Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Canada

Propose wording: "The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has stated, "While early studies show some potential benefits, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes with nicotine as a smoking cessation device is not fully conclusive," and expressed concerns about the lack of long term studies with regard to health effects to the user as well as second hand exposure. They also note public health officials' concerns about renormalizing smoking behavior undermining current tobacco control as well as being a gateway for nicotine addiction and tobacco abuse."[1]

There is no mention of Canada's position in the Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations section. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that what the reader needs to take away from that section is:- (1) Western national medical authorities unanimously agree that we need more studies of e-cigs before we'll know how to regulate them; and (2) Nicotine's addictive, so don't start using them if you don't smoke; and (3) There are a few proven ways to quit smoking but as yet, none of them involve e-cigs; but (4) If you really must inhale clouds of nicotine, then as far as we know vaping is probably a bit safer than smoking. We need to distil that basic message down into a single paragraph that's well-supported by sources, say it, and move on. It's definitely a mistake to repeat the same basic information several times in slightly different language because each separate national medical authority phrases its advice slightly differently. Only add another source if it says something new.—S Marshall T/C 05:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with providing a summary of points reflected by all or most organisations and going into more detail only where the positions actually differ from each other.Levelledout (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with S Marshall wholeheartedly. SPACKlick (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Per WP:SUMMARY we should summarise the main article. This include statements from various organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SUMMARY doesn't instruct us to repeat the same information several times. All the guidance from the reputable, national-level authorities is fundamentally the same.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes it's a pretty awful excuse and flawed logic to say that it's OK to repeat something umpteen times if the sub-article does it. The sub-article shouldn't be repetitive in the first place. And repitition would appear to be the antithesis of a summary.Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Different sources say different things. We can't conduct our own review of what we think the medical authorities unanimously agree upon. Each source says many things. If there is an issue with similar text an editor can read the source and add something else instead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
      • QG, I am tired of your obvious WP:FILIBUSTERING. Consensus does not require unanimity and consensus so far is clearly to summarise and not repeat.Levelledout (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Quack, where the majority of the sources say the same thing just in slightly different ways with slightly different focal points the job of the encyclopedia editor is to compile that into a form that is easier for the reader to get information from than reading each source. The repetition is harmful to the encyclopedia. SPACKlick (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline

• I think that this is important, and I think other editors as well as QuackGuru will find this point difficult. The problem is that in contentious areas, editors are taught to use the very best sources and stick very closely to them. By doing this, a lot of rubbish and nonsense is removed from the encyclopaedia. Editors who are active in contentious areas will have learned this lesson very thoroughly because admins shout it at them while holding big sticks. In contentious areas, this is how Wikipedia works.
  The problem is that you end up with an article that reads like this:- "According to source X, there has never been an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in Colorado. According to source Y, no lesser-spotted sasquatches have been seen in Alabama by separate people who can confirm each other's stories. According to source Z, no black people from Wisconsin have ever seen a lesser-spotted sasquatch at all..." and goes on, and on, and on. What you really need to do is say something like "Four studies could not find an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in any of the areas they covered", stick all four sources after your sentence, and move on.
  Which brings me to another point: According to a 2015 review, 47.63% of this article consists of precise and narrowly-defined statistical statements. Those belong, in some areas of the encyclopaedia ---- particularly technical areas that are likely to be read by people with a decent scientific education. They're also popular with Wikipedians, because Wikipedians tend to be in the upper quartile of intelligence and educational attainment (read: nerds). But this article is non-technical and our audience is the general reader ---- including people who are seriously considering using e-cigarettes. And, if I can be permitted a statistic of my own, half of those people will be of below average ability... I'm afraid a lot of the people who want or need to read this article will find the statistics impenetrable. We do need to turn mathematical and statistical sentences into accessible ones.
  Going through the e-cig article doing this, to remove repetition and turn statistical statements into conclusions, is really the next important stage in its development, but it's also likely to cause friction, so I'd like to pause here, discuss the ramifications and get consensus for the general approach I propose before continuing.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I get a lot less time to edit now so I don't think I'll be able to massively contribute but I've been on board with this proposal for months. It really needs doing. Your analogy is perfect. People who read this article will indeed generally not be scientists they will be consumers and most of them won't get beyond the lead because of the way it's currently written. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think I'll just stick a big flag on this right now to make sure editors don't miss the key point.
  This proposal does involve removing sourced content from the article.
  It also involves rephrasing statistical statements as simple declarative statements, so it needs consensus before I start.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what you propose to do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly, and I think in fact it'll be better to give several examples.
  1) "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." ---> "In the UK user numbers tripled in the year to 2013."
  2) "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked. Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, those who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012 and those still vaping rose from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%." ---> "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." (The intention here is to delete statistical sentences because they add nothing to the first sentence, but to keep the sources, placing them directly after the first sentence, which they do support.)
  3) "In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 51% said they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked, 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% still uses them. In 2013, among those under 18, 7% have used e-cigarettes at least once. Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use. Sustained use was mostly confined to children who smoke or have smoked. In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%, children who have ever used e-cigarettes was at 10%, and occasional or greater use among never-smoking children was at 0.18%. About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers." --> "In the UK, about half of the people who smoke have tried vaping, but only about 1% of the people who do not smoke have tried it. About 7% of smokers' children have tried vaping, but only about 1% of non-smokers' children."
  Does that help?—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks. This "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." gives much more information than increased three fold. so I would oppose the change. Three fold could me increase from 5 to 15 or 5 million to 15 million which are very different.

With respect to the second example I would say delete the first sentence as it adds nothing to the second one. Is increasing from 3.3% to 6.8% "growing rapidly"? Some may say yes other may say no. We should not be telling people what to think but giving them the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's true of some articles but not others. Some articles should be aimed at people with a good academic education ---- for example, Mayer–Vietoris sequence is quite properly aimed at people with an undergraduate understanding of mathematics; it's not the kind of thing a general reader is likely to look up. So it's reasonable for that article to contain text like:
  $\cdots \rightarrow H_{n}(A\cap B,C\cap D)\,{\xrightarrow {(i_{*},j_{*})}}\,H_{n}(A,C)\oplus H_{n}(B,D)\,{\xrightarrow {k_{*}-l_{*}}}\,H_{n}(X,Y)\,{\xrightarrow {\partial _{*}}}\,H_{n-1}(A\cap B,C\cap D)\rightarrow \cdots$
  Because the intended audience will be able to make sense of it. On the other hand, articles on everyday devices and utensils mostly do not assume a high level of education on the reader's part and do not lean heavily on statistics, even when these are associated with medicine. Look how our articles on syringe, nebulizer, eye drop, catheter, or transdermal patch are phrased appropriately for the likely audience, and consider the jump in reading age between those articles and this one. We shouldn't be writing this article for scientists and doctors ---- they are not, or bloody well ought not to be, reading Wikipedia to find detailed statistical data about e-cigarettes. We should be writing for schoolchildren who're considering whether to take a puff, who are people who're very likely to turn to Wikipedia for information. I feel that there are good ethical reasons to make this article more accessible to them.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen way to may people try to bent the truth by converting raw data to percentages.

This "increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013" is not rocket science. Everyone can understand it.

Increased by three fold means so much less it is nearly meaningless and is no simpler. So I strongly oppose your suggestion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I added "Between 2013 and 2014, vaping among students tripled." I don't think it is duplication after reading the above discussion. The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability and will make the wording too vague and thus meaningless. I disagree with replacing precisely written text with ambiguous text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am torn, because I really do wish the message underneath the statistics would be made clearer, but as Doc points out, removing all the well-sourced statistics will actually increase doubt instead of decreasing it, and subjective summarization like "rapidly" is asking for trouble. I would support this effort if it could be done in a way where the underlying data isn't removed from the article altogether. Perhaps sections can start off with a summary paragraph that gives simpler, easier-to-read overview of the data upcoming in the following sentences or paragraphs, and then the more data-driven content can follow for those who want to plow through it. Zad68 05:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe my favourite quote from this discussion so far is The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability, which as far as I can tell was not meant as a joke. Fortunately, Zad68's view does offer a workable way forward. We could fission off most of statistical content to a series of footnotes. (I agree that a smaller number of key statistics should remain in the text.) I would recommend using a separate footnotes group, and will knock up an example in a sandbox.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• ... and I've done this here so you can see how it might look. I've only done a few examples, but the intention is to show most of the statistics in the article in this way.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The data is important. Not something that should be hidden within the refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how would you make this article's impenetrable morass of turgid statistics accessible to a schoolchild who's wondering whether to take a puff?—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't work out where to fit this response in the discussion so dumping it at the bottom. While the example of absolute numbers in the UK is contentious (and I am in favour of keeping them there although a rephrase of "In the UK user numbers tripled to 2.1 million from 2012 to 2013." The other suggestions look good so far.SPACKlick (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request image for Motivation section

Currently there is no image for the Motivation section, yet I have a wonderful idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.<ref name=Grana2014/> See Electronic cigarette#Motivation. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You Cannot caption an image without the image to caption. If you just want a little summary of the section then post that as a header sentence to the section. Although "the e-cigarette" should be replaced with e-cigarettes and the word cigarettes should be removed. Common reasons people use e-cigarettes are a desire to quit or cut down on smoking or for use where smoking is prohibited.<ref name=Grana2014/>SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like a little summary in an image but I have not found the right image yet. Adding the text again to the same section would be repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Image was removed

The image was removed. So I replaced it with another image. The text about cloud-chasing was removed from the motivation section. So I moved the image to another section where it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The image was removed due to it probably violating copyright, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Discussion.

There is a discussion that it might be a copyright violation. I don't know if it is violating copyright until the new discussion is over. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO for the relevant advice which has been followed correctly.Levelledout (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed three images that are basically clip art. The images need to be more than just decoration. We all know what someone smoking looks like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that.Levelledout (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think we should at least keep the remaining images. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment don't know which images these are in relation to (haven't followed the page that much) but I made a montage in the efforts to try and show users in a range of poses in a range of locations - cloud chasing is opposed in public if it offends people around. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electronic Cigarette Cloud Chasing.jpg for a deletion discussion about an image I uploaded to commons - it may be more useful to use the montage I uploaded. It would be good to have a montage to show a range of different types of devices, and ideally a mix of male and female users using them. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries. I replaced it with another image. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Fontem acquired Dragonite International

See http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/20/the-us-domestic-e-cig-market-is-about-to-be-shak-3.aspx QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Indoor smoking/vaping ban

See http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/22/new-orleans-smoke-free-unique-character-smoking-ban QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal - cloud chasing

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

---

I propose that Cloud-chasing is merged, partially with this article and partially with the sub-article Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes. There is substantial overlap between the Cloud-chasing article and this article - in fact we already mention cloud chasing in Society and culture and Motivation. The concept of cloud chasing does not merit it's own article anymore than the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers warrant their own article. Cloud-chasing is an activity that requires specialist equipment, skill and knowledge and only a very small minority of e-cigarette users actually partake in it.

The article was only created a month ago, has only ever been edited by one user and is very short on content. Some of the sources used are not particularly high quality either.

