banned[1] (six months starting april), so the payment by default couldn't be for Wikipedia, nor does the text state that it is for Wikipedia. The ban now is for payed edits but not on this article. Please do not make false accusations. --Kim D. Petersen 03:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of the claims made by User:FergusM1970 were later proven to be wrong. He has previously done work promoting e-cigs. Whether his work on Wikipedia to promote e-cigs was also paid we do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Has someone written a blank check to allow unbacked accusations - or just generally that we can assume bad faith? Yes, he is banned/blocked - and good riddance. But keep to what we know. --Kim D. Petersen 04:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it is technically true on the literalistic face of it (unless we assume that all the e-cigs that non-smoking youth have ever tried were nicotine-free). But I agree that the implications of the phrase after the semicolon are not supported by evidence and it therefore ought to go. Barnabypage (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is jut another ridiculous argument to promote the idea that vaping leads to smoking... This is an unsubstantiated claim. And while we are at it, let me make an unsubstantiated claim: Smoking is a gateway to vaping, not the converse. TheNorlo (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, should this claim be removed?

OK. Let's tweak it by removing everything after the semicolon.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's just speculation. There is no evidence that anyone has initiated "nicotine use" through e-cigs. The claim is based on a cross-sectional study which the review's own authors admit do not, and cannot, support causal inferences like the ones they immediately go on to claim.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - A new study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine refutes the claim that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (this user already supported once above) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with stipulation I support removal of this text from the main article on electronic cigarettes, but strongly feel all language on usage ought to be shortened to one or two sentences at most and another article page created that deals with "information on vaping" or however editors of that page wish to title such an article. The first line in this Usage section isn't stating, with clarity, what type of electronic cigarette devices have grown in sales from 2008 to 2012. And so a claim like the one in this sub-point is also not making that distinction. Therefore this whole sub-topic is rambling and lacking coherency within the overall topic of "electronic cigarettes." I have proposed a significant split on the main article page as I believe these sub-points are side debates to the main topic of what is an electronic cigarette. Gw40nw (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support {edit 10:08 23 December 2014} Poorly unsourced speculation at this point. SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The text is clearly sourced. This is getting disruptive. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. See here. See here. According to FergusM1970: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill."[2] We should not allowed undisclosed paid editing (or recruitment) to interfere with editing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This is going to take time to work all this out. More editors might be banned. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/
As previously explained, the text is well sourced. See "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes. "[3] How many times must I explain this? User:AlbinoFerret claims "We should remove any unsourced text." But the text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, stop mudslinging, trying to imply one editor who's failed to reveal being paid to edit some articles that may or may not include this one and has been banned means every discussion about improving the garbled state of the article is malignant. Secondly. The claim in the aha is sourced to a paper which doesn't say that. Other sources show this to be an outlier. I wasn't aware of the source for it to be honest because it's so wildly outside everything else being said. Continued use among never and long time ex smokers is negligible. Users are broadly dual users who have reduced their cigarette intake and sole users who have switched all nicotine intake to e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
After I provided verification from the review you still want it deleted? That does not make sense. QuackGuru (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually Quack, it makes perfect sense. Ignoring that my instinct is to support the opposite of your view from start to finish because all your changes make the article less informative and less readable, the majority of sources disagree with your one source which makes the claim based on a paper which doesn't support the conclusion. Did you read the 5 or 6 sources I posted? Have you read the dozens of others all of which show that this claim is misleading, does not reflect current academic consensus and should therefore be removed? Ofcourse not because your WP:ADVOCACY got in the way. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Which statement from a WP:MEDRS source contradicts this: "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes." When sources disagree we use both not delete the other source according to NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It isnt just a disagreement between sources. 5 or 6 that say the opposite is a clear indication that the 1 is wrong. That leads to a question of unde weight being given and if the 1 should even be included. Just because something is sourced does not mean its automatically included. AlbinoFerret 09:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually Quack when most sources agree and a small number disagree and when the source that disagrees words a claim in a POV fashion you can only present the minority viewpoint as a minority viewpoint so it would be prefaced with "a minority believe" or such language to make it clear it's not the academic consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown which sources are MEDRS reviews and which statements from which the MEDRS reviews contradict it. QuackGuru (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Read them and learn. AlbinoFerret 10:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not a medical claim, it's a population claim. So MEDRS need not apply. However the RS's include the health surveys of two governments at least. Your plain wrong here Quack, advocating a minority POV point for no good reason. SPACKlick (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It was asked: Which statement from a WP:MEDRS source contradicts this? And on WP:MEDRS it states: Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Are Grana, Benowitz and Glantz experts in eCigs? If not, then why would their research be necessary on a page about eCigs? If they are instead scientists with own minority view on nicotine use, then this is why another page must be set up to deal specifically with the side topic that is preventing a NPOV on the eCig article page. I could go along with support for this claim if a) it were on another page and b) it were worded along lines of, "According to anti-nicotine advocates, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes." Without that context, then it appears to intentionally circumvent scientific consensus that either exists or is lacking around use of eCigs. As I observe it is lacking, I see all scientific claims around health benefits and risks associated with eCigs as not being prudent to put on page about eCigs, when such comments could be better represented on an alternate page that has to do specifically with information about vaping nicotine. Gw40nw (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Statement is adequately sourced, so I'm not understanding the argument for removal. If there are in fact high quality review articles that contradict the conclusions of the source, then it should be clarified that contradictory conclusions exist, but that's not a reason to remove. "Trying an e-cig - which may not even contain nicotine - once does not equate to becoming a nicotine user, so this claim is inaccurate and alarmist," is a fine opinion to hold, but it's just that: the opinion of an editor on the conclusions of a source, which makes it wholly irrelevant for our purposes. The only thing that matters here is what the reliable sources say, not what we think about what they say. Based on that alone, this RFC should have been a non-starter. Noformation Talk 10:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Noformation: This is not an RFC but a discussion of an edit for a protected page. The discussion here isnt if the claim is sourced, but that of weight. If you came looking for an RFC there is one near the bottom of the talk page. AlbinoFerret 10:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks. I didn't come looking for an RFC, just had the article on my watch list and didn't carefully enough read the header. In any case, OP's reasoning isn't compatible with RS. Noformation Talk 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The reason it is a starter NoFormation is that almost every other reliable source says
  • Regular use of electronic cigarettes ... is confined almost entirely to those who currently or have previously smoked.,
  • prevalence of current use is estimated at less than 0.1%, Among never-smokers, 0.7% were currently users (past 30 days), which indicates that few never-smokers who try e-cigarettes continue their use.,
  • Among those 11 to 18-year olds reporting they had never smoked...There were no ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ e-cigarette users among never smokers,
  • E-cigarettes are almost exclusively used by smokers and ex-smokers. Almost none of those who had never smoked cigarettes were e-cigarette users,
  • regular e-cigarette use among never smokers is negligible.
To suggest that e-cigarettes are a starting point for nicotine use in some youths is counter to current consensus and to write it as written gives the minority view undue weight. SPACKlick (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown which sources are WP:MEDRS compliant reviews. If a review contradicts another review we can included both. The source we are currently using for the sourced claim is a recent review. It is not a "paper". QuackGuru (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS is not a relevant policy, it's not a medical claim. All the sources i've provided above and the hundreds more you can find if you look are RS. Your refusal to read and listen to what any other editor says rather when it conflicts with your proposal to tout every claim against e-cigarettes even positions so minority they're practically fringe is real probelm for this article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We are currently using a higher quality MEDRS review. You cited sources that are not as good. Please provide a good source to balance the sentence rather that try to delete the text from a high quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We are currently sourcing it to a review which has been severely critiqued by several medical experts. Which sources this claim to a paper that doesn't support it. And this claim is not supported by other papers and reviews. Quack, if this claim was so uncontroversial you should be able to source it outside of Grana et al. You can't because only Grana et al makes it and they make it by misinterpreting a source. Now, ignoring my OR analysis of Grana as a pretty shaky review do you deny it's a minority claim and should be presented, if at all, as such? SPACKlick (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't question experts that write the reviews. I asked "Please provide a good source to balance the sentence rather that try to delete the text from a high quality review." You did not provide a quality review to balance the text or contradict the text. You are reaching down to lower quality evidence to delete higher quality evidence rather than try to balance the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but the experts have questioned this source and it's about the only source that says it, it's a minority viewpoint which should not be hilighted in the article per wp:weight. You haven't once engaged in that argument because your advocacy is showing. SPACKlick (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Oppose - I don't get the logic of the sources statement. How can they predict that youths who have only used an e-cig will progress to traditional cigarettes. How can they predict future behavior? Either way I oppose the inclusion of said sentence. We should be summarizing whole sources not paraphrasing cherry picked sentences that have been disputed by other sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment This wording by Keithbob strikes me as meaning this editor Supports removal rather than Opposes it. Gw40nw (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. I oppose the current statement and support its removal. I've amended my entry above to make that clear.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of claim. Hasn't anyone been seeing things like this? Now to be clear, I know everything about this topic is intensely political, billions of dollars at stake -- it's about who gets to profit from the nicotine market, how to move away from high cancer risk without giving up the per capita taxation of the poor that helps the rich get their all-important tax breaks, how big a cut the doctors can take off the top, and how to emblazon the word "CIGARETTE" on your retina in letters not less than an inch high at least three times before you get into your local supermarket ... still, no matter how muddy the political facts may be, we are still better reporting them than not. We shouldn't expect MEDRS grade sources for claims that fairly closely parallel the usual War on Drugs rhetoric that has never been scientific; yet... in this case there may actually be some good data and we should highlight it gladly when it is so, without limiting ourselves to it. Basically, anybody here who's not on somebody's payroll, please, let's allow all the data from all points of view to be heard. It's the only way we have a chance for peace. I mean... this article is protected until Spring starts? Are you kidding me? There's inclusionism, and there's endless war - pick one. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment An article in JAMA Peadiatrics finds "Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Looks like evidence to me.
  • Comment The JAMA Pediatrics article, concluding that e-cigarettes MAY encourage use of conventional cigarettes is scientific opinion, lacking evidence. Gw40nw (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This one was from Pediatrics Dec 15, 2014 "The fact that e-cigarette only users were intermediate in risk status between nonusers and dual users raises the possibility that e-cigarettes are recruiting medium-risk adolescents, who otherwise would be less susceptible to tobacco product use".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done: I don't see a consensus to remove the text at this point. Some users who wanted to the text removed said that it was unsourced, but this is incorrect: the statement is sourced to a review article that passes WP:MEDRS, and the claim in the article is an accurate representation of the claim in the source. Others who wanted the text removed tried to argue against the source's conclusions, but as Wikipedia editors we are not allowed to do this - all we can do is assess whether the source is reliable for the statement made, and whether the statement has due weight.

    Although there is no consensus to enact this edit request at the moment, some of the sources that SPACklick linked to may be worth further discussion. In particular, the AHA policy statement seems to satisfy MEDRS as a position statement from a nationally recognised expert body, and it puts a markedly different emphasis on the numbers. I quote: "Among never-smokers, 0.7% were currently users (past 30 days), which indicates that few never-smokers who try e-cigarettes continue their use."