The usage section of Cloud-chasing should be merged with the Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes sub-article, the notable bits from the rest of it can go in the main article under Society and culture.Levelledout (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support As proposerLevelledout (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Cloud chasing is more of a social / cultural aspect of e-cigs than a construction aspect IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. How to make an e-cig produce a large cloud of vapor is not about construction. The society and culture section does have enough information about cloud chasing. The extra details about cloud-chasing merits its own article, as more sources continue to become available. If the Cloud-chasing page was AFDed I am sure more editors will look for sources and that could result in expanding the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you know very little about cloud chasing then, which would probably explain why the article describes cloud chasing as a "competition". WP:COATRACK springs to mind. In any case cloud chasing is achieved by customizing the design or overall construction of the device as set out in the usage section of the cloud chasing article. Traditionally mechanical mods and rebuildable atomizers (RDAs) were used to achieve this, but high powered regulated mods are becoming more popular. Either way the RDA is constructed by the user themselves in a way that provides the least possible resistance across the atomizer, whilst needing to take into account the fact that low resistances pose potential electrical hazards. If that isn't related to construction then I don't know what is. With regards to sources, there doesn't appear to be many, if any high quality ones on the subject that are required to meet the notability criteria.Levelledout (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Partial Support merge cloudchasing into construction where the coil and wick aspects can be described. Keep it limited under social aspects, and remove the competitive part - which (afaict) is primarily a marketing aspect, where a certain company does a tour where they demonstrate this and hold "competitions". There is the local "see how well i made my RDA, and how big of a cloud i can make" but that isn't competition. -- Unsigned comment added by Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 8 June 2015
• Oppose Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If that content is moved here then it would be deleted as WP:UNDUE. This seems to be a minority cultural practice which is not a part of typical e-cigarette usage, so I doubt that its coverage is appropriate for this article. Why not nominate the article for AfD if there is a question about it passing WP:GNG? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with most of that. There should be some coverage in the Construction of electronic cigarettes though. Non-competitive cloud-chasing is not as uncommon as you may think though - the competition element is mostly marketing though. --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. I think the other article could usefully be broadened to include more on non-competitive cloud-chasing, probably more typical. With the explosive growth of e-cigs it seems an odd time to suggest mergers. I don't see why "the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers" don't warrant their own articles myself. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal discussion

What part of the cloud-chasing article is relevant to the construction of electronic cigarettes article? QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said in the proposal... and then you will know the answer to that question, which is fairly obvious anyway.Levelledout (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Cloud-chasing e-cigs are customized designs that is more related to the society and culture section than the general construction of an e-cig. It could be considered a WP:COATRACK to include it in the construction page. The cloud-chasing customized designed aspect is already in the the society and culture section. The details such as the history of cloud-chasing and competitions is too much detail for this article. There are numerous sources about cloud-chasing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You really have no idea what "customized" means in this case, do you? It is a speacial type of customization that is just a variant on the customization that under all circumstances is needed on an RDA. I think you should read a bit on what an RDA is first, before you make statements like the above. Cloudchasing as a competition is almost non-existing. But the way of constructing the coil, and designing the wicks, for cloud-chasing, is mainstream - and belongs in the construction article if anywhere. --Kim D. Petersen 17:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It has always been in the Electronic cigarette#Society and culture section since it was originally added to this page. Most e-cig users are not cloud-chasers. It would be too much unnecessary detail to add it to the construction page. Not merging the Cloud-chasing_(electronic_cigarette)#Competitions section is not a complete merge. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any policy based objections, backed up with justifications, as to why the article should not be merged? Perhaps you can demonstrate that the article passes the notability test?Levelledout (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See WP:GNG. Cloud-chasing has received enough coverage for a separate article IMO. I think it would a WP:weight violation to merge it into this article. What is the specific proposal for the construction article? QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

An assertion that it has received enough coverage proves nothing. A search on Google News for "cloud chasing" produces results that are mostly unrelated to cloud chasing, indicating that it hasn't received significant coverage. The reliability of a good deal of the sources in the article is unclear since most of them appear to be from WP:NEWSBLOGs. At least one is not independent, Vape News Magazine. And are any of them secondary sources? You missed this out from WP:GNG: '"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' and "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.". With regards to the construction proposal, once again please read my original merger proposal, it precisely describes what I would like to do. If you think it's a WP:WEIGHT violation we could always delete it instead, I think some of the material could be salvaged though.Levelledout (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Levelledout (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Going by WP:PRIMARYNEWS it would appear that the sources are probably all primary since they are all from contemporary news media and are mainly reporting on events or conducting interviews. There are no examples of the type of secondary sources noted in WP:PRIMARYNEWS such as "a week-long series... a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information".Levelledout (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Most editors disagree with the merge proposal. Cloud-chasing is a relatively new activity. In the coming years it will likely receive more press coverage because it is growing more popular. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG applies to the sources available right now, not an inferred partially crystal ball prediction of what sources might be available at some point in the future. Most editors so far disagree with it but it isn't a vote. Ultimately if it can't be demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG at the very least, then it can't be kept in it's current form and will need to be merged or deleted.Levelledout (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the tags

• I don't see any consensus for the merge but I added two sentences about cloud-chasing to the construction page. I kept it brief. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow the consensus process to run it's course, give all editors a chance to have their say and wait for a decision to be made instead of trying to disrupt it by inserting things and proposing to remove tags that shouldn't be removed until this discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor.Levelledout (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

2011 review

"A 2011 review found in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy.[76]" I restored some of the text without the image. It is sourced to a 2011 review. Was there a reason to delete the text too? QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought other newer sources make similar claims. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No specific explanation was made for restoring this dated information except that it is sourced. I did explain why I self-reverted my own edit. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Construction

Is there anything that needs to be clarified or added to the Electronic cigarette#Construction section? It is 4 paragraphs now. QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any flavor that even approximates smoking an actual cigarette. Mostly because smoking an actual cigarette approximates licking an ashtray, and without the instantly absorbed nic to hotwire our brains to accept that, it wouldn't work. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also avoid the "generation" nomenclature. The evolution of designs didn't have such clear demarcations, and there was plenty of overlap. Gigs (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Generation nomenclature is pretty standard within community/industry/adovocates/users and each step was generational in that the "next big thing" became standard and then nothing changed for a while and then the "next big thing" happened and became standard. I expect that's less likely to happen with what some have dubbed the 4th gen due to the divergence of the leading and trailing edges of the wave but that part is pure speculation. SPACKlick (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The text for the 4th generation is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got sources, but is there real consensus in the sources? I looked around and many of them were vague. Does it refer to the battery or the atomizer technology? Both? Is a mini BCC tank like a protank on an ego twist with variable voltage 2nd gen or third? Or maybe fourth? It's still a slim ego-type setup, but a single or dual BCC glass tank isn't very 2nd gen. You see what I'm getting at. APVs with fancy digital stuff are less popular now, but does that make them an older generation? It seems like the higher you go in generation, the less clarity and consensus there is. Gigs (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The text is clearly written according to V and more than one company has a 4th generation. I have not found a source that says there is no such thing as a 4th generation. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Known unknowns

Extended content

There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC) The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC) The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a 2014 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC) You are aware that both inserting and removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Who "highly value[s]" that text? --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC) It's really CFCF who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance. However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is not constructive and I have hidden and closed it. You can see the archives. there is nothing further to add. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Since we're

This image is quite a good one for showing a range of devices. Wide variation of first gen on the left, 5 second gen and a couple of simple ish third gen on the right. SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's use it. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It has too many brand logos. The image does not differentiate which devices are which generations. The image would be better to have space between the different generations. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This looks like advertising not information. If the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this image doesn't break that out. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I re-uploaded a version without logos. The intent of the image was to show a variety of the more common forms of the devices. so that a reader not familiar with them can visualise the types of device being discussed in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Without the logos is better! However it's still the case: if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this new image doesn't break that out either. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no intent to show generational information in this image. but I'm not sure I can parse your if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models could you elaborateSPACKlick (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure; if the intent is merely to show variation, then a display of 14 models, most of which vary little from their neighbors, does not add value. The picture seems like a parade verging on advertising. Cloudjpk (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's the best we have at the moment in terms of showing variation even if there's a few more in there than is neccesary to show that variation. I don't see how it can be considered advertising anymore than any other picture that we have of a vaporizer can be considered advertising. In fact since there are likely multiple different brands I'd say its less of an advert than a picture of a single vapourizer.Levelledout (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is cluttered and looks like a display from a vaping shop. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well with respect so what? We don't have a team of paid professional photographers and a wide collection of equipment for them to capture. We have to rely on freely licensed images, often ones that are already available and these are somewhat limited in number and range. So we can't exactly retake the photograph or easily obtain another one that isn't so "cluttered" or doesn't look so neat and tidy which in my opinion, is a poor complaint anyway. This is the best we have so unless anyone else can come up with something better we should use it on that basis.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Disagree on both points. The individual items are spaced out and presented with neutral space around them. This also looks nothing like the display in any vaping shop I have seen or frequented. What it looks like is a range of different types and sizes of e-cigarette. If I had access to the productes I would probably reproduce it with fewer cig-a-likes but I don't. This is the best image I can find to show the variety of appearances of e-cigarettes which is worth doing. Currently we show very few visual appearances in the article. If I could find one with a box such as the VTR or MVP or maybe a REO that would also work but I am not aware of one such image with the right copyrights and form. this one, for example is too cluttered. If we have a user who has a couple of cig-a-likes a couplr of ego's some 3rd gen tubes, some 3rd gen boxes, some dripfeds and some mods then we could create an image but I don't have that kind of range of supplies. SPACKlick (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. Let's use it. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If the purpose of the article is to show shiny objects, or advertise product, the image is fine and we should use it. If the purpose is to convey information, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There are better images available. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes if it was split into first and second generation it would be a good image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree fully with the need to seperate first and second generation in the initial image to give a visual impression of the subject of the article and I also fully disagree it's advertising to show a variety of generic styles in the illustration to show what the article is about. The image conveys the visual range of a large number of devices. If someone has access to the variety of devices needed to make such an image comprehensive, fantastic but until then it would be good to illustrate the article showing the variety of ways an e-cigarette can look. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is good if the purpose is to illustrate shiny objects (it looks like advertisement). The image is a bad option if the purpose is to illustrate organized concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One of each in the lead is probably best. Too many makes the image cluttered Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if we could get the relevant 6 or so devices together we'd have a better illustration however said image doesn't exist yet or at least nobody here seems to be aware of it. So do you prefer the two images of two specific devices we currently have or something else that exists? SPACKlick (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

QG, rather than parroting CloudJPK, could you explain what you feel about the image makes it look like advertising as opposed to illustration? I'm really not seeing it.SPACKlick (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Toxicants and heavy metals

How do "toxicants and heavy metals" magically appear in vapor that were not in the e-liquid to start with? Gigs (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"If propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it may produce propylene oxide, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states is probably carcinogenic to humans.[6]"

"When heated at hotter temperatures glycerol may generate harmful acrolein.[13]"

"Some artificial flavors have been demonstrated as being cytotoxic.[17]"

"Many toxic chemical compounds have been produced from e-cigarettes, especially carbonyl compounds like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and glyoxal, which are frequently identified in e-cigarette aerosols.[19] The propylene glycol-containing liquids produced the most amounts of carbonyls in e-cigarette aerosols.[19]"

"Dripping", where the liquid is dripped directly onto the atomizer, can create carbonyl compounds including formaldehyde.[72]"

"The device itself could contribute to the toxicity from the tiny amounts of silicate and heavy metals found in the liquid and vapor.[72]"

The liquid can contain small amounts contaminants. The liquid contains chemicals that when heated creates more chemicals. Is there anything you want clarified in this article? QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be good to summarize these things somehow so that the article doesn't sound like they come from nowhere. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gigs, I summarised some of the information for now. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How do "toxicants and heavy metals" appear in vapor? I think it would improve the article to clarify this. Based on the above conversation there is an issue with the lede. Rather than delete it could of been moved to another paragraph IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The full sentence is "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals." In other words we are saying that the e-liquid contains PG, VG, flavourings and nicotine whilst the vapour contains these substances and toxicants and heavy metals. That is where I believe Gigs's confusion arose from. But if it is not true, if the e-liquid contains toxicants as well then we should adjust this text instead of adding further confusion to other parts of the article that have nothing to do with safety. However it isn't quite as simple as that, e-liquid may contain very low levels of toxicants depending on what flavour is used and that partly explains how the vapour acquires toxicants. But some of the other toxicants end up in the vapour through chemical breakdowns and also in the case of heavy metals, from the atomizer supposedly. It may be too complex to explain all of this in the lead, we could just say something like, "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants. Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ".Levelledout (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.

"Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ". I can't verify this claim either.