    The Pediatrics sources that Doc James quotes are suggestive, but by themselves they don't satisfy MEDRS, as they are still single studies. However, they will undoubtedly be picked up by review papers in the no-too-distant future, and when they do we can talk about how we can work the review into the article. But for the moment, we should stick to working with the MEDRS-compliant sources that we have. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Mist

Latest comment: 9 years ago94 comments13 people in discussion
The edit request has been enacted, and further debate on the same points won't change my decision. New discussions about using "mist" in the lead should go in a new section, and discussion about my decision should go on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Per the RFC above;

  1. Remove (mist) from lede
  2. Change all four instances of mist to vapor in Construction: Atomizer
  3. Change mist to Vapor in Construction: E-liquid
  4. Change mist to Aerosol in Harm Reduction
  5. Change mist to Aerosol in Safety
  6. Change mist to Vapor in Related Technologies

SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC linked to above is now in the archives and can be found here. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support this edit, it is how it was before the "mist" insanity took hold. and follows the RFC. The RFC found that editors want to reduce the usage of mist. The closers note below says we should only use it by consensus. There is no consensus, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS the edits should remove mist. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Mist" is not a term anyone uses. Academic literature uses "aerosol" or "vapour". Non-academic ANTZ say "smoke", which can obviously be ignored. Everyone else says "vapour". "Mist" just makes Wikipedia look clueless. It's as if we couldn't decide between "alpha particle" and "helium nucleus" and unilaterally decided it's now called "pixie dust".--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Just for other editors note. I used Vapor where it was discussing what was produced at the atomiser and aerosol for the emissions. The specific usage in each instance is less critical, IMHO, than removing Mist, we can discuss the 9 uses of the word vapor and the 4 uses of aerosol in some other place. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. "Vapour" and "aerosol" are both fine, but "mist" has to go.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
And by the way the fact that Jimbo has been notified about me is irrelevant, so you can stop name-dropping now. He hasn't been notified because I object to you giving WP:UNDUE to "mist", has he?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT. "Mist" is not in common use and the vast majority of sources do not use it. So why should Wikipedia?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Please respect the conclusion of the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, respect the RFC, it said to use Aerosol and Vapor. This proposed edit brings the page back to the point before you started changing everything to mist without consensus. The finding were "The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist"." So the word mist needs to be reduced. If its used at all it will be by consensus. AlbinoFerret 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You support paid editing? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970. This edit protected request should be denied. More editors may be banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Paid editing is actually allowed, Quack. Check WP:COI.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And what's all this "More editors may be banned" stuff? Do you and Doc seriously think I control a vast network of paid infiltrators? Because if you do you're off your trolley. I've been a freelance writer for two years, and maybe 1.5% of my work has involved Wikipedia. When I joined Wikipedia I was a Sergeant in the Army. Who do you think I was shilling for then? Big War?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He supports this proposed edit, not paid editing Quack. Stop misrepresenting things. The edit was proposed by SPACKlick following the closing of the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. This proposal goes against the RFC. The RFC did not say totally eliminate mist. And you should know about this. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Notice to Admins. It appears editors may have been recruiting to Wikipedia. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ This is getting way out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Read the bloody conversation, would you? "I'm going to hell." "So am I." "Looks like VMS will be joining us." Reading that, where do you think she would be joining us? You know, based on the two sentences that come before it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Quack it says the preferred words are Aerosol and Vapor. Stop trying to twist things. This follows the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support (amended) the specific editorial changes above, with the exception of leaving an explanatory reference in the lead (which is not "banning" the use of the word "mist" in this article anywhere, ever). "Vapor" is the popular term in the media and in scientific literature and "aerosol" is the technically accurate term (easily verified by a few quick searches: Google, PubMed, etc). A mist is an aerosol, so calling e-cig emission a mist is correct, but for editorial clarity, vapor and aerosol together are is the logical choice based on common usage. As a good example of usage, Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage uses both aerosol and vapor throughout, aerosol for technical stuff like phase change, vapor as a general reference. --Tsavage (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: In trying to move this forward, and not having participated in the initial vapor/aerosol/mist RfC, I hastily assumed "mist" was entirely secondary, which after a closer look no longer seems the case. As in my (unreplied to) question and comment below, from the evidence of popular usage and scientific sources, e-cig emission has been referred to as a "mist" in popular media and the aerosol is formally referred to as mist in scientific research, as in, "Electronic cigarettes ... deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece" 1. How "mist" fits as an e-cig term ("an aerosol and a less-used term than vapor") is part of any thorough discussion. We can't be removing - RfCing out - good information just because people don't like the way it was added. --Tsavage (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's dealt with. I'm getting permabanned. And if you expect to find a network of puppets controlled from my secret lair you're going to end up being very frustrated.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Doc James:Oh for god sakes!!! STOP STALLING THE PROGRESS OF THIS ARTICLE!!!! This has nothing to do with it. Ferguss did not start this RfC. At least give us a valid reason for opposing. Oppose because gnagna is not a good reason. TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused about how "meat puppet / paid editing issues" relate to this. I'm a few days new to this page, and it's been locked except for a few hours, and apparently the only way to edit is through consensus and getting an admin to commit the changes piecemeal. It's an excruciatingly inefficient way, still, I'm willing to stick around a bit on that basis. This "mist" issue is one actionable specific, I don't understand how that relates to particular editors? --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems an odd argument. I mean, even if it turns out that Quack and Cloudjpk have secretly been in league with me to sabotage the article all along, "Vapour" and "Aerosol" are still going to be the terms in widespread use and "mist" is still going to be wrong.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Because it's not a synonym of aerosol but misleadingly implies a high water content. Wheras consensus is that neither vapor nor aerosol are misleading. SPACKlick (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with leaving mist in the lead only, as it is worded now if that moves things forward. The reasonable and balanced idea is to convey once that e-cig emission is "commonly called a vapor, which is technically an aerosol or mist," as mist is in use as well. That explains all uses cleanly and quickly, and the rest of the de-misting allows the article to conform to popular and correct usage that readers will be familiar with. (Related note, for future debates: "but inaccurately" is chidingly unnecessary, as if we're trying to school every media organization, vaper, and scientist who uses the word). --Tsavage (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure would be happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Same here TheNorlo (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Neither of the sources used refer to it as a "mist", this equating is OR. AlbinoFerret 08:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose keeping the lede as written with mist. Mist, almost exclusively, refers to an aerosol mostly composed of water. The last thing we want to do is have this article imply that e-cig vapor is water vapor. SPACKlick (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what the objection is. The aerosol produced by e-cigs is technically NOT a mist? The point is, mist is out there (I'm looking at Forbes, LA Times, National Post, various e-cig company sites, etc), less commonly than vapor, but still used. From the general encyclopedia user perspective, if I'd seen mist along with other terms, I'd likely expect that to be explained when reading up on e-cigs. Also, "mist" is used in some scientific literature, like "Electronic cigarettes ... deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece" Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patch for smoking cessation via PubMed, where there are other examples. So I am confused? This doesn't seem controversial, it's acknowledging e-cig mist and explaining usage as an alternative word (constrained Google search for "electronic cigarette vapor" and "electronic cigarette mist" is about 3.3:1 vapor to mist, so mist usage is lesser but not minuscule). Am I still missing something? --Tsavage (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:S Marshall wrote "The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist" The RFC did not conclude to remove "mist" from the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The rest of us can all read Quack.
Q: Should we use mist? A: The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". ... We should use the term that best fits the rhythm and flow of the sentence, provided that term does not mislead the reader. The consensus is that neither "vapour" nor "aerosol" are misleading.
I believe that in those 9 instances aerosol and vapor both fit the rhythms of the sentences better and are less misleading. Do you have any actual argument for Mist's inclusion or are you just not liking and not hearing what other editors have to say? SPACKlick (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC is over yet you disagree with the using mist at all. Your disagreement is with User:S Marshall. QuackGuru (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with using mist at all, I just disagree with using it in these specific 9 instances. My disagreement is with you. Which case of removing mist do you disagree with and why quack?SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Quack No, the closer was very clear, and most people can easily understand his comments and reasoning. You appear to have a problem with the clear words he used or you just dont like it, or are refusing to hear it. AlbinoFerret 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: I was asked on my talk page to reply here. I carefully wrote "reduce", and not "eliminate", because editors have occasionally been known to follow a rule off a cliff, so I wanted to leave a little wiggle room in case there was ever some good reason to say "mist". However, the consensus is that the default words should be "aerosol" or "vapour". If editors cannot agree about whether to say "mist" in an e-cig related article, then they should not.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We often explain complicated words with more simple ones. Thus there is nothing wrong with explaining in the lead that an aerosol is similar to a mist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Except that it isn't one. Most things people refer to as mists are water based aerosols. Most things people refer to as vapours are aerosols. This thing is an aerosol but it isn't water based. This isn't controversial Doc. Aerosol, commonly referred to as Vapor sums up the position of the sources. SPACKlick (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is also discounting the RFC on this topic to use Mist. It ran a long time, everyone had a say. Only using Mist where everyone agrees was the consensus. I'm in agreement with the RFC, if , in the future, we can all agree that mist is the right word, it will be included. But this isnt that time, there is no agreement, so mist is out. It detracts nothing from the claim to remove it, and including as one equating the other it is not supported by the source. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Of course, since this was the result of the RfC. If there is a later reason to use "mist" in a descriptive way, then it should be used, but the current usage is not such. I'm not sure why we actually have a !vote on this. --Kim D. Petersen 16:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC) - Nb: I dislike the apparent attitude of "lets start an RfC - but if the results do not fit our agenda, then we just start yet another discussion/RfC until we get the result we like..."... if consensus or lack of consensus is there - then please accept it. --Kim D. Petersen 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There's still consensus, only the two sore thumb editors have voted against this change and their reasoning has been
  1. Some sources use mist (which was considered during the RFC)
  2. The RFC said reduce not eliminate (Which the closer has clarified was to allow mist where it was clearly, overwhelmingly correct)
  3. Per the RFC (see 2)
  4. Because more editors might be banned...
  5. Because what's wrong with having mist there?
None of which are compelling arguments to ignore the result of an RFC.
I amended my opinion above with what I believe is a compelling and sourced argument: Mist is used in popular and a proper scientific term for e-cig aerosol and therefore should be accounted for in a clearly accessible way for general interest readers who may well have encountered mist and vapor both. Terminology section would be one place, but there is none. The lead as a summary shouldn't have material that doesn't come from the body of the article, but since there is no such explanatory mention, considering that all that is required is "e-cig produces an aerosol mist commonly referred to as vapor", and that is awkwardly but essentially currently already there, how can we remove significant, valid content based on editor preference for how it was added? --Tsavage (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Mist is used so infrequently it is closer to not used. It is an inaccurate term that describes atmospheric water like clouds and fog. Per the closers note on the RFC a few posts above, mist is only to be used with total agreement, that doesnt exist here. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret "used so infrequently it is closer to not used" - what does that even mean? This is the age of the Internet, everything lives forever. If I see e-cig "mist" on prominent sites like Forbes, New York Times, LA Times, and e-cig brands like Mistic and Clearmist and Mist E, do you think it's highly unlikely that anyone looking into e-cigs online (which is where WP lives) runs into "mist"? And (and I'm seriously literally curious here), do you have a source that says "mist" is not the "type" of aerosol that e-cig vapor is? It really seems like you just want to make a point here, not serve the article. The other changes of aerosol and vapor are ridiculous, but, accidentally, perhaps, the one in the lead incrementally pushes the article forward. --Tsavage (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Your handful of sources that say mist vs the perhaps 75-100 I have read that dont may be the problem. But it doesnt matter. The RFC is done, the findings are clear, complete agreement to use mist. Citing 6 or so sources that use one word will not make me agree that Mist is the words to use. If there is a claim that uses mist, and the word is appropriate I will agree to it, but popping it in because a minority of sources use it is wrong. Its not used in the source for this claim. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret Unfortunately, your argument here has become inflexible and circular. We are supposed to be writing to serve a general audience, and if it can be reasonably shown that a piece of information should included, it should be without creating an obstacle course. Mist vs vapor vs aerosol for e-cigs is something readers may wonder about. Here are only three examples from NYT, which I hope you would agree is widely consulted, indexed, searched. The example is not to show a massive use of the term, simply that it is something that merits explanation. I can fill pages like this, so it is hardly "closer to not used":
  • "This electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, contains a small reservoir of liquid nicotine solution that is vaporized to form an aerosol mist." "A Tool to Quit Smoking Has Some Unlikely Critics", Science section, New York Times (2011) 1
  • "E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine that is vaporized to form an aerosol mist." "Rise Is Seen in Students Who Use E-Cigarettes", Health section, New York Times (2013) 2
  • "Clouds of mist curled upward and vanished." and "When you draw on an electronic cigarette (or push a button on the fancier versions), a sensor activates a battery that causes a heating element to vaporize the nicotine solution in a cartridge, emitting a fine mist." "E-Cigarette Shops Open Even as City Cracks Down" N.Y./Region section, New York Times (2014) 3
--Tsavage (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree on use of Mist in the lede, its common usage is water vapor in the atmosphere like a cloud or fog. Its confusing and adding confusion is something I think is best avoided. AlbinoFerret 00:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That "mist" is wrong and properly refers to clouds is your personal opinion, or based on some more authoritative source? And, what is confusing about answering the basic question: "with e-cigs, what's the difference between vapor, mist, and aerosol, I've seen all three terms used?" Aren't we supposed to be answering likely questions from a general audience? --Tsavage (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And from word-happy The Economist, Dec 20th 2014: "Electronic cigarettes ... use a small electric heater to vaporise a mix of glycerine and propylene glycol (two fairly inoffensive chemicals) in which nicotine has been dissolved, turning it into a breathable mist that can be savoured much as cigarette smoke is." from "Vapour trail", Electronic cigarettes and health section 1 --Tsavage (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Websters dictionary, first example is the most common. mist - water in the form of very small drops floating in the air or falling as rain. WP's article on mist. I could find others by copying references in the Mist article. We should not add to confusion. AlbinoFerret 00:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You are conflating technical definitions with common usage. I've just established common usage for "mist" in connection to e-cigs, we are not creating confusion, if confusion has been created, it is by the New York Times, the Economist, et al, and we're here, properly, to clear that up. You don't turn to Websters for technical definitions. I thing the basics are, aerosol is the general class of particles suspended in air or other gas, and the three major subtypes are dust (solid particles), mist (liquid particles), and fumes (residue from combustion). So, yeah, mist as droplets in air has become also a common term like clouds, but as a technical term it appears to apply to e-cigs as in "deliver a propylene glycol and/or glycerol mist to the airway of users when drawing on the mouthpiece"... Bit we shouldn't have to be...arguing this far into areas in which we are not experts, Wikipedia editing is simpler than that, it is done best when anonymous, uncredentialed people are being reasonable. --Tsavage (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, we should not use mist. AlbinoFerret 01:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So there we are: in this case, at least, it comes down to your personal opinion, since it's you against someone reading the latest issue of the Economist, wondering where the mist has gone? Should we be searching the Journal of Aerosol Science? How do you expect to move ahead by inflexibly basing positions on personal opinion? --Tsavage (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite frankly: Mist is extremely seldom used in the literature that your rehash of the RfC is misplaced. Only 5 papers on PubMed about electronic cigarettes use the wording "mist" anywhere[4]. And we have had an RfC on this. --Kim D. Petersen 02:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I think this metric is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since you are concerned with my searched proofs, look at your own: at least one of your PubMed finds is a review, and it cites a healthy 124 other papers, and mentions "mist" several times, each occurrence citing a different paper, so the "only 5 papers on PubMed" is suddenly 8, 9, 10 papers, maybe more. Where does this end, arguing that the other papers aren't in PubMed so somehow unworthy, even though they entirely form the basis of the PubMed accepted review? This is crazy. :) --Tsavage (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Nb: The examples you give are subject to confirmation bias on your part, since you actively sought these out, instead of looking at the literature as a whole. --Kim D. Petersen 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To demonstrate: Go to Google and search for '+("electronic cigarette" OR 'e-cigarette")'[5] and compare the number of results to '+("electronic cigarette" OR 'e-cigarette") +mist'[6] - again the usage of "mist" is extremely rare, just as in the medical literature. (same results apply when using Google news) --Kim D. Petersen 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This argument is so off-point, the criterion here is not popularity, and we are not talking about confirming a feature of or medical claim about e-cigs, we are talking about including information in an article that may be of interest to the general reader. That is our primary mission. All that I was illustrating with NY Times/Economist is that there is some significant use of "mist" in popular media, like these extremely popular and respected outlets, so it is reasonable to assume that a percentage of readers would be curious about the various terms, vapor vs aerosol vs mist, after reading about them. My small illustrations show that if I were a regular NY Times reader or perusing the latest issue of the Economist, for example, I might well wonder about aerosol, vapor and mist, and I might go to the #1 Google selection on the topic to try and find out. I only need this length explanation because of the crazily overdetailed arguments going on here. Normally, reasonable editors would say, "yeah, mist is out there, too, let's handle it," and add the 4-5 words it takes, instead of launching into convoluted RfCs and arguing confirmation bias and the like.
Since this information is already in the lead (at the very least, you can conclude, "oh yeah, aerosol is mist") why are we going to REMOVE USEFUL INFO? Confirmation bias is irrelevant here. This isn't a popularity poll, we don't only cover information because it's at the top of some popularity chart. Don't forget, I am only talking about the brief mention in the lead, since there is no explanation of mist elsewhere. --Tsavage (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Tsavage, the word "mist" being from all Wikpedia pages. Adding a synonym benefits the reading. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It only adds to the confusion. We have had a RFC on it and it can only be added by consensus. AlbinoFerret 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:AlbinoFerret We're discussing a point and trying to reach agreement, I've replied to every concrete objection you've mentioned, it's all there in writing, and now you aren't replying in kind, instead, repeating personal opinion ("it only adds to the confusion") and citing previous proceedings (RfC). I can try to help:
  • Is it confusing because it would be too unfamiliar to readers who have not seen mist used in reference to e-cigs, they can't handle knowing that an aerosol can be called a mist, or that somewhere unseen to them (like in the New York Times over the years, or in the current issue of the Economist), "mist" may have been used in place of "vapor"? (We have a Simple English Wikipedia version if language confusion is the problem (and it has an interesting ingredients table)).
  • Where does it say in the RfC that the way forward is to remove every instance of mist, or every instance that was changed at some designated previous point in time? I don't see that it does, yet that is what you are arguing.
If you have no real replies, only opinion and invoking of authority, perhaps your position, on closer examination, is not really supportable? If you admitted that, or showed me the error of my position, we'd be getting somewhere towards consensus! As far as I can see, Wikipedia is quite inclusive of relevant pieces of information within an article, and I believe I have established relevance for mist. (BTW, happy holidays! :) --Tsavage (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to read the "Closer's note" above in this section if the closers findings for question A in the RFC leave questions in your mind about the use of mist. (You also, have a Happy Hoilday's and enjoy some time with family and friends.)AlbinoFerret 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this seems like an arguing tactic to me: rather than saying anything concrete, you direct me to other places it should be obvious I've already been, and suggest I look for your answers there. Still, again, I'll try to be helpful:
  • The RfC in question is closed with the finding that No consensus is reached on this point, and there is no requirement always to use the least ambiguous term. That's unequivocally clear, and everything else in the closer's summary is consistent with that. So, nothing there about removing "mist" from the lead.
  • You refer me to the first sub-finding: Should we use mist? A: The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". There is no argument that the preferred terms, by common usage, are vapor and aerosol. And it's clear to me that some editors want to reduce the use of mist. Nothing there on removing "mist" from the lead.
  • In the "Closer's note" above, in the opinion of User:S Marshall, the closer now speaking as a regular editor, '...the consensus is that the default words should be "aerosol" or "vapour". If editors cannot agree about whether to say "mist" in an e-cig related article, then they should not.' That's an opinion and a suggestion from an editor, it doesn't modify the actual RfC closing summary, referred to in the previous two points, because the RfC is...closed. Still in deference to S Marshall...
  • ...and to be thorough by continuing to re-examine and re-frame the RfC (as citing the Closer's note does), the in the RfC's initial statement is the claim, "No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist". While there is some discussion in the RfC of whether "mist" is technically accurate, there is also much commenting on a sort of non-notability of "mist" because it's not found in a lot a places. Meanwhile, "No one ... describes it as mist" (minus the personalization) is incorrect as I made clear with examples above. I've also made a reasoned case for a particular, specific occurrence of mist in the article, differentiating vapor, aerosol, and mist, by showing that "mist" is used currently and enough that it is reasonable to assume there are readers who will want to know about it (ongoing and current use in New York Times and Economist are two notable examples of that). This aspect of usefulness to the readership is germane to the discussion, yet not properly addressed or discussed in the RfC, simply tossed off as "no one uses it" and "confusing" (the latter circularly based on the incorrect former). So, I'd argue that the RfC is not only closed (which really is the final word) but also incomplete, and if the Closer wishes to actually amend the closing after the fact, that should take into account any new input like mine, we can't be traveling back in time, tweaking closed items, can we?
Currently the lead reads, "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor." This does a passable job of explaining aerosol/mist/vapor, so why should we remove it? --Tsavage (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The whole RFC was on the insertion of mist everywhere. The findings are clear. Editors want to reduce the usage of mist, it should only be used by consensus. Now that the RFC is over we are going back to those edits that were the reason for the RFC in the first place. There is no consensus for it to stay. As a result WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. Since the RFC was to gauge consensus for "mist" a finding of no consensus means they are removed. This is a major problem with this page, even after RFC findings editors argue against those findings. AlbinoFerret 00:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC wasn't about reverting the article to undo the mists, it was about how to use the three terms moving forward. Since the mist changes were already made, that's where we're moving forward from. If the RfC was about reversion, it should have said so, like, "The replacement of every instance of 'vapor' and 'aerosol' with 'mist' is essentially vandalism and should be reverted." But, it didn't say that, it was about the relative weight of the terms, and no consensus was reached, except that "vapor" and "aerosol" were more used than "mist," "and there is no requirement always to use the least ambiguous term". If you insist on citing the RfC, you should at least be clear on what it says. Inflexibility isn't helpful in the...process. --Tsavage (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Im sorry that it isnt obvious to someone new to the article. But the first few lines show it was about the changing of the words over and over. The use of mist in the leade is one of those that was changed over and over. The RFC stopped that while it was ongoing and one of its purposes was to show what the article should look like and if those bold edits should stay. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS after a discussion on bold edits if there is no consensus they are removed. The comments also show this as it was discussed over and over that Quack had broken the previous limited consensus by adding "mist" all over opening the RFC to all usage in the article. AlbinoFerret 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
"Im sorry that it isnt obvious to someone new to the article" is not helping your point, because the RfC should be obvious to newcomers, isn't that the idea, to get fresh eyes from far and wide?! You're right, I came to the article just as that RfC was getting underway, I read it, it seemed too complex and ultimately restrictive to be practical, and I wasn't sure of the underlying history. Like I said before, it should have been an RfC on mist insertion as vandalism, because it IS ridiculous to have changed every instance of a more common terms for a less common one, with absolutely no support.
The problem here is, you seem to be the principal person against a solution that could revert mist, except for the instance in the lead which is poorly worded at present, but helpful (can you argue that the current presence in the lead could not be at the very least a little helpful to someone, somewhere, not 100% devoid of value?). Can't you see, you are your own worst enemy on this one, because you have an outcome you absolutely want and will not reevaluate.
Also, look back at older versions of this article, in 2011 a PubMed-indexed study actually footnoted the Wikipedia e-cig article, quoting the lead verbatim, which mentioned mist... Do you want the citation? --Tsavage (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think its best that we just agree to disagree. I dont think the use of mist in the lead is helpful to the general reader. Mist is defined as water vapor in the atmosphere. Its against the RFC. Its present form is to try and work around another finding of the RFC because it was not to long ago mist with a wikilink to the Aerosol page. Right now its off the edit proposal. I will say that if mist is retained aerosol should be removed, we dont need two words in one place. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing to disagree in a case like this really means, let's agree that we will never come to a mutually acceptable solution, which sounds like you only want to push your own POV. I supported this particular proposal, and then I amended it in light of opposition, not just to get along, but also because the opposition made me reconsider. It wouldn't have been the end of the world to remove all mists as you and the original proposal wanted, but upon further reflection, I realized it would be incrementally better to leave mist in the lead. I adjusted.
If you say mist is only defined as water vapor in the atmosphere, I better head over to oil mist lubrication and look for some references before you propose that page fro speedy deletion. And maybe you should fire off an email to Exxon and the gang for this crazy patent application: "Mist oil lubricant (US5756430 A): A mist oil lubricating composition distributes fine droplets of oil compositions in aerosol form to the areas of various machine elements to be lubricated. Many oil particles form an aerosol with particle diameters in the range of 0.1 to 20 microns." And be sure to ignore this handy chart in Aerosol Science: Technology and Applications, illustrating a mist as a liquid-particle aerosol, ranging from 0.01 microns to around 9 microns, the definition merges with spray, up to 1000 microns. Liquid distinguises it from solid particle aerosols in the fume to dust particle size range. Health-related characteristics of a mist include ihalability and respirability. (Figure 1.3)
Something here should tell you, this whole way of editing by argument and random citation is wrongheaded... We should just agree on simple things! :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am done arguing, I disagree on the use of mist. 5000000 more words are not likely to change my mind. I have laid out my reasoning above.AlbinoFerret 01:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I've replied to everything you've had to say and now you have no more. Everyone is entitled to be wrong and stick with it. --Tsavage (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing mist from the article but at this point, I don't care, it is trivial considering the work that this article needs. The lead is in extremely bad shape, the construction section should be refined and cleaned out, the medical part of this article could use a bit of work to. This huge ass RfC about whether or not we should use "Yep" instead of "Yeah" is a little ridiculous at this point. Anyways, sorry for being off topic but I had to say it. TheNorlo (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was on the wholesale replacement of Vapor with mist. We had the RFC, now after we have the results its discounted and the arguing goes on. We need to follow the results of the RFC. Because it shows where consensus lies and we should be following consensus. By discounting the RFC we discount consensus, and thats not how WP articles should be created. AlbinoFerret 11:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am now convinced, Mist should stay in the lede. It is common enough that it might be what a reader knows the vapour as. I think a reword is in order but I'm happy have that fight another day. Something like; They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol,[ref] which is commonly referred to as vapor[ref] and infrequently as mist.[ref]. Thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The part "infrequently as "mist" is not supported by the source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: I would remove the strikeout if I were you. A compromise isnt possible, we have the RFC findings and the closers note. There is no consensus for including it, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS it should be removed. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You read this comment thoroughly? The findings of the RFC was to reduce not eliminate the word mist. Therefore, the consensus is to use it less often. After the RFC is over you are still trying to eliminate mist when it has been demonstrated it is a synonym. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring the Closers comment in this very section where he expanded on it. If there is no consensus, it should not be used. There is no consensus here. It should be removed. AlbinoFerret 13:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC closing statements made no such argument. After the RFC closed the editor was commenting as a regular editor. This was previously explained. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect, he was explaining his comments in closing the RFC, what they mean. As such they explain how the RFC comments should be applied. They are clarifying the comments and part of those comments. AlbinoFerret 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  Done As this is basically a request for implementation of the RfC result, I have given the RfC result the most weight in deciding what should be implemented here. Although there were some users against points 2-6 in this discussion, the RfC result indicates that they should be enacted, and there was also a rough consensus for them here. I didn't see a consensus in this discussion for point 1, but as the RfC result indicates that "vapor" and "aerosol" are to be preferred over "mist", I have removed it from the lead until a consensus can be found on whether to include it. There was some discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lead for the word "mist" - this may be a useful avenue for future discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to remove mist from the lede against the RFC