You deleted the sentence that did explain the e-liquid contains "some" toxic ingredients. There is no information in the lede that explains this. The sentence you cited says the e-liquid contains PG, VG and so on but it does not explain anything about the toxicity for the liquid or how the metals got in the vapor. You suggests that we could adjust the existing sentence but the existing sentence does not verify the proposed text you suggests to adjust or anything else useful for specific information about the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. Well if you are going to take that confrontational attitude then I suggest we leave the text as, don't add anything back in, as its probably less confusing to do so.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal to not clarify the issue with the wording in the lede will not make it less confusing. We can leave the current sentences as is and still clarify the wording about the toxicants and heavy metals. If we don't add anything to the first paragraph then a better placement is the 3rd paragraph. The reader still does not understand how the toxicants and heavy metals got in the vapor. It will remain unclear unless this is explained somewhere in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you that my elaborately explained proposal will not help to clarify the matter, you have correctly identified from my proposal that we need to insert something in the 3rd paragraph and not into a random position. But I do not support the insertion of random material whose content factually conflicts with the sentence that we already have. That would most definitely add to the confusion. That's my position, as I said.Levelledout (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You have not proposed any text to a specific source as far as I can tell. It will not help to clarify the matter without sources. The text in quotes is all sourced. I agree with Gigs that we could summarise these things. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on you as the one seeking to add text to justify and gain consensus for your proposal. You have failed to convince me that adding text from a low impact journal that factually conflicts with another sentence in the lead and only tells half the story will improve the situation. Perhaps other editors will disagree.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What sentence contradicts another sentence in the lead. Not sure what you are referring to. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru: "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
  How about the source you recently used? Did you read section "Toxicity of Fluid Additives"?--TMCk (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I could not verify the exact claim with that source and it does not clarify the wording in the lede.
  • The lede says "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."
  • Including "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." is repeating what is stated about the vapour in the lede. We can focus on adding specific information about the liquid and how the toxicants and heavy metals got into the liquid and vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Then "the exact claim" in your edit I pointed out can't be verified either. You can't have it both ways, so which one is it?--TMCk (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • What claim you think I added can't be verified. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • By your standards (but not only) I.e. the claim you removed in your san[dbox].--TMCk (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Exactly which claim are you referring to? QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh poor me. Getting myself into another "banana discussion". Should've known. Anyway, read your source and compare it to your edits and see if the "exact claim(s)" can be verified. Probably you do since you believed so in the first place, yet you're quite more picky when scrutinizing other editor's edits/suggestions/etc. I'm off for a break to recover for now (yeah, that was reaaal quick this time).--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
              • If you change you mind I am more than happy to provide verification for any sentence I added to mainspace or sandbox space. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to revive what turned into a somewhat heated discussion, but I think the origin of the claimed toxicants is important, and stripping the claim down for the lede turns it into something that leaves out necessary detail. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The origin is important but the origin is a combination of multiple factors. To avoid the lead ending up too long we are required to summarise only the most important points for the lead and put the full details in the body.Levelledout (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is a combination of factors and that can easily be explained in the lede. The critical points for the lede is to explain how the toxicants and metals got in the vapour. The lede (and the body) does not tell the reader theses things. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gigs, I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We have an ongoing discussion about this here. The edit seemed to disregard this discussion which showed no consensus for part of what was added, created the situation of contradictory statements in the lead and was far too much detail for the lead. I have therefore removed it. I suggest QG, that we try and actually reach an agreement on what should be in the article through this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way the contradictory statement is that on the one hand we say that the e-liquid contains toxicants and on the other we imply that it doesn't: "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are not contradictory statements. The e-liquid does contain "some" toxicants and toxicants are also found in the vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you got the first bit wrong and the second bit right. We should not say that "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals." It is incorrect to imply that the difference between the vapour and the e-liquid is that only the vapour contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. That is what is being implied, that is not correct. I can't make it much clearer than that.Levelledout (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The vapour does contain similar chemicals to the e-liquid and there is some toxicants in the e-liquid before it is heated. It is no surprise that the vapour will contain similar chemicals to the e-liquid because the vapour was made from the e-liquid. When it is heated into vapour it contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. You deleted the part that does explain the e-liquid has some toxicants. You also deleted how the metals got into the liquid and how other toxicants are formed from heating the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes well as TMCk likes to say, this is turning into yet another banana discussion. The fact is that those statements are contradictory and misleading to a reasonable person, one can ignore that fact but it happens to be the truth. Yes I did remove some information QG, you see the way that we work on Wikipedia is through WP:CONSENSUS. That means that when there is an ongoing discussion, we propose and try and reach an agreement. We don't try and force our own preferred version through after it has been rejected for legitimate reasons. Saying "you deleted this" and "you deleted that" doesn't tend to help move the conversation forwards towards a productive agreement either.Levelledout (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any contradictory statements and the text is well sourced. I see you deleted text from the lede that clearly explained how the toxicants and heavy metals got in the vapour. I thought you previously said that we need to insert something in the 3rd paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that verifiability guarentees inclusion, it doesn't and WP:V makes this perfectly clear. Neither does verifiability overide consensus. You need consensus and you don't have it.Levelledout (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You have not directly responded to my comment above and you have not given a good reason to avoid explaining anything about how the toxicants and heavy metals got into the aerosol. It appeared you initially wanted the clarification in the 3rd paragraph, yet you deleted all of the information from the 3rd paragraph rather than edit the text. We should at least mention something in the lede rather than wholesale delete all of the information. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And you have completely and utterly ignored my comment. Once again QG the onus is on you, not on me to justify and gain consensus for your edits. You don't seem to like that but its not my problem.Levelledout (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You did originally agree to include some information the 3rd paragraph. Am I correct? I hope you will attempt to improve the lede or compromise rather than wholesale delete all the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the brief explanation

The e-liquid in e-cigarettes has a low level of toxicity. Metal parts in e-cigarettes can contaminate the e-liquid with metals. Chemicals including carbonyl compounds can be produced when the heated nichrome wire chemically reacts with the liquid.

How did the toxicants and heavy metals get in the vapour? The lede is currently a mystery and does not answer this question? The three short sentences above can improve the lede. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes

Another bold coat rack is on its way.--TMCk (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Gigs, your comment directly led to this edit. It is a good start. This list is similar to other lists like List of additives in cigarettes and List of cigarette smoke carcinogens. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Discussion for page move. See Talk:List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes#Requested move 19 June 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted this [2]

The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit-war without arguments...

Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.

In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.

So please discuss. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

An image of a vape shop adds tremendous value. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Which value? I could have bought your argument if there had been characteristics in the picture of a building that were different from any other business building. But if you want a picture of a vapeshop - then find one that shows a vapeshop from the inside or at the very least has some qualities that make it stand out as being a vapeshop. --Kim D. Petersen 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Or is your point with the picture that vapeshops look exactly like any other type of shop from the outside? Because that is the only "take away" message i get from it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the shop on the building shows it is clearly a vape shop. That what makes it special. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So it is the logo/"brand" sign of the shop that is the interesting part? Isn't that against our policies or at least our guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING)? --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name clarifies it is a unique shop. It is very interesting to see an actual vape shop. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Once more. Are you are stating that the logo/"brand" here is the reason that you picked this picture? And not any other characteristics? If that is the case, then it is advertising - even if you do not (which i do not suspect you to) have that intension. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It has all the characteristics of a vape shop. A building with a vape shop inside. It is a high-quality image. This is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the question i stated above. And "high-quality image" is not an argument in itself. A building with a "vape shop" inside, is not an argument either. The overwhelming thing here is that there is nothing outside of the logo/"brand" that is special about the image. Thus it becomes, albeit inadvertently, advertising... and WP:NOTADVERTISING is rather clear there: We shouldn't have such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a simple picture of a vape shop. The image represents what a typical vape shop looks like. The non-controversial thing here is that this is what a vape shop is. It is in a building like other businesses. The name on the shop is a generic name. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only typical characteristic of what a vape shop looks like is their sign/logo/"brand" on a building, then it doesn't have encyclopedic value. The only value then is to present the sign/logo/"brand". --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It adds value because now the reader knows what a vape shop looks like. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless our readers are dim-witted, they already know that shops are located in buildings. This image brings no encyclopedic value. The only thing that differentiates it from any other picture of a business is the sign/logo/"brand" - thus once more: It is advertising. --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A vape shop from the outside is not a fancy customized building like a movie theater. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! That is why it is only the sign/logo/"brand" that differentiates this from any other shop - and therefore an outside picture is nothing more than inadvertent marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"dim-witted" is what I thought when I (finally after it was introduced) removed the image. W/o caption, one would not even know what it is w/o blowing it up and I'm talking about a 22 inch screen with standard resolution. It's sooo sad that we even have to discuss such clear cut non issue nonsense but meat and false loyalties demand wasting time on such. What a pity mess and shame.--TMCk (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
But then again, brains don't mean shit and we're on the internet...--TMCk (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not in any way against a picture of a vape shop - it just has to have some characteristic outside of a logo/"brand" that presents to our readers that it is a vape shop. A picture from the inside of such a shop would be very good, and such a picture can be done without being overly promotional. Google image search on "vape shop" shows lots of that kind of images - we just need one that can be used within our copyright restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be easy to find such an image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If so, why don't you go for it or did so in the first place instead of picking a ready to use invaluable image?--TMCk (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We can also include an image from inside a vape shop. Both inside and outside is the best approach IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the reason specified above: No, it is not. At least not unless you present an outside photo that is not indistinguishable from marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have searched and looked at other images of vape shops. This is what they look like from the outside. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Then the outside of vape-shops is uninteresting, and nothing special => no encyclopedic value. On the other hand: The insides of a vape-shop differs quite alot - so that would be interesting => have encyclopedic value. --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You searched with your darkest sunglasses on, didn't you? Try again and look no further than commons. Note that 8 of them are even in the same city! Still think "that's how they look like"? And to Kim's observation, yes, the inside would be much more informative.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All of them suffer under being either non-descript, or the sign/logo/brand being the major aspect of the picture. We need something that is A) not confused with advertising/marketing B) sufficiently descriptive of a vape-shop. And as far as i can see, that would only be handled with a picture from the inside, with for instance focus on a vape-bar or the like. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any free and fitting images on a search I just did, I asked a Venezuelan photographer living in Brazil to give us a hand. A picture from a Brazilian store or lounge would also cancel out pretty much any potential advertising claims.--TMCk (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not worse either and the result of a misunderstanding of what we're looking for. I clarified at the editor's talk page on commons.--TMCk (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we looking for another image of a vape shop from the outside. Since the new image is somewhat of a distraction we should go back to the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no freakin' "distraction". The image is just as good or bad as the previous one. You really want to argue about that image now? There is no deadline here and "your personally picked image" back in would be nothing else but disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A big red sign is a "distraction". QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors restored the image that was deleted.[3][4] QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some meat joint the editwar. Are you calling for a continuation now?--TMCk (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "That is what WP:BRD tells us, and what WP:STATUSQUO informs us. The name Vapor Shack is also a big logo which is also distracting."
Your edits are not the status quo and if you go by BRD, then your edit was challenged in the first place. Banana my friend, banana. But don't worry, I'm sure meat is on it's way to make a silly pity revert.--TMCk (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure your position. Do you prefer the new image or the previous image or you have no preference? QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• There can't possibly be a copyright issue over two words used as a trading name. There might conceivably be a trademark issue if the logos are similar, but that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Editors should use whichever image they prefer in this case, or consider using no image at all on the grounds that a snapshot of an independent vape shop on a high street somewhere is only very tangentially related to the economics of e-cigarettes.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• A trademark issue is a concern. The company could be violating Radio shack's trademark. Wikipedia should not be propagating the possible issue. I also think the previous image is better. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• On comparing the logos I see there's no similarity and no cause for concern. Even if there was, Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that would require us to protect Radio Shack's trademarks.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The nicotyrine hypothesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So What? SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Known unknowns

There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a 2014 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that both inserting and removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Who "highly value[s]" that text? --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's really CFCF who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.