User:Mr. Stradivarius, the edit request protection did not involve removing "mist" from the lede.
  1. Remove (mist) from lede The proposal to remove "mist" from the lede was stricken. The closing of the RFC was to reduce mist not eliminate it. There was no discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lead for the word "mist". Some editors were disagreeing with using mist in the lede. You should not remove "mist" from the lede until a consensus can be found to remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Another classic misrepresenting from you Quack. The RFC expressly said the consensus was to reduce the usage of mist. The closers note diff clarified the closers comments that if there was no consensus that mist should not be used. There is no consensus in the above discussion to keep mist in the lede, there doesnt need to be consensus to keep, but consensus to use it. Thats the only way mist will be used from now on, per the RFC. Even if one editor struck the edit, there were arguments that it should not be struck. If you want alternative wording, then gain consensus for the edit. Propose the wording and see if there is agreement. We should not go backwards, or ignore the RFC. AlbinoFerret 03:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is misrepresenting the situation. User:S Marshall, the closer was speaking as a regular editor after the RFC was over. The lede said "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist), which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor." This does a passable job of explaining aerosol/mist/vapor, so why should we remove it? Please read the comments by User:Tsavage.[7]. User:AlbinoFerret has never given a logical reason how removing mist from the lede improves the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No quack, you are misrepresenting the closers comments. The closers is explaining his closing, not as an editor, but as the closer. The RFC with the comments of the editors has spoken, listen to it. AlbinoFerret 03:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was not specifically about removing mist form the lede anyway. The RFC never said eliminate mist form the lede. After the RFC User:S Marshall was only giving suggestions as a general editor because the RFC was closed. User:Tsavage made a lot of good points.[8] What is the harm in including the synonym mist in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus to have mist in the lede. Per the RFC, if there is no consensus, its removed. AlbinoFerret 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't really care if we call it mist, vapor, or aerosol, but as a point of order you have it backwards AF. The word "mist" was present, and there needs to be a consensus to change it. In the absence of consensus policy is that the status quo prevails. Of course for any article content, one can point to a time before the content existed and say "oh, there was no consensus to add it in the first place". But that's not really how we do things here. If it has been in place for a while, you need consensus to remove it. There has been far too much of this argument "I don't agree with it = there was no consensus to add it however many weeks it has been there, therefore it must be removed. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Two e-cigarette science articles on the top-10 list of BMC 2014 articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found this interesting Burstyn review #2 and Farsalinos et al. cardiac function study at #10 [9]. Mihaister (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Eliminate or Drastically Change "Health Effects" Section of Article

Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

I preface this proposal for drastically editing the Health Effects section with the following:

  • I strongly believe and/or observe that this section, among 3 total in the current article, are precisely what is constantly challenging the NPOV of this article. I therefore argue for elimination, though recognize other editors are unlikely to consider that for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I would argue that "Health Effects" ought to be its own separate page and that one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page as POV is clearly biased in literally everything that currently appears in this section. It is furthermore disputed by competing interests on Talk Page (and found extensively in Archives) and ultimately resides in a vague category summarized by "not enough evidence to determine" one way or the other.
  • I have reviewed Archived pages on "Health Effects" before writing this proposal. I have not thoroughly reviewed them because I find the subject either disorganized on the Talk Page (and Archives) or an extension of the "not enough evidence" variety, and thus, in essence, stating very little of importance.
  • Perhaps restating the first point, but I believe as long as the inconclusive, and rather biased data is allowed to stay in "Health Effects" section as necessary part of main article page on Electronic Cigarettes, that Wikipedia, at best, will be caught up in a NPOV battle for as long as that data is determined, by all parties, as inconclusive or lacking evidence (read as many years to come). And at worst, Wikipedia shows up as lacking credibility, even integrity, on the topic of Electronic Cigarettes. I do not make this last assertion lightly. I feel this reflects very poorly on editorial decisions on this topic.

Clearly, the competing interests regarding health effects of Electronic Cigarettes (eCigs) and the topic of eCigs in general, are between tobacco control advocates and vaping enthusiasts. Tobacco control advocates hold an inherent conflict of interest as eCigs are not currently (at end of 2014) a tobacco product, and yet are routinely framed in that light to serve the goals of tobacco control advocates. Vaping enthusiasts hold a conflict of interest because many, or vast majority of eCig users are ex-smokers who are prone to make claims or support positions that seek to establish eCigs as a (wonderful) smoking cessation device. Though, not all vaping enthusiasts have made this claim, and thus a prominent bias is established which just so happens to be the chief competing interest on the Electronic Cigarette page, second only to those who support or tout the Tobacco Control advocacy position.

The 2009 Judge Leon ruling, which is only briefly mentioned on the Legality page and surprisingly not mentioned at all on the main article page, states that the FDA cannot regulate eCigs as drug-delivery devices. Yet, some Wikipedia editors hold to that position as to how to process all usage data on eCigs. Moreover, the Leon ruling stated that "absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer" the FDA lacks authority to regulate these products at all (at that time). It does state that FDA could (conceivably) regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA (Tobacco Control Act). At end of 2014, and thru entire duration of this main article on eCigs, the US has not deemed eCigs a tobacco product.

The WHO report, as sourced in the Health Effects section, strongly appears to hold to the position that eCig manufacturers are still making therapeutic claims of smoking cessation. While in 2011 and before this may have in fact been the case, to varying degrees, it is no longer possible to find a majority or substantial amount of manufacturers making this claim. Thus, it comes back to vaping enthusiasts who may, or may not, proffer such a position. Thus POV regarding bias of what an eCig is. And to be sure that vaping enthusiasts are not advancing that position to far, the tobacco control advocacy groups counter this rhetoric with their own bias around 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which again Leon ruled (or explained) that eCig manufacturers are best to avoid.

Even the information mentioned in the main article from the WHO report is biased. It states: found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods.

This is made in around the 21st point of 44 total points. The 2nd point of the report is: (eCigs) are the subject of a public health dispute among bona fide tobacco-control advocates that has become more divisive as their use has increased. This is not mentioned on the main article page, even while it is clearly permeating the talk page on Wikipedia and currently leading to the label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The WHO report, also has fueled that divisiveness in many ways, not the least of which is scientific review that has addressed, or clarified, several points of mischaracterization in the WHO report. But, of course we don't mention this on the main article page because of "undue weight" and yet let stand the rather biased position of the WHO report. Neither is there mention of the 20th point in the report that states (in part): At this level of efficacy, the use of ENDS is likely to help some smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

I write all this to convey the inherent bias that is prevalent both on the main article page and in many of the discussions, comments, RFC's found on the talk page. As I've stated before, the whole topic, as presented on main article page, is straining NPOV constantly. Moreover, it comes off as disorganized (which is yet another dispute on current talk page) and presents usage data that is, in reality, outdated.

Because I fully believe a NPOV article can be presented as the main article on eCigs, I write this proposal. I strongly believe usage information is the primary culprit for the dispute, and that it takes two (sides) to tango. While I too have my own bias, I would urge that as long as data is inconclusive on eCigs (as noted in 2nd paragraph of the lede) that usage information (includes all Health Effects data) be shortened and spun off to other pages, with explanation that represents honest disagreement found on the talk page. This is clearly a situation warranting a "controversy" spinoff on Wikipedia, as I have seen with other topics. I do not believe, nor observe, a resolution toward consensus on these controversies occurring any time soon (highly unlikely in 2015, very unlikely in next 5 years), or maybe around 2030 Wikipedia editors will have more substantial information to present a consensus approach to use type information on eCigs.

I propose drastically shortened text blocks under each sub-heading in the Health Effects section, including elimination of some headings that are likely better served on other pages as "see also" links. In my view, Smoking Cessation, Harm Reduction and Safety could all be eliminated from main article page, yet still appear on Wikipedia and linked as a "See Also." This would leave the WHO information, but I strongly believe this ought to be shortened as it is clearly not NPOV either in its relevant data, or in what was cherry-picked from this report. Currently, it is just another form of "smoking cessation" as lead of Health Effects. Addiction is currently the only one that I can think of leaving in there in much the same form it is now. Though I expect that information will likely change over time (read around 2030, when Wikipedia editors are actually able to reach reasonable consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw40nw (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose We are obligated by WP:NPOV to present viewpoints as they are represented among reliable sources on the topic. The WHO is specifically called out as a reliable source for medical information in WP:MEDRS, which is an established policy of Wikipedia. Furthermore there is a specific policy against WP:POVFORKs. The policy states that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Formerly 98 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Disagree with obligation you cite. Not disagreeing with WP:NOV which I linked to (first), but with your understanding that this is a relevant resource on topic of eCigs, as it is precisely what is creating biased perspective. This article is not medical, and has not been established as such. I also noted that the WHO report data has been cherry picked, and that the 2nd of 44 points was not selected, nor the 20th of 44 points, but only a point that supports those who's end goal is to keep people using 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which clearly represents a conflict of interest either within this debate, and is visible on talk page, or within an editor on an eCig article page.
You also cite POV Forking as is your POV bias. From the page on forking it states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
The spinoff that I suggested is not to deliberately create a content article that avoids neutral point of view guidelines. It is not me, as editor saying, let's put all the pro-vaping items on one page and all the anti-vaping items on another. That would be POV forking. Instead, it would be a spinoff of the Health Effects section (and related information) which is currently challenging the neutrality status of the eCig main article. That spinoff ought to include all sides editors of that page wish to include. You mischaracterize my proposal for a spinoff, because either you misunderstand my intent or you have POV bias at work, and is perhaps one of several reasons why the eCig article currently shows up with neutrality label for eCig article is questionable.
As the Health Effects information for eCigs is a) controversial, b) inconclusive and c) that which is challenging the neutrality status of the main article on eCigs, then the words found on WP:SS very much seem to apply here: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article.
Again, this is not POV forking as I am not proposing that a particular POV be conveyed in the spinoff. I do care what is put in the spinoff page and may be one of the editors on that page, but believe all relevant and important POV's ought to occur in the spinoff, or in essence that the anti-vaping and pro-vaping factions can vet the "Health Effects of eCigs" on a page that is different than what is the main article for eCigs as clearly this section is what is causing questionable neutrality for the eCig main article. Gw40nw (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is fair length given the ongoing and exhaustively lengthy discussions on this talk page which have thus far amounted to a main article with questionable neutrality. I bolded the most important parts to clue anyone with short attention span in to key points for this proposal. The background, or preface, is necessary because it explains how editors got to where the article is today and why I, as editor, don't see neutrality for main article ever changing (or for at least 5 years) unless the proposed suggestion to spinoff the Health Effects section occurs thereby eliminating and/or drastically shortening that content on the main article page for eCigs. Gw40nw (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely the difference of opinion between e cig advocates and long term Wikipedia editors on the weight to give health issues described in your comments that is the POV difference that this poposal seeks to fork. In fact your own rationale for why this split is desirable us the best evidence that doing so would violate Wikipedia policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with Formerly here, even if i think that the current weight in the health sections is somewhat scewed towards a quit-perspective as opposed to a balanced one between harm-reduction and quit. POV-forks are never valid, and you can't just remove things from this top level summary article... you can split off sections that have expanded beyond a reasonable size, and summarize them... but you can't just remove the info because you don't like what it says. The Neutral POV requires that all major and minor views be presented in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. If you feel that a section/part of the article is unbalanced then provide the reliable sources to support your view, and argum that the merit of these sources demand that we change the text - it may (actually is) not be easy, but time and patience will win out, if your arguments are solid, and based on strong sources. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Formerly 98, that editors who do not like the medical pov on the article are advocates, the forking of the health section at this point in time isnt a good idea. It would be a POVFORK, moving a section with problems off the main page so it can be avoided. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't have the energy to read the endless rows here and on related pages, but the suggestion that, with article at 90K bytes long, for the health aspects "one line, two at most, is sufficient on [the] main article page" seems utterly wrong. I'm rather amazed that anyone can believe this. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You don't even get the idea. We shouldn't be throwing out well-crafted paragraphs that tie together reliable sources to provide information. That's not what Wikipedia does. If you would propose to split the article into several sections, covering each in WP:summary style, not for the purpose of destroying any data but to make it easier to read an overview and dive into the desired aspect in an article with less restriction on length, that I can support, if I believe that goal is sincere. But don't highlight the advantages of not telling the reader about what is known - even when it is sketchy. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional Editor Commentary. Currently these well crafted paragraphs of which you write are precisely that which questions the neutrality of the provided information. So, in this case, it is precisely what Wikipedia is doing. I have not once advocated for destroying or censoring data. The usage information on eCigs is the battle being had. I observe very little consensus occurring on the smallest of disputes, and none on the major disputes. In reality, the scientific community is still weighing in and has repeatedly noted that long term data is necessary. That won't occur in next year, or likely in next 5. So, on Wikipedia, spin will be what editors are to agree on with what goes where on main article page. The WHO report has criticisms from within scientific community, but that doesn't get mentioned on main article page because of a) lack of consensus to mention it and b) POV bias on what makes for reliable source or due weight. Therefore, it is nonsense to say we "tie together reliable sources to provide information" when our talk page makes clear that we are not allowing that tie together to occur, and are cherry-picking the data that some of us think is most relevant to usage.
As long as "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is posted, I feel vindicated in the proposal I am making. Tells me and any reader that Wikipedia is not able to present the information without influence from people with agendas (aka biased POVs). I realize that goes at least two ways, and suggest that for the time that scientific community is only focussed on short term data, that editors move that biased information to other pages, or risk a long term label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Gw40nw (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic "those who disagree with me are biased and pushing a POV" argument. But many of those who disagree with you have demonstrated their committment to building an encylopedia by editing hundreds of articles over many years. You, on the other hand, showed up a few months ago and have contributed almost exclusively to POV related discussions on this single article. To an outsider, you might look like a better candidate for these labels than those you so casually accuse. I'd recommend keeping such accusations to yourself. striking with apologies to the community. Inappropriate discussion of editor behavior on article Talk page.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have stated that I have bias as well, and would participate on other pages where those biases are warranted. I am trying to overcome the neutrality issue on this page. So to try and say that my position is other people have bias whereas I do not, is nonsense. I recognize that my bias would come into play in much the same way as it has with all other editors on this page. But unlike many of them, I do not wish to continue the spin on "inconclusive data" which would just continue to challenge the neutrality of this article. But, of course, you need to make this about the person rather than the points up for discussion cause heaven forbid we consider moving what is clearly partial tone on eCigs to some other page where we would vet the info more thoroughly while science continues to do its part.
WP:IMPARTIALITY states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. Gw40nw (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Biases are not warrented on any wikipedia articles .... ever! Wikipedia works only through the NPOV policy, which requires us to present information balanced in accordance with the prevalence in reliable sources. This means presenting majority views majorly, and minority views as minority views on the same articles. We cannot WP:SPLIT articles according to viewpoints - that is simply not allowed (see WP:POVSPLIT). We cannot "overcome" the neutrality issues.
I agree with you on some of the biases/issues in this article, but the way forward cannot (per Wikipedia policy) be the way that you present here. I will also note that you may have a confusion between what wikipedia deems neutrality and what the common press usually does, which is False balance. --Kim D. Petersen 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The split proposal is not according to viewpoints. I am not proposing that anything be split with one bias on this page and another bias elsewhere. I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias (as found on the talk page, via a lack of consensus) and as represented via disorganized, non-balanced content on the main article, be all moved to another page. There it would be, or could be, more thoroughly vetted, with all viewpoints discussed, but not constantly straining an otherwise NPOV main article on eCigs. I do think I get WP NPOV as I've reviewed it umpteen times and cited it on this page a few times. I sometimes wonder if other editors get it, but also see that come up from various editors as well. From explanation of NPOV
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Due to lack of consensus around "due weight" and biases that I've already noted which resulted in cherry-picking from the WHO report, the editorial decisions on the main article page for Health Effects lead is violating NPOV. I would say this is obvious to any reader familiar with the issues, and aware of scientific review of WHO report, which has been discussed on talk page (and elsewhere on Wikipedia domain), but again was not met with consensus for inclusion. The other sub-headings of Health Effects follow similar examples of editorial bias. And all of this, all of it, is on a topic that pretty much everyone agrees that the scientific data is inconclusive. Gw40nw (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is what comes accross in what you said that leads everyone so far, on both sides of the issue of the articles POV, to say that this is a POVFORK.

I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias

Splits based on these things is a WP:POVFORK. Please take a few minutes and review that editors from both viewpoints on the POV issue are disagreeing with you on this proposed edit and that the odds on it being done with broad consensus against it are slim and none. Sometimes its important to hear who is saying something. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional Comment: I have reviewed WP POVFORK. I observe other editors on this page, and particularly on this topic, convey some WP policy to me, but not quote from it. I'll quote from it, to (again) show that I am in fact following policy whereas it appears to me that editorial bias at this time is leading to this article having the standing it does (neutrality is questioned). POVFORK states:
Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.
The additional article I am proposing would be based entirely on the existing POV (with editorial biases at work) and not on a singular POV. So not a violation of WP policies. The current article is not adhering to WP policy because it is disallowing all facts and major points of view on the subject of health effects. It is observably on talk page where these items are disallowed, and it is based on lack of consensus. POVFORK further states:
Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.
I would suggest it is not best to refer to the fork I am suggesting as POV for it strongly implies that the way the current article is written has POV and is thus violating WP neutral point of view. I am not suggesting changing this article (for Health Effects) from what is currently written unless editors on that additional page see fit to do so, by consensus. As WP POVFORK explains, there is acceptable types of forking. I've already alluded to how this applies to this proposal. I do not believe a consensus will be reached anytime soon on Health Effects of eCigs, and do observe that neutrality of the main article is questioned. Oppose this proposal all that is desired, but fellow editors are neglecting the fact that POV and lack of neutrality in POV are present on the current article, and there is currently no other proposed solution on Talk Page to get around that. Gw40nw (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • More Commentary I strongly believe the nature of this proposal is being mischaracterized. So, I intended to present further information based from WP NPOV and from what I've already stated, to make the case for this proposal stronger. Under Health Effects, the first sentence reads: As of 2014 electronic cigarettes have not been approved for helping people quit smoking by any government. This then continues as main point for Health Effects, even while the lede of the main article has already stated: One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data to be inconclusive.[8] I emphasize "inconclusive" because that is found in various places of the main article. eCigs are not accepted / approved as smoking cessation because the data is inconclusive. Does any Wikipedia editor dispute this? The WHO report speaks to more than cessation with regard to eCigs and health, but instead this point (#21 out of 44) was cherry-picked to make this what Health Effects for eCigs ought to zero in on. Every point in Health Effects points to lack of data. Such as: The UK National Health Service has concluded, "While e-cigarettes may be safer than conventional cigarettes, we don’t yet know the long-term effects of vaping on the body. There are clinical trials in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, but until these are complete, the government can’t give any advice on them or recommend their use." or in the next paragraph: In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded, "E-cigarettes have not been fully studied
And yet, there is no presentation here to represent what has been done, because of lack of consensus around due weight. So, the narrative is that "smoking cessation" is prime aspect of Health Effects, but that data is inconclusive and never mind that in the US eCig vendors cannot, according to Leon ruling, make such claims. This is to be ignored. Never mind that a scientific review of the WHO report does exist in a reliable source, this is to be ignored due to lack of consensus around due weight.
Under Article Structure of WP NPOV, it states: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
I observe no indication of trying to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates of Health Effects into the narrative. This is due to proponents and opponents having a back-and-forth dialogue that is visible on the talk page. The eCig article has managed to create an apparent hierarchy of fact around smoking cessation while simultaneously adhering to notion that the facts are inconclusive.
The main article shows up as one big challenge to WP's NPOV pillar in several ways. I've noted some of that here in this proposal and my comments from those who keep framing my proposal as if I'm trying to fork content in such a way that would result in proponents content goes here, and opponents content goes over there. Instead, I'm saying none of it ought to be on main article for eCigs page precisely because the data is inconclusive, needs more long term scientific study, and is causing unnecessary spin from Wikipedia editors. Gw40nw (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request administrator to change two instances of "cartage" to "cartridge" in the "First Generation section. --Pete (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Eliminate or Drastically Change "Health Effects" Section of Article