However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We had a RfC on this very issue. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_14#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The consensus is to use such information on the article. This is normal practice across Wikipedia to include the known unknowns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it really isn't, QG. It's relatively normal to include significant known unknowns. We don't know how to replicate spider silk, and that fact is rightly mentioned in spider silk because it's significant for engineering and textiles. We don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is correct, and that fact is rightly mentioned in the article because it's one of the most significant unsolved mathematical problems for the 21st century. But it's not at all normal to mention all the known unknowns in articles about medical and semi-medical devices. The word "unknown" does not appear anywhere in syringe, eye drop, pill (pharmacy), or tablet (pharmacy). It does appear once in toothpaste. But this article includes it seven times, including one place where we say it in three successive sentences. And they're bizarrely specific sentences as well.

What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.

I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Wikipedia being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

After reading the source again I tweaked the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While I see there is a point past where it is not useful, discussion of "known unknowns" is an important part of an encyclopedia article, when it is established by high quality secondary sources. If high quality secondary sources feels it is important to mention, I think it is relevant here. Yobol (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, the disagreement here is not all known unknowns but those which are extremely speciic and of little value but emotional scaremongering and or cannot be put into good english. The three claims under dispute are exactly that.

"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." "The impact of e-cigarette use by children on substance dependence is unknown." There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. SPACKlick (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It no longer says that because yet again, QuackGuru has grasped part of what we're saying and taken it on himself to unilaterally change the article partway through the discussion.
  Please note carefully that CFCF does not choose to revert QG's changes, even when he's removing a sentence about known unknowns. This is, of course, because QG is in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club. These two editors are not deliberately acting as a tag team to prevent the wrong people from making any changes; but the practical effect of their behaviour is exactly this.
  Note also CFCF's instinctive use of Twinkle's anti-vandalism tools on edits made within policy by established editors. I say "instinctive" because he's so quick with it: it takes him only a few seconds. There's no thought going into that at all.
  Still, we need to drop this for the moment, having made more progress than I thought would be achievable. It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You claim " It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around." If you don't have cosnesusu now than I think you should not try to delete at a later date. In the long run it will probably be known the unknowns. It has been established that the known unknowns is informative, especially when a MEDRS compliant source is discussing it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm reverting your changes is because they are blatant and remove well sourced secondary opinion. Whether QG has removed similar statements is beside the point: regardless of whether I've missed such changes or not the fact remains none of QGs edits have removed the same amount of information. As for my reluctance to reply in this discussion, I find it a waste of time and unlikely to be productive. We've already extensively covered the topic of known unknowns. Please refrain from reverting what is strongly supported by consensus, so that we don't have to waste more time on time-consuming RfCs and whatnot. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep referring to "Stong consensus" CFCF but there isn't. There's dispute. Dispute can only be resolved by discussion which you admit you're not keen to be involved in, showing your not here to improve the article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did not exactly delete any sentence. I read the source again and merged the two sentences together. The wording is "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to addiction or substance dependence in youth is unknown.[85]" I did the same for another sentence early this year. See "In the US, as of 2014 some states tax e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and some state and regional governments have broadened their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes.[45]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good, rat now how does that get us beyond the actual point of disagreement, over whether the bare fact that this is unknown is relevant? There is likely some relevance in the fact that there is concern that there may be effects or concern that the effect is unknown but you haven't shown that or convinced people of that. You really need to learn to consensus build rather than just assuming it. SPACKlick (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this

"An electronic cigarette (E-cig or E-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which produces a similar feel to tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke, which the user inhales. In general, E-cigarettes have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as E-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Some E-liquids are available without the nicotine. E-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is also available."[5]

"There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked. They may encourage users to delay quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting. Emissions from E-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders. No serious adverse effects from E-cigarettes have been reported in trials. Less serious adverse effects from E-cigarette use can occur however, including throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough."[6] Someone copied this page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Image of Cloud chasing

Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The image is a large plume of vapor (and part of the name of the image has cloud chasing in it). The source is for context for the readers. It is better to discuss other potential images rather than deleting this useful image first IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"A large plume of vapor" != Cloudchasing. Deleting the image is appropriate because it is not an image of cloudchasing. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your other "potential image" is not cloudchasing either... The wording "useful image" is completely inappropriate in this context, since it is not useful for the purpose. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This potential image is even a larger plume of vapor. This is an image cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk)

No, it is not an image of cloudchasing. It is not the size of the plume that defines cloudchasing, but the context within which it is being done. And sitting on a staircase on just vaping with alot of VG is not such a context. It would generally be nice if you took the time to actually inform yourself about the topic, instead of guessing. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud-chasing is also done at an amateur level. Not everyone is a professional. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, did you come up with that yourself? There is just a bit of a problem here, even when it is done on an amateur level, it is still done within a context. Cloudchasing is the contest of creating the biggest clouds possible, bigger than the last you made, not just the act of blowing out big clouds.

Btw. which reliable source are you referring to when making these assertions/claims? --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vapers preferring this variety, many of whom refer to themselves as “cloud chasers,” sometimes participate in cloud-blowing contests for cash."[7] There are contents but...

"Some cloud chasers flaunt it, showing off their cloud-making ability where anyone and everyone can see."[8] ...some like to flaunt it in public. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The first image is a large plume of aerosol. The second image is even a larger plume of aerosol. This is non-controversial. We don't need to include a "professional vapor" blowing extremely large plumes of e-smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"a large plume of" vapor doesn't necessarily indicate cloud chasing. Cloud chasing is about seeking a large plume of vapor intentionally. Some set ups produce a large cloud under certain circumstances, such as in humid environments. Also neither of the plumes shown are the size or shape of a typical cloud chasing plume which is a long tight cone. The firt isn't even a particularly large exhale and would be typical to most high glycerin users with a tank. The second might indicate a slightly higher than average wattage as well but to call either of them cloud chasing is merely opinion. Seek a sourced picture and back away from claiming any plume of vapor is cloud chasing.SPACKlick (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The original image is categorised under "Cloud Chasing". See under tags for the categorisation. See here too. Therefore, it is a confirmed image of cloud-chasing. Imagine that! QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If a non-expert tags his image "plasma" that's not evidence it's plasma. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My point being opinion from the creator of the image is not verifiable. There is clearly dispute that this shows cloud chasing, you do need to cite the sky is blue. A minority of editors in this discussion agree with you. Do the right thing, remove the image and find a verfiable or non controversial image of cloud chasing. SPACKlick (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Most editors agree the image is useful. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Of those editors discussing it 2 have said it isn't, you have said it is. If we add an editor who'se reverted edit warring thats 2 and 2 it's clearly disputed not consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Three different editors restored the same image that was confirmed to be an image of cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by what source? It's not cloud chasing. It's like you've got a picture of a dog and you're insisting it's a wolf. This is ludicrous Quack and you fucking know it. You are Mr. get everything direct from reputable sources but you can't find one fucking reliable source that will describe this image as cloud chasing because it is not clearly an image of cloud chasing it is YOUR OPINION.SPACKlick (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to use the image from an amateur rather than a professional vaper since most cloud-chasers are amateurs. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Who's talking about amateur vs pro? I'm talking about an image showing the defining features of cloud chasing, which is verifiably an image of cloud chasing vs an image of someone vaping normally. Just because the guy in the picture thinks using a subtank on an eleaf istick and blowing a tiny cloud is cloud chasing doesn't mean that act is what would normally be considered cloud chasing by most people aware of the term. The image should be informative, to be informative it should be representative. To be representative it should have the typical qualities of cloud chasing rather than being indistinguishable from vaping. To be convinced otherwise I would need a verifiable image depicting cloud chasing. Your issue Quack is that you don't know what vaping looks like, or what cloud chasing looks like so you can't assess this. I have now asked at a few cloud chasing resources for some people there to post images of themselves cloudchasing to wikimedia. Hopefully we'll see something from one of those that's less controversial. SPACKlick (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Silence can I ask editors to consider whether it would be appropriate to remove the "this activity is called cloud chasing" from the caption at this point? There's been no justification for calling this image cloud chasing. I'd do it myself but it's a little close to the line for my current image related sanction and I'd rather not start another fight with Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-smoker addiction to e-cigs

The current source is a non reviewed paper from a non-academic source. The content should be trivial to source to MEDRS for those of you with access to better journals because it's pretty non-controversial. Do any Systematic Reviews make similar statements about non-nicotine users becoming addicted to e-cigarettes?

Addionally, in terms of wording I changed it to make it clearer that the addiction was to nicotine, not to e-cigarettes per the source and common sense. Not sure I did the best job of the reword. SPACKlick (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The current source is from WHO which is a reliable source in accordance with WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Per MEDORG The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. I'm just saying there's probably a better source than a public guide from WHO for a rather important claim. It's just a completionist thing. The tag was the wrong tag, fully admitted. SPACKlick (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is since WHO is one of the few sources that is as reliable as a top quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it's just me but I find actual reviews more reliable than position statments, even position statements of the most renowned organisations. There's just a different structure for how information gets included. It's no big deal and there are other, actual, problems to solve first.SPACKlick (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually while "there is a risk" is a hard statement to disagree with, this is one part of the hard-anti ec position that research is failing to confirm, so I wouldn't agree it is "pretty non-controversial" if the risk is to be taken as very significant. See the previous section: " Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction for those who do not smoke. There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked." - though that seems to be lifted from us. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of why I prefer this sort of thing to be linked to a review, that cites several articles, so people who use wikipedia for knowledge can follow the train of science back to the individual data points if they want to to see for themselves. We must of course be careful not to stray from Can/Could to Do/Will create new addicts without further data but there is certainly data of subcuticle injections of nictoine in monkey's at similiar mass concentrations leading to addiction (or the appearance of addiction). I'm confident there is a scientific paper out there somewhere that shows this and concludes it. MY access to MEDRS is quite limited though so I'm not too surprised I can't find it. I was hoping one or more of the med editors might know of one. SPACKlick (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This review Seems to suggest that e-cigarettes have less potential for addiction that cigarettes but I don't fully follow because they synonymise addiction with abuse liability which has a slightly wider meaning. But I'd like to see the review that led WHO to conclude their finding, so that there was a simple thing to point to when the question "how do we know?". As I said, it's nowhere near a big problem. A little bugbear.SPACKlick (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Nicotine, which is not a benign substance"

It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that often bedevils this page that a user would revert to retain this so-called "information". The source does say this on page 2 (actually "not a benign chemical"); it's a rhetorical technique, and the technical word for it is litotes. It's too informal for mainspace and not appropriate. It would be appropriate to address the reader in the simple declarative and say that nicotine is toxic, carcinogenic and addictive, as indeed we already do in several other places.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal, clear to those with access to the context(which you have) and an understanding of english is that the editorialising rhetoric is removed and the plain fact presented. In fact the edit S Marshal made as a Revert to your bold Addition before CFCF bulldozed through here.SPACKlick (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree or disagree for this proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes"

I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes". It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that plagues this page that a user would revert this.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal, clear to those with access to the context(which you have) and an understanding of english is that the redundant and clumsy language is removed and the plain fact presented. In fact the edit S Marshal made as a Revert to your bold Addition before CFCF bulldozed through here.SPACKlick (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

... because?—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes"

I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both". It's yet further evidence of poor editorial judgment that a user would revert this. I am growing increasingly unhappy about poor editorial standards and I'm starting to wonder whether an administrator will be prepared to intervene.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. You are making complaints but I do not know what exactly you want to do. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• There are two purposes to my posts. First, I would like to have a discussion about why these edits were reverted, with a view to the possibility of restoring them. Second, I would like to have a wider discussion about the standards of editing on this page, which are low and declining. It should not be necessary for us to discuss the reasons why we excise needless words. Nor should it be necessary for us to discuss whether these words were needless. If it is necessary, then the educational task that's needed here is very large, and it would be a lot simpler and less time-consuming to deal with what is fundamentally a behavioural problem using administrative tools.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been the nub of a problem at this page for a long time. General Sanctions were put in place to see if that would limit the problem, it in fact just reduced the number of editors and made the slide into decay and the repair slower. Do you have any idea which Admin tools or venue is best to visit to try and resolve the issue? SPACKlick (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Which tools (if any) to use is a decision for an uninvolved administrator; they might prefer to start with a dialogue rather than pressing any buttons. Which venue is an easier question: it should be this talk page. If a note on this talk page doesn't attract an uninvolved administrator within a reasonable period of time, then that's evidence that the general sanctions are failing ---- in which case, ArbCom is where it will probably end up.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

... because?—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New Images

First, Thanks to CFCF for tracking down new images for the lede and other sections, most of them are great improvements. The one added to the Positions of medical organisations section though I feel has two issues. 1) It's quite large, could someone trim down the pixel width on it a bit, also stylistically since we have a lot of right aligned images would it be worth considering this one on the left. 2) It's very text heavy making it unclear what precisely we're illustrating and giving strong prominence to the factlet within it. SPACKlick (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article seems to contain four (4) separate images of people exhaling clouds of vapour. Let's remove three of them please.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Each image is unique. Let's keep all of them. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any other reasons or is it just that they're unique?—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Each individual image is different and each one adds value. For new images I requested a timeline for the sales for Economics since the other images were deleted from the section. That's good the spoof of RadioShack image was deleted. We are moving forward with better images than before. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

One image is enough IMO. We should really trim two of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first image is of an e-cig user exhaling aerosol/vapor. The second user is a user using a nicotine free e-cigarette. The third is an image of a a user cloud-chasing. The fourth user is an e-hookah user. All four are different. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• A picture of my cat would also be different. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia is in a first world country where modern internet connections are the norm. Some are still on dialup. Images use a high proportion of the article's bandwidth. We need to use fewer of them. When choosing which of the images we keep in the article, it's important to observe WP:PERTINENCE and not just have lots of pictures of people exhaling clouds of vapour.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The reader will not know what is cloud-chasing without seeing an image. The reader will not know what is an e-hookah without seeing the device. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay the three we have seem reasonable. I had never heard of cloud chasing either before working on this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Check sources

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"In North Wales, girls who use e-cigarettes consider them appealing."

I invite your comments on this sentence.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well written sentence and obviously relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A well-written sentence would be clear. This one is ambiguous. It could mean "Some North Welsh girls who vape do so because e-cigarettes appeal to them", or it could mean "Some North Welsh girls who vape do so because they think vaping makes themselves appealing".—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. The sentence now reads: In North Wales, girls who use e-cigarettes find the devices appealing. What the source actually says is that Kelly Evans, the Director of Social Change UK, suggests that the flavours are designed to appeal to youngsters. Social Change UK is a trading name of Social Change Ltd., 1 Checkpoint Court, Sadler Road, Lincoln LN6 3PW. It lists a number of large corporations among its clients and has a slick-looking website. Kelly Evans is a marketing expert (Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (Chartered Status), Market Research Society (Affiliate) and the Social Marketers Global Network) but no authority on e-cigarettes. By profession she designs and leads lobbying campaigns to government and in normal circumstances I would want to know who was paying her to say a thing before I took her word for it. The source is, arguably, challengeable.
  But only a fool would actually challenge it in this context, because it's a statement of the incredibly obvious. Of course girls in North Wales who vape find that e-cigarettes appeal to them! The bloody things are addictive!
  The real problem with the sentence is that it's far too specific. It's not just North Welsh girls who find that e-cigarettes appeal to them. It's pretty much all living nicotine addicts. But how in Heaven's name does it add to the reader's knowledge to say this? If they've got through the thousands of words of turgid factlets and statistics that precede this sentence, then they're well aware that e-cigarette users find them appealing and they fully understand why.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, perfect example of the sort of listing of specific subsets of knowns an unknowns that bloats this article. Should be removed/merged into more general fact(oid/let)

Yes, PR person, whose website says "Social Change UK have been working with Public Health Wales for 18 months on tobacco control and preventing young people from taking up smoking. Social Change UK have also gathered evidence on usage and appeal of tobacco and e-cigarettes in young people in other areas including Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire and conducted a study with 72 schools across England. All studies found that young people are trying and buying e-cigarettes." Use more authoritative sources, & drop this. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The text is sourced and it was widely publicized this fact. We should keep it without the WP:ASSERT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The OR was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has reintroduced the OR. I would appreciate if another user would remove it.SPACKlick (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF also restored good text that had no consensus to remove. The other text that was recently introduced I removed that was misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the "designed to". As for the other text. Consensus is needed for its inclusion Quack. You having BOLDLY added it, S Marshall having REVERTED it it is your job to DISCUSS it prior to inclusion. Remember it is your job to build consensus for any disputed entries you wish to add to the article. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the sentence to clarify the wording. I agree with CFCF's edit to restore the text that has been in the article for a long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I might of made a mistake. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The text has not been in the article "for a long time" and the first issue with including it, in the current wording is that it days companies are designing flavours to appeal to 11 year old girls.

The second issue with including it is that it is a POV source claiming intentions of others so it would need attribution at the very least. SPACKlick (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a POV source. This article has been duplicated by numerous outlets. There is no serious dispute. Do you have a specific proposal without including an WP:ASSERT violation? QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not me making the assert violation. The SOURCE attributes the view that companies design these products for youngsters, distancing the claim from its own voice, solely to Miss Evans. As her suggestion. My proposal would be for it to say something like

Kelly Evans, Director of Social Change UK, says that the flavours offered are designed to appeal to youngsters. E-cigarettes have been shown to be appealing to girls as young as 11.

It needs work but that's the vague idea. Note the news article from the wales online says "Miss Evans also suggests the flavours offered, including strawberry milkshake, gummy bear and bubble gum are designed to appeal to youngsters.". Miss evans is not an authority and is not an unbiased observer. Her opinion is not verification of the intent of e-cig developers. However the claim is notable and other notable people have made similar claims so we may find better attribution than Miss Evans. Conflating the two facts (Design to appeal and appealing to 11 year olds) is pure WP:SYN.

I provided another source for the claim and adjusted the wording to match the claim from the source. Now there are two sentences using two different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to in-text attribution there.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue is with the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The revised version is better. I'd still probably prefer in text attribution for claims of intention by uninvolved parties. But I'll wait for other editors thoughts on that point.SPACKlick (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution does not improve readability. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In some cases it does, but the trade off here is for accuracy and policy compliance. It is not uncontroversial to say that the purpose of flavours is to attract young smokers. Evidence shows that Adults prefer non-tobacco flavours as well and that e-juice manufacturers hace responded to that demand from existing adult customers. minor source SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You previously claimed Kelly Evans is not an authority and is not an unbiased observer. So I used a better source. Now your objection is the claim not the source but there is no serous dispute. We don't usually add in-text attribution for undisputed claims. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's undisputed. The people to whom the intent is attributed dispute it (admittedly there are huge COI issues there), the dispute was enough that a ban on flavours was overturned, It's disputed by CAASA in the IBT and no evidence is presented in any source to rebut that. The first source was the opinion of one individual, the second source claims that these products are marketed towards children, which is a separate claim not sourced, so it's a primary claim. It's the opinion of the author of that position statement albeit approved by the body that statement is released for. To claim intent of design you'd need far better evidence and I doubt it'll be there because while flavours may appeal to children and while flavours may attract children flavours were first introduced by adults for themselves. The fact is whether or not they appeal to the youth, attract children, increase the uptake of youngsters etc. The opinion, at this time, is whether that's by design or as a side effect. SPACKlick (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The new source is WP:MEDORG compliant and is better than the sources you presented. The flavors are aimed at youth (and adults). Young people buy e-cigs too. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny young people by e-cigs. Young people clearly do. Flavoured e-cigarette liquids are more attractive to them than unflavoured ones. That's also true of young adults, middle aged and older e-cigarette users. The issue here is the attribution of intent without evidence of intent. Whether it's a person or a company I'd always be wary of attributing intent in an encyclopedias voice without solid evidence or attribution. Flavours are aimed at all consumers. To say they are targeted at youth or aimed at you without mentioning aduts is a bit of a distortion of the picture. SPACKlick (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are not designed for youth than the e-cig companies (and vape shops) should stop selling them to youth. QuackGuru (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to North Wales next month, & will look out for these vaping girls. Here in London, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone who was clearly a minor vaping in public, it's normally middle-aged men, as the recent research suggests. The flavours available in the shops are very basic - cherry, apple, & tobacco typically, & I don't think can be seen as directed at "youth". Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Quack, that argument is spurious and irrelevant. What they were designed for and what they were used for are entirely separate issues.SPACKlick (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"With aggressive industry tactics such as cartoon characters and candy flavors such as bubble gum, fruit loops, chocolate and strawberry, it's no surprise studies show a dramatic increase in kids using e-cigarettes."[9] QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Girls as young as 11

• This change added text about what Kelly Evans, the director of Social Change UK, thinks, but Evans is not an authority on the topic. The previous text is sourced. See "A report into e-cigarettes has found girls as young as 11 are buying them in pizza parlours and high street shops – and are being tempted by flavours including “gummy bear” and bubble gum."[10] There are many sources to verify the previous claim in accordance with WP:V policy when I did a Google search. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The text is well sourced. There is no need for in-text attribution according to WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bold, revert, refuse to discuss