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

I preface this proposal for drastically editing the Health Effects section with the following:

  • I strongly believe and/or observe that this section, among 3 total in the current article, are precisely what is constantly challenging the NPOV of this article. I therefore argue for elimination, though recognize other editors are unlikely to consider that for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I would argue that "Health Effects" ought to be its own separate page and that one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page as POV is clearly biased in literally everything that currently appears in this section. It is furthermore disputed by competing interests on Talk Page (and found extensively in Archives) and ultimately resides in a vague category summarized by "not enough evidence to determine" one way or the other.
  • I have reviewed Archived pages on "Health Effects" before writing this proposal. I have not thoroughly reviewed them because I find the subject either disorganized on the Talk Page (and Archives) or an extension of the "not enough evidence" variety, and thus, in essence, stating very little of importance.
  • Perhaps restating the first point, but I believe as long as the inconclusive, and rather biased data is allowed to stay in "Health Effects" section as necessary part of main article page on Electronic Cigarettes, that Wikipedia, at best, will be caught up in a NPOV battle for as long as that data is determined, by all parties, as inconclusive or lacking evidence (read as many years to come). And at worst, Wikipedia shows up as lacking credibility, even integrity, on the topic of Electronic Cigarettes. I do not make this last assertion lightly. I feel this reflects very poorly on editorial decisions on this topic.

Clearly, the competing interests regarding health effects of Electronic Cigarettes (eCigs) and the topic of eCigs in general, are between tobacco control advocates and vaping enthusiasts. Tobacco control advocates hold an inherent conflict of interest as eCigs are not currently (at end of 2014) a tobacco product, and yet are routinely framed in that light to serve the goals of tobacco control advocates. Vaping enthusiasts hold a conflict of interest because many, or vast majority of eCig users are ex-smokers who are prone to make claims or support positions that seek to establish eCigs as a (wonderful) smoking cessation device. Though, not all vaping enthusiasts have made this claim, and thus a prominent bias is established which just so happens to be the chief competing interest on the Electronic Cigarette page, second only to those who support or tout the Tobacco Control advocacy position.

The 2009 Judge Leon ruling, which is only briefly mentioned on the Legality page and surprisingly not mentioned at all on the main article page, states that the FDA cannot regulate eCigs as drug-delivery devices. Yet, some Wikipedia editors hold to that position as to how to process all usage data on eCigs. Moreover, the Leon ruling stated that "absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer" the FDA lacks authority to regulate these products at all (at that time). It does state that FDA could (conceivably) regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA (Tobacco Control Act). At end of 2014, and thru entire duration of this main article on eCigs, the US has not deemed eCigs a tobacco product.

The WHO report, as sourced in the Health Effects section, strongly appears to hold to the position that eCig manufacturers are still making therapeutic claims of smoking cessation. While in 2011 and before this may have in fact been the case, to varying degrees, it is no longer possible to find a majority or substantial amount of manufacturers making this claim. Thus, it comes back to vaping enthusiasts who may, or may not, proffer such a position. Thus POV regarding bias of what an eCig is. And to be sure that vaping enthusiasts are not advancing that position to far, the tobacco control advocacy groups counter this rhetoric with their own bias around 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which again Leon ruled (or explained) that eCig manufacturers are best to avoid.

Even the information mentioned in the main article from the WHO report is biased. It states: found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods.

This is made in around the 21st point of 44 total points. The 2nd point of the report is: (eCigs) are the subject of a public health dispute among bona fide tobacco-control advocates that has become more divisive as their use has increased. This is not mentioned on the main article page, even while it is clearly permeating the talk page on Wikipedia and currently leading to the label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The WHO report, also has fueled that divisiveness in many ways, not the least of which is scientific review that has addressed, or clarified, several points of mischaracterization in the WHO report. But, of course we don't mention this on the main article page because of "undue weight" and yet let stand the rather biased position of the WHO report. Neither is there mention of the 20th point in the report that states (in part): At this level of efficacy, the use of ENDS is likely to help some smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

I write all this to convey the inherent bias that is prevalent both on the main article page and in many of the discussions, comments, RFC's found on the talk page. As I've stated before, the whole topic, as presented on main article page, is straining NPOV constantly. Moreover, it comes off as disorganized (which is yet another dispute on current talk page) and presents usage data that is, in reality, outdated.

Because I fully believe a NPOV article can be presented as the main article on eCigs, I write this proposal. I strongly believe usage information is the primary culprit for the dispute, and that it takes two (sides) to tango. While I too have my own bias, I would urge that as long as data is inconclusive on eCigs (as noted in 2nd paragraph of the lede) that usage information (includes all Health Effects data) be shortened and spun off to other pages, with explanation that represents honest disagreement found on the talk page. This is clearly a situation warranting a "controversy" spinoff on Wikipedia, as I have seen with other topics. I do not believe, nor observe, a resolution toward consensus on these controversies occurring any time soon (highly unlikely in 2015, very unlikely in next 5 years), or maybe around 2030 Wikipedia editors will have more substantial information to present a consensus approach to use type information on eCigs.

I propose drastically shortened text blocks under each sub-heading in the Health Effects section, including elimination of some headings that are likely better served on other pages as "see also" links. In my view, Smoking Cessation, Harm Reduction and Safety could all be eliminated from main article page, yet still appear on Wikipedia and linked as a "See Also." This would leave the WHO information, but I strongly believe this ought to be shortened as it is clearly not NPOV either in its relevant data, or in what was cherry-picked from this report. Currently, it is just another form of "smoking cessation" as lead of Health Effects. Addiction is currently the only one that I can think of leaving in there in much the same form it is now. Though I expect that information will likely change over time (read around 2030, when Wikipedia editors are actually able to reach reasonable consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw40nw (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose We are obligated by WP:NPOV to present viewpoints as they are represented among reliable sources on the topic. The WHO is specifically called out as a reliable source for medical information in WP:MEDRS, which is an established policy of Wikipedia. Furthermore there is a specific policy against WP:POVFORKs. The policy states that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Formerly 98 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Disagree with obligation you cite. Not disagreeing with WP:NOV which I linked to (first), but with your understanding that this is a relevant resource on topic of eCigs, as it is precisely what is creating biased perspective. This article is not medical, and has not been established as such. I also noted that the WHO report data has been cherry picked, and that the 2nd of 44 points was not selected, nor the 20th of 44 points, but only a point that supports those who's end goal is to keep people using 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which clearly represents a conflict of interest either within this debate, and is visible on talk page, or within an editor on an eCig article page.
You also cite POV Forking as is your POV bias. From the page on forking it states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
The spinoff that I suggested is not to deliberately create a content article that avoids neutral point of view guidelines. It is not me, as editor saying, let's put all the pro-vaping items on one page and all the anti-vaping items on another. That would be POV forking. Instead, it would be a spinoff of the Health Effects section (and related information) which is currently challenging the neutrality status of the eCig main article. That spinoff ought to include all sides editors of that page wish to include. You mischaracterize my proposal for a spinoff, because either you misunderstand my intent or you have POV bias at work, and is perhaps one of several reasons why the eCig article currently shows up with neutrality label for eCig article is questionable.
As the Health Effects information for eCigs is a) controversial, b) inconclusive and c) that which is challenging the neutrality status of the main article on eCigs, then the words found on WP:SS very much seem to apply here: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article.
Again, this is not POV forking as I am not proposing that a particular POV be conveyed in the spinoff. I do care what is put in the spinoff page and may be one of the editors on that page, but believe all relevant and important POV's ought to occur in the spinoff, or in essence that the anti-vaping and pro-vaping factions can vet the "Health Effects of eCigs" on a page that is different than what is the main article for eCigs as clearly this section is what is causing questionable neutrality for the eCig main article. Gw40nw (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is fair length given the ongoing and exhaustively lengthy discussions on this talk page which have thus far amounted to a main article with questionable neutrality. I bolded the most important parts to clue anyone with short attention span in to key points for this proposal. The background, or preface, is necessary because it explains how editors got to where the article is today and why I, as editor, don't see neutrality for main article ever changing (or for at least 5 years) unless the proposed suggestion to spinoff the Health Effects section occurs thereby eliminating and/or drastically shortening that content on the main article page for eCigs. Gw40nw (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely the difference of opinion between e cig advocates and long term Wikipedia editors on the weight to give health issues described in your comments that is the POV difference that this poposal seeks to fork. In fact your own rationale for why this split is desirable us the best evidence that doing so would violate Wikipedia policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with Formerly here, even if i think that the current weight in the health sections is somewhat scewed towards a quit-perspective as opposed to a balanced one between harm-reduction and quit. POV-forks are never valid, and you can't just remove things from this top level summary article... you can split off sections that have expanded beyond a reasonable size, and summarize them... but you can't just remove the info because you don't like what it says. The Neutral POV requires that all major and minor views be presented in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. If you feel that a section/part of the article is unbalanced then provide the reliable sources to support your view, and argum that the merit of these sources demand that we change the text - it may (actually is) not be easy, but time and patience will win out, if your arguments are solid, and based on strong sources. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Formerly 98, that editors who do not like the medical pov on the article are advocates, the forking of the health section at this point in time isnt a good idea. It would be a POVFORK, moving a section with problems off the main page so it can be avoided. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't have the energy to read the endless rows here and on related pages, but the suggestion that, with article at 90K bytes long, for the health aspects "one line, two at most, is sufficient on [the] main article page" seems utterly wrong. I'm rather amazed that anyone can believe this. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You don't even get the idea. We shouldn't be throwing out well-crafted paragraphs that tie together reliable sources to provide information. That's not what Wikipedia does. If you would propose to split the article into several sections, covering each in WP:summary style, not for the purpose of destroying any data but to make it easier to read an overview and dive into the desired aspect in an article with less restriction on length, that I can support, if I believe that goal is sincere. But don't highlight the advantages of not telling the reader about what is known - even when it is sketchy. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional Editor Commentary. Currently these well crafted paragraphs of which you write are precisely that which questions the neutrality of the provided information. So, in this case, it is precisely what Wikipedia is doing. I have not once advocated for destroying or censoring data. The usage information on eCigs is the battle being had. I observe very little consensus occurring on the smallest of disputes, and none on the major disputes. In reality, the scientific community is still weighing in and has repeatedly noted that long term data is necessary. That won't occur in next year, or likely in next 5. So, on Wikipedia, spin will be what editors are to agree on with what goes where on main article page. The WHO report has criticisms from within scientific community, but that doesn't get mentioned on main article page because of a) lack of consensus to mention it and b) POV bias on what makes for reliable source or due weight. Therefore, it is nonsense to say we "tie together reliable sources to provide information" when our talk page makes clear that we are not allowing that tie together to occur, and are cherry-picking the data that some of us think is most relevant to usage.
As long as "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is posted, I feel vindicated in the proposal I am making. Tells me and any reader that Wikipedia is not able to present the information without influence from people with agendas (aka biased POVs). I realize that goes at least two ways, and suggest that for the time that scientific community is only focussed on short term data, that editors move that biased information to other pages, or risk a long term label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Gw40nw (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic "those who disagree with me are biased and pushing a POV" argument. But many of those who disagree with you have demonstrated their committment to building an encylopedia by editing hundreds of articles over many years. You, on the other hand, showed up a few months ago and have contributed almost exclusively to POV related discussions on this single article. To an outsider, you might look like a better candidate for these labels than those you so casually accuse. I'd recommend keeping such accusations to yourself. striking with apologies to the community. Inappropriate discussion of editor behavior on article Talk page.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have stated that I have bias as well, and would participate on other pages where those biases are warranted. I am trying to overcome the neutrality issue on this page. So to try and say that my position is other people have bias whereas I do not, is nonsense. I recognize that my bias would come into play in much the same way as it has with all other editors on this page. But unlike many of them, I do not wish to continue the spin on "inconclusive data" which would just continue to challenge the neutrality of this article. But, of course, you need to make this about the person rather than the points up for discussion cause heaven forbid we consider moving what is clearly partial tone on eCigs to some other page where we would vet the info more thoroughly while science continues to do its part.
WP:IMPARTIALITY states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. Gw40nw (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Biases are not warrented on any wikipedia articles .... ever! Wikipedia works only through the NPOV policy, which requires us to present information balanced in accordance with the prevalence in reliable sources. This means presenting majority views majorly, and minority views as minority views on the same articles. We cannot WP:SPLIT articles according to viewpoints - that is simply not allowed (see WP:POVSPLIT). We cannot "overcome" the neutrality issues.
I agree with you on some of the biases/issues in this article, but the way forward cannot (per Wikipedia policy) be the way that you present here. I will also note that you may have a confusion between what wikipedia deems neutrality and what the common press usually does, which is False balance. --Kim D. Petersen 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The split proposal is not according to viewpoints. I am not proposing that anything be split with one bias on this page and another bias elsewhere. I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias (as found on the talk page, via a lack of consensus) and as represented via disorganized, non-balanced content on the main article, be all moved to another page. There it would be, or could be, more thoroughly vetted, with all viewpoints discussed, but not constantly straining an otherwise NPOV main article on eCigs. I do think I get WP NPOV as I've reviewed it umpteen times and cited it on this page a few times. I sometimes wonder if other editors get it, but also see that come up from various editors as well. From explanation of NPOV
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
Due to lack of consensus around "due weight" and biases that I've already noted which resulted in cherry-picking from the WHO report, the editorial decisions on the main article page for Health Effects lead is violating NPOV. I would say this is obvious to any reader familiar with the issues, and aware of scientific review of WHO report, which has been discussed on talk page (and elsewhere on Wikipedia domain), but again was not met with consensus for inclusion. The other sub-headings of Health Effects follow similar examples of editorial bias. And all of this, all of it, is on a topic that pretty much everyone agrees that the scientific data is inconclusive. Gw40nw (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is what comes accross in what you said that leads everyone so far, on both sides of the issue of the articles POV, to say that this is a POVFORK.