This is a problem behaviour. Wikipedians are supposed to be willing to try to find consensus. Editors who refuse to use the talk page, or who use the talk page to state an objection without being willing to give their reasons, are doing an end-run around the consensus-seeking process.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To what do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• My edit; CFCF's revert; I begin discussion; CFCF doesn't participate. QuackGuru states objections without reasons. I prompt for reasons. QuackGuru doesn't respond. In the circumstances, to be quite frank I'm tempted to restore my edit saying there's no good faith objection. These aren't edits that any reasonably competent editor would object to.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I disagreed with your specific wording, but I cleaned up the harm reduction section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm OK, you've almost exactly restored the wording I used, except that you left a needless "of them" after the "both". You've done that on a number of occasions before. I also note that once again, CFCF reverts me when I make an edit but he doesn't revert you when you make almost exactly the same edit. Could I be in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club too, please?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the part "of them".[11] QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. So why did you disagree with these proposals when I suggested them?—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I disagreed with your proposal because I disagreed with the exact wording of your proposal. At that time before I made the changes in mainspace I did make a similar change to the wording in my sandbox. Eventually I made a similar change along with other changes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Well, the wording I suggested for those three sentences now appears in the article exactly as I proposed it, but because it was you who made the changes this time rather than me, nobody has reverted. This is not the first time I've edited the article, been reverted, and then you've re-added very similar wording to that originally proposed by me.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was similar but different. I did not make the exact change as you did.
• For example, you made this change: "while another 2014 review has found that in some populations up to a third of youth who have vaped have never smoked tobacco."[12] I made this change: "while another 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever vaped have never smoked tobacco."[13] It was similar but different. Your wording removed the part "nearly" and "ever". In the future I think you will have more success with your edits if you do not alter the meaning of the sentences if you want to continue to trim or simplify sentences. There is a fine line between a source text and original research.
• If you like you can start a sandbox or make proposals and if I agree with the wording I can make the edits very quickly. We can go through every section and every sentence of the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite:"If you like you can start a sandbox or make proposals and if I agree with the wording I can make the edits very quickly." Is this your Article, QuackGuru? Are you the only one, who is allowed to make edits here?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you see what I did? I started new articles. Both are well written and for both editors wanted to delete them. If you like you can AFD any new article I start. Earlier this year I realised this page was still half-baked. So I went ahead and made beautiful music in mainspace with a +16,522 bytes good edit. This is a mature article and this page is far better than most articles on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• QG, once again I find what you say a complete non sequitur. I often have a great deal of trouble following your thinking, and I think you're having trouble following mine. I'll try to explain my point again.
  I made this edit, and CFCF reverted it. I began a talk page discussion about the reverted edit. You said you objected to it. But then you made an edit that incorporated the exact changes you'd just objected to, except that you introduced a superfluous "of them". Then I mentioned the superfluous "of them" on the talk page, and you saw my point and removed it. So you made the exact edits which you had objected to when I made them. The wording is exactly the same as I originally proposed. The only difference is that you made the edits instead of me.
  This is not the first time that you've argued against one of my edits and then made very similar edits yourself. In my opinion it's simply because you like to be the person who edits the article.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Similar is not the same.
  • See "However, due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, the CDC has issued warnings."
  • See "However, due to the lack of regulation of the contents of e-cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, the CDC has issued warnings." It is different like this edit was different from your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, if this conversation was about the edit that you're talking about there, then you're right, it's not the same. Well done. However, this conversation is not about that edit.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• This edit like others edits you have made did oversimplify the content which made it too vague. This change to the harm reduction section was very similar to your change. I thought it was a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• This conversation is not about that edit either. It's a masterpiece of unintentional irony that you accuse me of being vague, and I'd like to discuss that edit too in due course, but for the moment let's try to discuss the edit that this conversation is about.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yet again, all of my substantive edits are being removed without discussion or explanation. Yet again, all the editors involved in doing this are active on WT:MEDRS.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• This constant reversion includes restoring obvious error ("shown to be appeal to").—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I already fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh. No, you haven't. You're not capable of fixing it because the actual problem is User:CFCF's behaviour and that isn't within your control. CFCF treats me like a vandal. He uses twinkle's one-click reversion tools without an edit summary and refuses to use the talk page. The source you're using actually says the research is by Kelly Evans the director of Social Change UK, who isn't a scientist or a medic, she's a professional marketer who makes a living lobbying government. This much better source which you've now introduced is one that I would accept without question. I do not accept your use of it, though. The source does mention e-cigarettes in connection to young people, and it says "E-cigarette use in the UK is not limited to adult smokers, but also includes children and young people who smoke as well as a very small proportion of young non smokers under the age of 18." If you do a word-search for "appeal", which is the claim you're using the source to support, it says: "This marketing may appeal to children as well as adults. However, there has been very limited research on this element of e-cigarettes to date."
  Since I don't seem to be allowed to edit this sentence, I patiently request that you adjust your sentence to reflect what the source really says.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I included "Marketing might appeal to young people as well as adults.[49]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well done. You still need to remove, attribute, or reliably source the text "Shown to appeal to girls as young as 11".—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The text is well sourced and there is no need to delete an obvious fact. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Girls_as_young_as_11. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The reliable source is this one. This source is not reliable because it's reporting a "study" carried out by a non-scientist who's being paid to lobby government. The article has changed bewilderingly quickly during the course of this discussion but at the time I'm typing this, the reliable source does not appear anywhere near the contested text; the only other source on offer is this one which does not mention girls or the age of 11. When I look at the reliable source and take it as a whole, yes, it is technically the truth that it says young people are induced to vape by marketing; but to cherry pick that one conclusion from the whole source is massively to misrepresent what it says, and to talk specifically about 11-year-old girls is just bizarre. The text about 11-year-old girls really comes from the walesonline source. It needs to be removed, reliably sourced, or attributed to Kelly Evans. It's not appropriate to include the text about 11-year-old girls in Wikipedia's voice without a better citation that's specifically about 11-year-old girls.—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• We are not using the primary sources.[www.social-change.co.uk/research/youth-smoking][14] The source is reliable per WP:SECONDARY and it is about girls as young as 11. The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody said we were using the primary sources. It's clearly a secondary source, but it's unreliable. The source quite plainly says that the research is by Kelly Evans (eighth paragraph which reads "director of Social Change UK Kelly Evans, who wrote today’s report Smoking in girls aged 11-12 years in North Wales"; confirmed by second paragraph). Kelly Evans is a marketing expert. Her Linkedin profile is here; she's a serious figure in the marketing world. She's a speaker at high-profile international marketing conferences, etc. But she's not a medic or scientist and we don't know who's paying her to conduct this research. We do know that she makes a living lobbying government.
  QuackGuru, I do not understand how you could read that source with proper attention and still say The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds. I do not think you can possibly have read it with a suitably critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable. The original research and report was by Kelly Evans, but it was WalesOnline who made the claim for the fact. Claiming the text is sourced to Evans is a WP:SYN violation. We are not using the other sentence that was sourced to Evens. There is no serious dispute, anyhow. See WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's preposterous. I can scarcely believe that anyone with 35,000 edits could possibly say Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Me thinks WalesOnline is reliable for the mundane claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Classic example of why we need uninvolved sysops here to referee. One of us is deeply, horribly misguided about what a reliable source is, and we need an uninvolved person to look at this conversation and decide which of us it is.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• WalesOnline is widely used in Wikipedia articles as a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure that's true. But Walesonline is careful to attribute the research to Kelly Evans, and we should do likewise. If you're not willing to use in-text attribution to her, then you should remove the offending sentence or find another report that's specifically about 11-year-old girls.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A report into e-cigarettes has found girls as young as 11 are buying them in pizza parlours and high street shops – and are being tempted by flavours including “gummy bear” and bubble gum."[15] This conclusion was written by WalesOnline not Evens. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you seriously suggesting that Wayne Davies, the WalesOnline journalist, conducted a scientifically robust study to verify Kelly Evans' report?—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Small typo

"The Electronic Cigarette Convention in North America which started in 2013, is an annul show where companies and consumers meet up."

"annual" is misspelled in the above sentence

BrentWomble (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Article in plain english

This article reviewing the current state of e-cigs in the Oral Health Group journal from Canada puts several concepts in pretty simple lights. Also be worth reviewing their sources. A Dental Perspective On Electronic Cigarettes: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I personally also think it's a pretty good structure for an article on e-cigs but more on that elsewhere.SPACKlick (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lede

I disagree with the recent changes to the lede. The changed were too wordy and difficult to understand. I agree with simplifying the lede. Past changes or proposals that had no consensus or did not improve the lede were Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Proposal and Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Removal. The lede should be concise and summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with Quack, the previous lede reads better to me and is a more concise summary. S. Marshall could you explain the reasons for the changes? SPACKlick (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was trying to bring the lead closer to the sources, but all my changes were removed, as usual.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of text

Smoking cessation comes before harm reduction in the body. The placement in the lede does not follow the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be my ignorance but I don't believe the lede is obliged to follow the order in the body. Is that in some part of a policy I've either not read or forgotten? SPACKlick (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense the lede should follow the body when we can follow the body. The edit decreased the readability by conflating two different points. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it improved readability. Putting two general points at the start of the paragraph and then giving details after. SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a very specific summary of Harm reduction. The statement will change in the future when the evidence becomes more clear. For now I clarified the current evidence a bit more for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede summarises the body

The text in the lede summarises the body. Moving it to the body created duplication. The text in the lede is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Text not redundant

[16][17] "Nicotine is very addictive,"... The reader will not know it is very addictive without stating it is very addictive. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No specific response was made to the objection. Therefore, I have restored the wording (and made other changes). QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Company chart needs updating

This is the company chart in Electronic_cigarette#History.

Lorillard sold blu to Imperial [18] [19].

JTI bought Logic [[20]]

And of course Lorillard doesn't exist any more, RJR bought it.

So clearly the chart needs updating. Only question I have: what happened to SkyCig? Searches coming up empty; does anyone know? Cloudjpk (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See here. I made this change to update the chart. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The word "ever" is not redundant

See diff. I replaced it with "at least once" for now.[21] If the text is too vague the wording is uninformative and possibly could be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness' sake... seriously? You really changed "had used them" to "had used them at least once" on the basis that it was more informative and less likely to be original research? I think you have a lot of trouble letting any of my edits stand.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I trimmed it. How was the word "ever" redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• The following three phrases all mean exactly the same thing:-

1. 1. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had used them at least once
   2. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had ever used them
   3. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had used them

Each phrase is true if and only if up to 10% of American high school students have, at any time in their lives, vaped. Each phrase is false otherwise. They are semantically equivalent. And because they are semantically equivalent we default to the briefest version that conveys the meaning accurately. I say "we", QuackGuru, but you don't, and that's always been at the heart of the problem I have in dealing with you. You're good at adding material to the article but you don't like removing anything ---- you don't seem to see irrelevance, redundancy or bloat in the places where I see them.

I also think you often don't understand English the way I do. The clearest example of this was this edit where you said "a few" is a synonym for "many". Can I ask you, is English your native language?—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I consider that a personal attack and a childish attempt to discredit a good editor who is doing wonderful work for this article. "Use" is not as unambiguous as you seem to think, it can be interpreted to mean regular use. For example many patients consider themselves non-smokers despite smoking on a weekly basis. "Ever" is clarifying and I support including it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The question was valid, and not an "insult". While some thesaurus might claim that the words "few" and "many" (and all pointless and spurious variations of same) might be "synonymous", that does NOT mean they are interchangeable, or equivalent. Both "few", "a few" have connotations that are different from "less than many", and so when one chooses one over the other, it indicates an intent to either reduce or increase the intended meaning of quantity. In short, "few" is less than "many", and "many" is more than "few". Proficient speakers of English will know this instinctively. Is English YOUR 1st language, or are you manufacturing controversy just for the sake of doing so? I know this. Everyone knows this. It's common knowledge, to just about everyone. This is an encyclopedia, where extraordinary care is taken to choose, with great precision, the best possible wording. It requires some expertise to do this. There are only two possible explanations for not appreciating the difference between "few", "a few" and "many"; one is a lack of expertise and the other is bad intent. Marshall took the most civil option and hazarded a guess at the most likely explanation. You failed to appreciate all of this, and I understood it instinctively. And you are alleging "personal insult". Later in the Discussion Pages there is much to-do about the use of the word "ever" or not, so someone really REALLY cares about the use of certain words, but doesn't (somehow) understand that "few" means quantitatively less than "many". There's some kind of "investigation" going on right now, and I hope they are paying attention to this. Later on I'm going to propose the creation of a new section titled something like "Influence of the Big Tobacco (Big Pharma, and other Corporate, Government and Non-Profit Lobbyists) on Public Opinion on e-cigarettes", and I wonder if any other Wikipedia Editors would support this. People should instinctively understand where I'm going with this. Join any online Vaping Forum and start asking questions and you'll get an earful of a whole BUNCH of information that is not included in this, or any other Wikipedia Article related to Vaping.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Both use of the word "many" and "a few" were a mistake. The wording was redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• According to the data under prevalence it is ever vaped. "In 2012, 20.3% of middle school and 7.2% of high school ever e-cigarette users reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.9 Similarly, in 2011 in Korea, 15% of students in grades 7 through 12 who had ever used e-cigarettes had never smoked a cigarette.10 The Utah Department of Health found that 32% of ever e-cigarette users reported that they had never smoked conventional cigarettes.34"[22]

  The term "a few" is a synonym of "many" according to Thesaurus.com.[23] This is not to be confused with few. Also see "This phrase can differ slightly from few used alone, which means “not many.”"[24] QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see you using the talk page at last, CFCF. I do hope this is a signal that you intend to start discussing as well as reverting?
  QuackGuru, you've wikilinked data to WP:V. I'm confused by this and I don't understand why you've done it. WP:V is a policy I thought I understood well; according to X!'s tool I've made 147 edits to WP:V and 982 edits to its talk page over the years. Why is data relevant to the word "ever", and does the connection between them have something to do with verifiability?
  I do realise the source says "ever", by the way. The role of an encyclopaedia editor is to evaluate the sources and summarise the key points they make. You're normally good at finding sources but I think you have trouble with summarising them. Summarising means using fewer words, and "ever" is one of the words that can be reduced.
  I know that you seriously do contend that "few" is synonymous with "many". In the light of that fact, it's neither a personal attack nor a childish smear to wonder whether English is your first language. I'd also just like to point out that the source you've just linked does not say that few is a synonym of many. It says it's an antonym of many. It's important to read sources closely, which is something we've discussed before in the context of your insistence on saying "girls as young as 11" (which the article still says because I'm not being permitted to remove this text). I've shown you in great detail why this source is unreliable but you apparently haven't been able to make the connections.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The data or evidence from the source indicted it is "ever" vaped[25] but you claim the word "ever" was redundant. The word "ever" was not used twice for the specific text. Therefore, I do not think it was redundant IMO. There is a difference between "ever vaped" and "vaped", as there is a difference between "a few" and "few". User:CFCF supports restoring the word "ever".[26]
  • You claimed "I know that you seriously do contend that "few" is synonymous with "many".[27] I do not think that "few" is synonymous with "many". The source I linked says that "few" is not a synonym of "many"[28]. Under the heading synonyms it lists "many" as one of the synonyms for "a few".[29] There is a difference between "a few" and "few". The wording "a few" does not mean they were few. The definition of "few" is different than "a few".
  • The sentence was repetitive: "Kelly Evans, the director of Social Change UK, says that some e-cigarette flavours are designed to appeal to children."[30] The article says "Candy and fruit flavors e-cigarettes are designed to appeal to young people." The part "Kelly Evans, the director of Social Change UK" was unnecessary wording. The main point was that e-cigarettes appeal to girls as young as 11 for the mundane claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, that's right. I claim the word "ever" is redundant. Just to make sure this is clear, what I think is that the source uses redundant wording. I think that as encyclopaedia editors, we can and should improve on it. Note: this is not a WP:V issue. Verifiability is the principle that a reader should be able to check the information comes from a reliable source. We're not required to use the source's wording.
  Neither "a few" nor "few" is synonymous with "many", and your position on that subject is simply indefensible.
  In respect of Kelly Evans, you keep linking WP:ASSERT in support of your position. Let's be clear. WP:ASSERT is an essay to which I'm not obliged to pay any attention, and I will not. Like many of Wikipedia's essays its logic is distinctly shaky. In previous discussions I've shown you beyond all possible contradiction that Kelly Evans is neither a scientist or a medic. I've shown you that she's a marketing expert who makes money by lobbying government. I've also shown you that the "study" you wish to cite is by her. This is not a credible source, QuackGuru. Or rather, it's a credible source for the proposition that this is what Kelly Evans says ---- but its claims should not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice.
  I am quite sure that e-cigarette flavours have some appeal for young people and this is a concern. However, the claim that e-cigarette flavours appeal to Welsh girls aged eleven is a lurid exaggeration sourced to an anti e-cigarette lobbyist, but our article states it as if it were fact. Please agree that this particular claim should be qualified by in-text attribution or, preferably, deleted.—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The wording "ever vaped" and "vaped" have different interpretations. The word "vaped" might mean regular usage, whereas "ever vaped" can mean using e-cigarettes at least once or it can mean just using e-cigarettes one time.
  • I streamlined the wording. The previous sentence mentioned it was "many". Therefore, the text was repetitive. The source used this to verify the claim.
  • The secondary source is WalesOnline.[31] We are not citing the study for the claim. The claim is mundane because the stats tell us girls and boys as young as 10 vape. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "ever" may have technical nuance from the research/statistic perspective. Dropping it may change that nuance and including it does not detract from readability. In general I would think that quoting the language directly from the source would be preferred. It's possible that the word "ever" was actually used in the surveys taken, and had the survey's excluded that word the data may have been different. The article is quoting the results of surveys that may have used that specific language. To remove that specific language is to attribute data from surveys that were not actually taken. Yes I know it sounds ridiculous, but I bet a statistician would not think so.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound ridiculous, and a statistician would say so too. If we were concerned to use the exact language of the survey, we should use quotes to indicate that (and in general quote the whole question, not just a phrase). If it was a statistical term of art, which it is not, we should explain or at least link it (and btw if so it would have been inappropriate for the survey question to use it). But QG has never ever given either of these as a reason for his reversion. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I read a few research papers and each of them used what I believe to be the term of art "ever" in the surveys, when asking respondents about the frequency of something. I disagree with the idea that the only time the article can use directly quoted text is when the text in the article is actually directly "quoted". If that is what you are saying, that seems a bit ridiculous as the entirety of this article is built on directly quoted text from sources, and virtually none of it is actually "quoted". I wonder why the resistance to the inclusion of the word "ever"? It's a small thing (it seems to me) and if the source used the word "ever", I would think there should be some reason besides the personal preferences of a particular editor. Is this just a personal preference to exclude this word from the article, or is there something more going on?Jonny Quick (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary stated the word was redundant when it was not. I have seen edits made to other sentences to oversimplify the wording. The wording was too vague and replaced sourced text with OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong Disagree on Current Lede

Particularly the 1st sentence:

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking.

The most accurate phrase I see most often is "Nicotine Delivery System", and the purpose of the e-cigarette is to deliver the nicotine and not to "simulate the feeling of smoking". Personal Vaporizer is stupid, ambiguous, and "market-y", and while e-cigarette may be the most common phrase, there isn't much "e" and there isn't any cigarette. There's heat which vaporizes liquid nicotine into vaporized nicotine. And these aren't "smoking simulators", they haven't anything to do with smoking at all, with the very thready exception that there is a heat source that vaporizes the (nicotine) "juice". No fire, no smoke, no burning, and no simulation either. That's real nicotine and at high doses it can kill a person if enough of it comes into contact with the skin. It is very dangerous to use flowery, euphemistic marketing language to describe e-cigarettes. Nicotine is very poisonous, and it can kill you. So accuracy in the way in which e-cigarettes is described is critical, particularly in the lede and most particularly in the 1st sentence of the lede.

[1] The user automatically activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff;[2] other devices turn on by pressing a button manually.[3]

Second I object to the "stream-of-consciousness", "walk a mile in their footsteps", "this is how you do it" writing style in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. It's not encyclopedic, and it undermines the credibility of the rest of the article that follows. Also, in case anyone is wondering about my bias, I'm strongly in favor of e-cigarettes and they are (at least right now, based on information that I have) a much better alternative to (burning) tobacco products and methods of delivery. My way of promoting e-cigarettes is to try to make the description of them as clinically accurate as possible. I've read some of the controversy around this article and I want no part of it. All I want to do here is help to make this article as interesting and informative on the topic as it can be.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The previous wording was "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that feels similar to tobacco smoking."[32] About every six months there is a new discussion about the first sentence.

Do you have a suggestion for the first or second sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing specific, but the idea that it's a Nicotine Delivery System, with the other phrases used to described them as secondary "commonly known as..." etc... As I see it, the fact that it might be commonly called something does not necessarily mean that what it is. Most annoying to me was the idea that it's purpose was to "simulate" a "feeling". I didn't expect an immediate response and have nothing solid yet to propose, but I will. I had the idea you were banned. Read through a bunch of tedious trash, saw no reason at all why you'd be singled-out as your work here is very straightforward and constructive, but then the reputation for Wiki politics is widespread and well-deserved. I need to do some research and then I'll have an alternative to propose. Glad you aren't banned and look forward to working with you.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this a 2nd time and note the previous sentence probably illustrates why I don't like the lede, i.e. "feels similar too", which then became "simulates" and the whole thing is wrong. The connections between cigarette smoking and vaping might have been easy to understand when vaping was new and experimental, but now that it is becoming popular and there is a level of push-back in the form of studies that claim to indicate a connection between children smoking and children vaping (and I'd bet most of this push-back is coming from the tobacco industry) I think wikipedia could serve a public service by making clear the differences between smoking and vaping, rather than passively maintaining the confusion between the two, given that the early, 1st generation nicotine delivery systems were manufactured to look like cigarettes (approximate size and shape). 3rd gen vaping hardware looks more like pipes, or water bongs. Larger, more irregularly shaped, you couldn't look at the current state of vaping technology and think "cigarette". No burning, no smoke, little to no carcinogens, no carbon monoxide, no "cigarette", and yet this idea that vaping is permanently "married" to smoking. The more I think about each, the more disparate and different they are from each other. Also I have vaped and I have smoked cigarettes and vaping is nothing like smoking. Vaping flavor is good and cigarettes are horrible. (I smoked for over 20 years.) Cigarettes burn the mouth, nose, tongue, throat and if you do it too much your lungs hurt. It's painful, and you smell bad afterwards. None of these are true with vaping. The two experiences are like night and day. Comparing cigarette smoking to vaping is like comparing cigarette smoking to breathing. No one would allow this: "Cigarettes are a paper cylinder filled with cut tobacco which usually has a filter at one end, and using one feels just like breathing natural air." So I propose that it be established that the article cease trying to force a connection between tobacco use and vaping, where none exists.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

For a short time it was like tobacco smoking. Here is the source. I propose the wording can be tweaked as long as it is sourced. What word or words you want changed or I could give an example of a difference. Information about the different generations was moved to a new page. We could add this. Just undo my edit if that improves the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe I've ever seen "personal vaporizer (PV)" used anywhere except this page. If it was ever commmon, it isn't now. Plus it has ENGVAR spelling issues that the article doesn't deal with. I think that could probably go. "Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)" is used by the WHO though nobody much else - perhaps lawyers. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I've never liked "Personal Vaporizer" either, and have never seen it used "in the wild".Jonny Quick (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is one of the common names used. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I made this change to clarify it is different than e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the time & effort, and it's better now than it was, but it's missed my larger point which is that the article needs to be something more than a "compare and contrast" article between vaping and smoking. From the perspective of the Reader, your last qualifying words beg for a natural sequence of additional qualifiers, all of which are true and equally relevant...i.e. "...all except the burn, the tobacco, the paper, the filter, the smoke, the carcinogens, the smell, the bad taste, etc... When you add-up all the ways in which ecigarettes are the same and all the ways in which they are different, the only thing they have in common is the nicotine and the fact that it is inhaled. Also your "all except the burn" idea is ambiguous because it doesn't specify whether it's the "burn" feeling of the tobacco smoke, or the "burn" of the tobacco (and all the resultant harm that comes from it). As I mentioned earlier, I'm asking for overall consensus to the fundamental idea that in real terms there is almost no real connection between cigarette smoking and vaping, from the construction of the "hardware", the method of delivery, the chemicals delivered (or not) to the body, the health effects, the culture, etc... The article's primary problem (as I see it) is that it persists in trying to force a hard-wired connection between vaping and smoking that does not exist, and given the way in which the ecigarette technology is evolving they're never going to be the same. They're making Vaping Devices to vaporize and deliver liquid THC (active ingredient in marijuana) and there is NO WAY this article is going to be able to force a false and artificial connection between that new technology and cigarettes, when it comes time to expand this article's scope to include the new manner in which THC will be delivered to the body. Will we still call it an "e-cigarette" that is "just like a cigarette" except that people are using it to get high, instead of "experiencing the feeling of smoking"? I've been talking with some people today and all these things are, are battery-powered nebulizers that turn liquid into vapor. They could be used to deliver medicine someday, like anti-histimines. Will they still be "just like cigarettes" "except for the burn", when school children are using them to deliver a dose of an anti-histamine? It's like an article on jet engines that won't stop harping about how much similarity it share with oxen. "The Boeing 757, unlike it's predecessor, the Oxen...". It's ridiculous, and it continues to become more & more ridiculous. This article will never get fixed until this massive boat anchor of "cigarettes" is let go.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd like to take back my previous criticism of the use of the word "Personal Vaporizer". I've been talking with some well-informed Vapers (a person who vapes) and this is used, along with at least 5 other words/phrases used to describe these devices, including one person's obvious pet-favorite "fogging machine" (doubt that gets into the article, but you never know). So compiling a list of the words & phrases used to describe these devices and the e-juice is on the list of things to do.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I made this change to clarify wording.

I did add information about THC recently. "Medical Cannabis Management introduced an e-cigarette containing THC rather than nicotine.[189]". See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-189.