I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias

Splits based on these things is a WP:POVFORK. Please take a few minutes and review that editors from both viewpoints on the POV issue are disagreeing with you on this proposed edit and that the odds on it being done with broad consensus against it are slim and none. Sometimes its important to hear who is saying something. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional Comment: I have reviewed WP POVFORK. I observe other editors on this page, and particularly on this topic, convey some WP policy to me, but not quote from it. I'll quote from it, to (again) show that I am in fact following policy whereas it appears to me that editorial bias at this time is leading to this article having the standing it does (neutrality is questioned). POVFORK states:
Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.
The additional article I am proposing would be based entirely on the existing POV (with editorial biases at work) and not on a singular POV. So not a violation of WP policies. The current article is not adhering to WP policy because it is disallowing all facts and major points of view on the subject of health effects. It is observably on talk page where these items are disallowed, and it is based on lack of consensus. POVFORK further states:
Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.
I would suggest it is not best to refer to the fork I am suggesting as POV for it strongly implies that the way the current article is written has POV and is thus violating WP neutral point of view. I am not suggesting changing this article (for Health Effects) from what is currently written unless editors on that additional page see fit to do so, by consensus. As WP POVFORK explains, there is acceptable types of forking. I've already alluded to how this applies to this proposal. I do not believe a consensus will be reached anytime soon on Health Effects of eCigs, and do observe that neutrality of the main article is questioned. Oppose this proposal all that is desired, but fellow editors are neglecting the fact that POV and lack of neutrality in POV are present on the current article, and there is currently no other proposed solution on Talk Page to get around that. Gw40nw (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • More Commentary I strongly believe the nature of this proposal is being mischaracterized. So, I intended to present further information based from WP NPOV and from what I've already stated, to make the case for this proposal stronger. Under Health Effects, the first sentence reads: As of 2014 electronic cigarettes have not been approved for helping people quit smoking by any government. This then continues as main point for Health Effects, even while the lede of the main article has already stated: One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data to be inconclusive.[8] I emphasize "inconclusive" because that is found in various places of the main article. eCigs are not accepted / approved as smoking cessation because the data is inconclusive. Does any Wikipedia editor dispute this? The WHO report speaks to more than cessation with regard to eCigs and health, but instead this point (#21 out of 44) was cherry-picked to make this what Health Effects for eCigs ought to zero in on. Every point in Health Effects points to lack of data. Such as: The UK National Health Service has concluded, "While e-cigarettes may be safer than conventional cigarettes, we don’t yet know the long-term effects of vaping on the body. There are clinical trials in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, but until these are complete, the government can’t give any advice on them or recommend their use." or in the next paragraph: In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded, "E-cigarettes have not been fully studied
And yet, there is no presentation here to represent what has been done, because of lack of consensus around due weight. So, the narrative is that "smoking cessation" is prime aspect of Health Effects, but that data is inconclusive and never mind that in the US eCig vendors cannot, according to Leon ruling, make such claims. This is to be ignored. Never mind that a scientific review of the WHO report does exist in a reliable source, this is to be ignored due to lack of consensus around due weight.
Under Article Structure of WP NPOV, it states: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
I observe no indication of trying to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates of Health Effects into the narrative. This is due to proponents and opponents having a back-and-forth dialogue that is visible on the talk page. The eCig article has managed to create an apparent hierarchy of fact around smoking cessation while simultaneously adhering to notion that the facts are inconclusive.
The main article shows up as one big challenge to WP's NPOV pillar in several ways. I've noted some of that here in this proposal and my comments from those who keep framing my proposal as if I'm trying to fork content in such a way that would result in proponents content goes here, and opponents content goes over there. Instead, I'm saying none of it ought to be on main article for eCigs page precisely because the data is inconclusive, needs more long term scientific study, and is causing unnecessary spin from Wikipedia editors. Gw40nw (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I came to this article looking for medical information after seeing a vendor in a mall (at the end of 2014) claim that his products were completely safe and helped smokers quit. Medical claims were the main selling points he made for the product. They're a major topic of public debate. So ignoring medical claims seems silly. There ought to be information on medical aspects, even if the article only said "Nothing is known about whether this product is safe or helps smokers quit". Even defining areas of ignorance is useful.
But saying "Nothing is known about whether this product is safe or helps smokers quit" would not be honest. We all agree (I think) that there is not enough research on this topic, and that having more would give us more information, and more certainty that our knowledge is correct. But there is a big gap between "Existing knowledge is grossly inadequate" and "There is no knowledge at all". There is also a big gap between "Existing knowledge is uncertain" and "There is no certainty of anything" or "All our knowledge is equally uncertain". If we remove information because it is inadequate and uncertain, we might as well delete all scientific knowledge from Wikipedia :). Might it help if we used the IPCC plain-English terminology to talk about probability and certainty data (see boxes at bottom of page)?
We seem to have two sources of information:
  1. Reasonable extrapolations from existing knowledge, made by expert third-party sources. There is substantial research on the medical effects of inhaling aerosol, nicotine, and several of the other things that are sometimes included in e-cigarettes. We also have information on the effects of bloodstream concentrations of some of these (yeah, not the aerosols, obviously, but nicotine). There is also generic research on what helps people quit, individually and socially. So without anyone ever studying an e-cigarette, we can have some (inadequate, uncertain, but better than a random guess) information on their safety.
  2. Short-term studies on the effects of e-cigarettes, and reviews of the same.
Next is the question of what the information is. Lumping everything I read together, my impression is as follows:
  • Are e-cigarettes safe for the user? Probably not. They are almost certainly more dangerous than taking nothing, but almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes (the contents of e-cigarettes are variable and sometimes mislabelled, so this assumes common ingredients). They are probably less safe than some tested quit-smoking aids (like behavioural therapy and Nicotine inhalers), but they may be safer than some tested quitting aids.
  • Are e-cigarettes safe for bystanders? Probably not. It's probably usually safer to be around a person using an aerosol cigarette than a burning one, but it's probably still bad for your health. Using e-cigarettes while pregnant is probably bad for the fetus (based on studies of similar biochemical pathways; getting ethical approval to study this looks tricky).
  • Are e-cigarettes a good way to quit? Maybe, but nothing spectacular. E-cigarettes are not approved anywhere as a medical device to help people quit smoking, so the evidence of safety and efficacy that is normally required to get approval is absent. Nicotine inhalers, which are approved as medical devices for helping smokers quit, are only effective under some circumstances. There is weak evidence that e-cigarettes may help quitting about as much as some well-tested methods. Many smokers who start using e-cigarettes continue to use both.
  • Do e-cigarettes cause people to start smoking? Maybe, but not in huge numbers. Since this is a social effect, it may change over time. Studies have been small and short, so the evidence here is weak.
  • Are e-cigarettes used by people who have never smoked? Yes, in some groups, including some minors. Since this is a social effect, it depends strongly on the group of people (and time; use seems to be increasing rapidly). Partly because of this variability, the evidence here is weak.
I am not an expert in medical health and safety information. May I ask the people who are to tell me if this summary is accurate, please? If so, could we use a summary with similar information for the lede to Safety of electronic cigarettes (currently far too long)?
I do support changes that will make the section more of a description, giving a good overview. For instance: "A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked,[13] while a 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes.[3]" is an uninformative juxtaposition. Both reviews cited in this sentence in turn cite the SAME STUDY, as references 30 and nine respectively. We should be looking at the quality of evidence for different views and weighing them accordingly (WP:MEDASSESS). I realise that a POV conflict (and substantial conflicts of interest in the peer-reviewed literature) make(s) this hard to do. Any suggestions from people who have succeeded in other cases?
I don't think we can justify leaving out information because we argue about it, because it is a controversial topic, because it is often written about with bias, because our knowledge of it is limited, uncertain, or inconclusive, or because manufacturers not longer make legal claims about it (unfortunately, they did in 2012, and the claim is still published). If we did, we'd have to stop writing about most religion :). Are there other reasons I've missed? HLHJ (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Have we beat this dead horse long enough?

This proposal is dead in the water. There is opposition against it from all but one editor. Do we really need 5,000,000 more words to prove this? How about we just not post here as a group and let it be archived unless someone besides the person who proposed it supports it? AlbinoFerret 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with it being archived at this point. I tried and the proposal was not met with support. I still stand vindicated knowing I was in fact following WP policy and that the article is questionable in neutrality as written right now. So, allow this proposal to be archived and part of the endless debate that goes on for another 2 to 15 years where no editor, anywhere, will be able to present reasonably certain information about the health effects of electronic cigarettes. Gw40nw (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the PMID 25456810 to the source "A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes". Everymorning talk 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial.   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Language tweak edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Change (under Electronic cigarette#Addiction)

  • A 2014 systematic review found that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated.[77] A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked,[13] while a 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes.[3]

To (see bolded)

  • A 2014 systematic review found that the concerns that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated.[77] A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked,[13] while another 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes.[3]

Because:

  • The first bolded change reflects the review's language ("However, such concerns are unsubstantiated;") and sounds a lot less stupid IMO.
  • The second bolded change points out that it's a different review supporting the statement in this sentence; that might be obvious from the ref number alone, but it's better writing.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all changes before using {{editprotected}}, thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I need to discuss fixing a grammatically incorrect and incoherent clause ("A 2014 systematic review found that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated.")? Lol... I'm just going to let it sit there instead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments10 people in discussion

Another good review of the topic [10] More or less supports our current content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More or less supports our current content Quite, and can I suggest that what is maybe being overlooked in this lengthy discussion is that it doesn't bring very much new or different in terms of either scientific insight or policy proposals, so - regardless of contributors' funding, MEDRS, etc., etc., etc., - on those grounds alone it probably doesn't warrant much treatment in the article at all... Barnabypage (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I see its sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. AlbinoFerret 04:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Um what? Where does it say it was "sponsored" by anyone (other than the obvious endorsement by the two major medical societies publishing it....)? Yobol (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Read the "Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest". AlbinoFerret 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I have, and no where in that section does it say that the report is "sponsored" by any particular company or industry. If you are at all surprised or find it notable that 3 of 11 authors have made declarations about research funding or honoraria in their past, then you clearly have no experience with reading the medical literature. If you think that 3 of 11 authors having previous connections with different companies = sponsorship by those companies, you have no business commenting at all about medical literature in general. Yobol (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes there are authors who have received funding from industry. It does not say this paper was funded by industry though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Indirectly it was, and the source clearly lists them as conflicts of interest with the subject.AlbinoFerret 14:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That's utter nonsense. There is no "sponsorship" or funding by any company or industry, and continued insistence that there is despite the lack of evidence speaks volumes about the editor insisting on promoting such ignorance. Yobol (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Its clearly set forth in the source. I suggest you stick to the topic and not other editors. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
What you think the source says is not actually in the source. But you can have the last word, this is getting tedious. Yobol (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
An excellent source, which needs to be incorporated into this article. Yobol (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Belongs on Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes - as a review it would be problematic, as it is a policy statement. Policy from policy papers, Health/Medical from pure medical papers, as editors we're not equipped to decipher which parts of such a paper is representing policy views, and which are medical. If it is cited in another WP:MEDRS for findings, then we can use it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Position statements from major medical organizations are MEDRS for parts that discuss where the relevant state of the literature stands. Policy positions can and should be part of this article, but carefully worded to reflect that it is the position of that organization; whether any particular policy statement belongs here would be a WP:WEIGHT issue depending on criteria such as how prominent the organization is, etc. Yobol (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, they are WP:MEDRS - i agree - thus reliable for the position it makes. But you cannot use a political paper for medical statements. Sorry. There are no fields of science where you would use policy documents for science - are you are going to claim that this is the case for medicine ....?? --Kim D. Petersen 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In this case, the parts of these position statements that summarize the literature are usable as MEDRS as summaries of the literature for medical information. The parts that make policy recommendations may be usable (not so much for medical information) but in discussion of legal/policy matters. Yobol (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Position statements are the equivalent of opinion statements. They are subjective views on a topic area from organizations/societies. And are very valuable in measuring a potential consensus or general view of the scientific community within a particular area. But they are not themselves useful as fact/information outside of the policy/opinion... for that you have the underlying literature that informed the policy/opinion. If you can't find it in the underlying secondary literature, then you most certainly shouldn't use it. --Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Policy statements like these are as much an "opinion" as any review article is an "opinion", as they both try to summarize the medical literature as filtered through the lens of the authors. In the case of these statements, they have the added bonus that we know that these deserve significant weight, if produced by major medical organizations, as they tend to be written by multiple medical leaders in the field (and as such, deserve more weight IMO than some random review article in a low tier journal). These statements are also part of the medical literature and are secondary sources themselves, and are therefore citable as MEDRS sources for statements of fact (you seem to be implying otherwise). In any event, I'm not sure how productive continuing this particular meta-discussion will be until we get some specific proposals on how to improve this article using this source. Yobol (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a legal/policy statement. It might be useful on the positions page, but not much elsewhere. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It is both a summary of the medical literature (these parts are usable as MEDRS for statements about the underlying health effects) and a policy proposal statement (which are useful for policy parts of the article discussing policy proposals such as legal and regulatory policies). Yobol (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like there is no consensus on it being more than a legal/policy statement. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, we don't even have a firm proposal on how, if at all, to use this source, we should probably start there before jumping to conclusions about "consensus" in this two day old thread. Yobol (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A policy/position statement is supposed to reflect the opinion of the society/organization (and its members) based on the current state of the science, and the society/organizations feelings/views on how this is can be interpreted. This is in an of itself very valuable, specifically for gauging consensus and weight-issues. But it is not supposed to be a medical/scientific evaluation but a policy statement. These things are common in scientific venues. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, there is a difference between a policy statement and a systematic review for instance. Quite a bit of difference, including how the authors aggregate and analyse the information presented. Again I agree, a policy statement is useful as an indication of a particular organisation's point of view, not for reporting medical facts. With regard to conflicts of interest, I think that there is at least some indirect funding present from the pharmaceutical industry. Several authors report "research funding" from pharmaceutical companies and some of their research is included in the policy statement. I think this would be worth a mention if this is used as a source for the article.Levelledout (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quack has already added medical claims form this on the Safety page and Yobol reverted its removal. AlbinoFerret 04:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, your statement about funding is wrong (the work was not funded by companies) but even if it were, MEDRS says: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions". 2) MEDRS also says :"Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." (emphasis added). There is no basis in MEDRS for your objections that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim, is your argument that the two leading cancer research organizations worldwide don't base their policy statements on on their evaluation of the medical issues? It seems to me that their is a lot of hair splitting going on here in the effort to exclude what is clearly the exact type of source that MEDRS places in the first tier. As a "political statement", what agenda in particular do you think the American Association for Cancer Research might have other than minimizing the public health effects of cancer? These arguments seem to me to be going off the deep end. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course they do and have - and i can't find anywhere where i said anything other. The main problem here is that a policy statement is an advanced opinion statement, and thus subjective. It is extremely useful when examining consensus and the scientific opinion on a subject, but it does, by its very nature, present a specific take on the subject that is colored. It clearly belongs in Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, and it clearly should influence that article, and its summary here. For instance (in another topic area), we don't use the Academies of sciences position statements on climate change in our science pages, we use the underlying secondary sources that the Academies base their position upon! (such as the IPCC and NAS) --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. I feel so naive looking back on the days when I didn't understand I needed a bunch of vaping enthusiasts to protect me from the slanted viewpoints of the AHA, the World Health Organization, the Americam Society for Clinical Oncology, and the Anerican Association for Cancer Research. Who could know? Formerly 98 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Formerly 98: Do you yourself find that your comment here is in line with our policies? --Kim D. Petersen 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it was out of line and I apologize. But I have to say that the level of advocacy that has gone on at this article in my opinion eptomizes everything that is wrong with the idea of an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We're supposed to be here to evaluate reliable sources (per the criteria that have been set by consensus in a topic agnostic fashion) and to write articles that reflect that. According to these standards, that were created by people who were trying to set the course for developing a universally available free encyclopedia, sources like the Journal of the American Heart Association, and policy statements from organizations like the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society for Clinical Oncology, sit at the very top of the hierarchy of reliable sources. But we sit here day after day debating "how and if" to use these high quality sources because their conclusions are out of synch with the opinions of editors whose personal experience has been positive, and who consider that their personal experience trumps the conclusions of those who have studies the subject objectively and across the experience of large numbers of people. Its like the pharmaceutical articles in which which the one person in 100,000 who has a bad experience with Lipitor wants to rewrite the article to reflect their own personal experience.
From my point of view, its sad and pathetic. What this encyclopedia needs more than anything else is a hard rule saying that no one can have their edits on any single article exceed more that 10% of the their total edits for more than 2 consecutive weeks. Because the editors who will sit on a single article for weeks on end to fight for a certain POV are exactly the ones we don't want editing that article. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Formerly 98: Apology accepted... but here is the clinch: I haven't read this policy/position paper in full yet, i'm still digesting it. I have no idea whether it will turn out positive/negative or balanced, i presume that it would be balanced though, because i have faith in the scientific process. But I do comment entirely by "evaluat[ing] [the] reliable source - per the criteria that have been set by consensus in a topic agnostic fashion"... Which is why i gave the Academies of Sciences example (it is an epitome of consensus within science, but i'd still not use it, because it is a policy statement). You make assumptions here about other editors based on your preconceived view of what they think and how they would do things... But that is by its very nature, against the way Wikipedia should work, per our pillars... and unfortunately a continuation of the previous statement, albeit less terse. --Kim D. Petersen 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC) [or more concisely: I do not make assumptions about the source, but you on the other hand make assumptions of my motives :( --Kim D. Petersen 02:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)]

Per WP:MEDRS we use high quality sources to support medical content. Position statements can be used to support medical content. The comments regarding if this piece is usable or not is out of place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That would have been an excellent argument if reliability was a binary issue, but it isn't. This is a very reliable and useful source for the views/policy of the organizations in question. But it is not a medical review, and thus a less reliable and useful source for medical material than the underlying secondary sources that they used to form their policy/opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
From my reading of the policy statement it appears that most of it, if not all, is already in the article sourced from those secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes a confirmation that we are well matching the major positions regarding these devices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then what is the purpose of this policy statement in making medical claims? AlbinoFerret 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then, just as i stated above, there is no reason to use a policy paper, because the underlying secondary literature should be sufficient. This source should be used for the thing that it is intended to be: As a statement of what the current opinion of particular societies is, and nothing else. --Kim D. Petersen 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yay, another prime example of the blatant editorial bias that has potential to show up on the eCig Wikipedia page. Main points in the article are (really):

- may or may not be harmful (meaningless statement)
- definitive data are lacking (which undermines any contention that one might put forth about eCigs as being harmful)
- eCigs are all about smoking cessation (clearly a bias at work)

The entire abstract (like the article) oozes of bias and conflict of interest. That fellow Wikipedia editors think this has ANY significant bearing on what is an eCig is very disappointing. But it is what it is, and let the endless back and forth continue as if this is yet another authoritative, neutrally written article about eCigs. I'm sure one day we will reach consensus on these matters. Just not in this decade. Gw40nw (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential new source

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
eCigs as another form of smoking and/or smoking cessation device is the editorial bias on the article page that I keep referencing. On a separate page that wishes to present the argument (written from non neutral POV of 2 sides having a visible disagreement over what eCigs are for) this sort of item is warranted. Just like much of what currently exists under Health Effects and Usage. But for a NPOV article to be presented on main article page for eCigs, I would not like to see this type of information. Gw40nw (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Does it have a PMID? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 25303892. Everymorning talk 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21&oldid=1255168997"