More differences can be expanded in "Construction". Let me know what you want me to add or clarify. I have access to numerous PDF files. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobacco_harm_reduction So, while educating myself on the "family" of Wikipedia articles on e-cigarettes I found what I consider to be a near-perfect definition for e-cigarettes and an excellent place to start in rewriting the Lede:

"Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that deliver vaporized propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin (or a mixture of both) and nicotine when users inhale while using them.[18] Electronic cigarettes are a promising harm reduction technology because they deliver nicotine without the dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke, while remaining attractive to smokers.[2] While the eventual regulatory status of e-cigarettes in many countries remains uncertain,[2] public health advocates view electronic cigarette as having a valid place within tobacco harm reduction strategy.[19] Public health researchers in the UK estimated that 6,000 premature smoking-related deaths per year would be prevented for every million smokers who switched to e-cigarettes.[19] Since currently approved smoking cessation methods have a 90% failure rate, the use of e-cigarettes as a prominent THR modality is likely to substantially reduce tobacco-related illness in the United States, with the potential to save 4.8 million lives over the next 20 years.[1] The role for e-cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[20]"

I'm inclined to lift this directly from "Harm Reduction" and drop it in whole to replace the current Lede. What do other people think? Jonny Quick (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear,[15] but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy.[16]" We have a balanced summary in the lede for "Tobacco harm reduction". It is better than having no summary. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. We are summarising the whole article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Why aren't, and shouldn't be "summarizing the whole article", because the whole article is one big pile of trash, as is the Lede. It makes no sense to hold the Lede hostage because the body is a disaster. There's no reason why the definition of e-cigarettes from one Wikipedia article can't be used as the definition (and Lede) for e-cigarettes in the article about e-cigarettes. They are exactly the same thing.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourced text deleted from lede

The text summarized the body. See "Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking".[33] There was a previous talk page consensus. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24#Smokeless tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dated incorrect information

"While tobacco smoke contains 40 known carcinogens,[16] none of these has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes.[16]" See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. This is false information. For example, "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" See the Electronic cigarette aerosol page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I read this and it red-flagged a bit for me, because it doesn't give some sense of scale. The mere presence of one or all of these carcinogens in nicotine "juice" doesn't necessarily mean that it's noteworthy, but the untempered statement that they are there could be inflammatory. Carcinogens are everywhere, and in everything. The most relevant point is whether or not the levels are high enough to warrant concern. Failing to note their presence could be perceived as bias, but simply saying that they are there is also biased, so some tempering language should be included, i.e. what percentage is present and how close are those levels to (for example) cigarettes. What if nicotine juice as 0.000001% of the toxicity of cigarettes? Then just saying that the toxins are there is misleading. I have no better suggestion now, but that's the direction I'd like to go on this point.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" does not necessarily mean that the quantities are more than trace in either. One day someone will analyse and rate the carcinogenic potential of the estimated 15,000 compounds in a cup of coffee. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I'm wondering how false and misleading that statement is "depending on heating temperature". Sure, if you heat the nicotine juice so that the Propylene_glycol BURNS (like sugar burns carbon-black) then sure it might cause cancer. Burning sugars cause cancer. But who is going to want to inhale nicotine juice superheated to the point that the sugars burn? Doubt Vaping heating technology has advanced to the point that it could even do that, but maybe. In any case, I think the citation needs to get dug into in order to determine if that statement is a legitimate one, or if the citation is some kind of illegitimate shill (or whatever the technical wikipedia word would be). I don't know wikipedia that much, but I've been on the internet long enough to know that internet marketers are capable of anything, to include making up fake and scary-sounding "studies" to scare people away from (vaping) and towards (tobacco).Jonny Quick (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This is was I meant. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've read the JAMA article and it seems JAMA is saying that the nicotine juice COULD be "overheated" to the point that the liquid becomes toxic, but gives no sense of whether or not that is something that anyone would want. I think I remember something a few years back that burned sugars are carcinogenic, and it's possible that is what JAMA is describing, but the question is whether or not it actually happens. Currently researching that. At this point I regard the JAMA article's assertion as a theoretical possibility but has not proven to be a realistic concern. I would think that overheating the e-liquid would cause the flavor of the vapor to be destroyed, and defeat the entire purpose for the activity, and for no possible benefit that I can see at this point. So while the JAMA article may be technically accurate, I wonder how applicable/realistic it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some information about the flavor to make it more clear. Most people don't know the e-liquid varies in cytotoxicity. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I did some research on the "JAMA" article, read the article, understood the article, then went around asking some well-informed Vapers what it meant. That article, in particular, is HATED, and I mean HATED by these people, and with good reason. Consensus is what JAMA did was disassemble and modify an e-cigarette so that the heating element superheated the juice (water, propylene glycol, nicotine, flavors, etc...) to the point that it actually was BURNED and not "vaporized". Burned e-juice is well-known in the culture as a "dry hit" and preventing a dry hit is one of the 1st things a new Vaper learns to do. Burned e-juice tastes terrible. There is at least one other way in which a Vape Device can deliver a burned, terrible-tasting gas to inhale, one of which involves actually burning something inside the device known as the "wick". The heating element can also burn. None of these "malfunction" type of situations are normal, or desired, by anyone. This isn't a situation where a dopey teenager uses an aerosol in a manner in which it was not produced for (breathing it, instead of spray-painting grafitti). NO ONE, does this, EVER. Defeats the whole purpose of having flavored juice, and I'd also wonder if the chemical of the nicotine (and it's desired effect) isn't destroyed when the device delivers a "dry hit". So what does this mean about JAMA? It means that either JAMA lied and was patently, openly and boldly dishonest in their "research" by trying to claim that Vaping Devices were capable of delivering carcinogens during normal use, or someone else is trying to use their research to make the false, fabricated, patently dishonest claim that there is some public health concern here to even discuss. It's the intellectual and moral equivalent of rerouting the exhaust of a car directly into the passenger area of the car and then disingenuously standing back, pretending to be stupid and making the claim that operating a car will cause carbon monoxide poisoning, and then expect the entire world to prove you are wrong, lying, or both. SOMEONE is both wrong and lying, the only question is who.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not know which "JAMA" article you are referring to. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

PP 76-77 of the new Public Health England report discuss just this point, and study. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not ready for the article yet

By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use.[34] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned in this new CRUK comment piece by a leading UK expert. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The accompanying editorial makes a clearly point: "Because the only outcome measure was any use of a tobacco product during the past 6 months, the analysis could not distinguish students who had just tried a few cigarettes from those who progressed to regular smoking during follow-up. The latter is the greater concern, and the current study cannot determine whether e-cigarette exposure was associated with that outcome."--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree which is why I say the piece is not ready for the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• (PMID 26284721). Search for better source later. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"A 2012 review found electronic systems deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period."

This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. Removed. Needs updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Formaldehyde

From para 2: "but high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, which was determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than long-term smoking.[9]". This, and the follow-up studies which only replicated this under "dry-burn" conditions, are covered at pp. 76-78 of the PHE report. They conclude (p. 78) "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." They are especially critical of the publicity given to this & another study, saying on p. 80: "Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that EC use is dangerous. These were based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users, but there is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes; stressed mice poisoned with very high levels of nicotine twice daily for two weeks were more likely to lose weight and die when exposed to bacteria and viruses, but this has no relevance for human EC users. The ongoing negative media campaigns are a plausible explanation for the change in the perception of EC safety (see Chapter 8)." - also in their "key findings and summaries". I don't think we should include this in the lead at all, and probably not in sections below in this article either, or if so with the follow-up studies included. It is discussed at more length in Electronic cigarette aerosol, and the "safety of" article also needs adjustment. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The text is cited to a review. The review cited a study. See here for the study they cited. If the voltage is at 5 then it could create formaldehyde at high levels. See Electronic cigarette aerosol: "One study using a "puffing machine" showed that a third generation e-cigarette turned on to the maximum setting could create levels of formaldehyde between five and 15 times greater than in cigarette smoke.[18]" See Electronic_cigarette_aerosol#cite_ref-McNeill201577_18-0. I made this change to balance the lede. I wrote the text according to each review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

But only under artificial/abnormal conditions, as the follow-up studies demonstrated. I'm going to have to take a break on this. Per WP:MEDASSESS this is a high quality source, over which standard reviews should not be privileged. One of the follow-up studies was only published in May 2015. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a study (PMID 25996087). I used two reviews. The review cited another source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that (Jensen, NEJM) is the same source that the follow-up study linked above, & page 77 of the PHE report, discuss. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

While high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking[10] when above a standard setting,[19] reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde.[20]

I adjusted the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording isn't the problem. It's just wrong. For a start voltage has nothing to do with it; it's power that matters. For another, as PHE said, it's not relevant to the real world.JoLincoln (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The review has a different view. I tried to carefully word it. There are vapers who turn the device to a higher setting to provide more vapor for better "throat hits". Extra voltage allows the ability to increase the power. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably temper the phrasing of this as further studies have found and the PHE article has recognised that while you can use an e-cig to generate high levels of aldehydes it is not found in real world settings. When the wattage is increased (usually by increasing the voltage in more common devices although it can be achieved by lowering the ohms of the coil in rebuildables) the vapour becomes intolerably unpalatable before reaching the high levels of formaldehyde given world wide exposure in the two studies. I am attempting a reword. SPACKlick (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The review had a different conclusion but the wording in the lede states "when above a standard setting,[20]". We usually include both views when there is a disagreement. I did not want the wording in the lede to be too long. So I kept it short. I think the wording is fine until more sources in the future clarify this matter. It can be reworded if it is not clear enough. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WHO statement

Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2013 statement no longer appears on the WHO website, the "original" link goes to the page that replaced it, which refers the reader to their 2014 report, which does not repeat the language used. It can now only be accessed via Wayback. It is clearly outdated and should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't at all agree with the other aspect of your edits here, for a whole range of reasons, but don't have the time to get into that now. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that any points that have been backed away from in the 2014 shouldn't be used. We should update with the most up to date position. SPACKlick (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes the 2014 reported says "The evidence for the effectiveness of ENDS as a method for quitting tobacco smoking is limited and does not allow conclusions to be reached." which we summarize as "found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking."

This means the same as "A previous WHO statement from July 2013 said that e-cigarettes have not been shown to help people quit smoking"

I have updated to the new document as it simply reduces duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not ready for the article yet

By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use.[35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned in this new CRUK comment piece by a leading UK expert. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The accompanying editorial makes a clearly point: "Because the only outcome measure was any use of a tobacco product during the past 6 months, the analysis could not distinguish students who had just tried a few cigarettes from those who progressed to regular smoking during follow-up. The latter is the greater concern, and the current study cannot determine whether e-cigarette exposure was associated with that outcome."--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree which is why I say the piece is not ready for the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• (PMID 26284721). Search for better source later. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"A 2012 review found electronic systems deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period."

This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. Removed. Needs updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WHO statement

Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2013 statement no longer appears on the WHO website, the "original" link goes to the page that replaced it, which refers the reader to their 2014 report, which does not repeat the language used. It can now only be accessed via Wayback. It is clearly outdated and should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't at all agree with the other aspect of your edits here, for a whole range of reasons, but don't have the time to get into that now. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that any points that have been backed away from in the 2014 shouldn't be used. We should update with the most up to date position. SPACKlick (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes the 2014 reported says "The evidence for the effectiveness of ENDS as a method for quitting tobacco smoking is limited and does not allow conclusions to be reached." which we summarize as "found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking."

This means the same as "A previous WHO statement from July 2013 said that e-cigarettes have not been shown to help people quit smoking"

I have updated to the new document as it simply reduces duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose to Restructure Entire Article Titled "Personal Vaporizers" (or similar)

After a couple of weeks research, I am of the opinion that using the term "ecigarette" as a comprehensive word to describe the entire class of personal vaporizers is one of the fundamental problems of the article. The broad category class "umbrella" term should be something like "Personal Vaporizer" or "Personal Vaping Device" or similar, with old-school, 1st generation e-cigarettes, cigalikes, etc... as separate sections within the article. Many of the research studies being quoted in the article were done on e-cigarettes and not the newer personal vaping devices and so that research does not, and/or may not apply to the entire class of devices. People searching for "e-cigarettes" specifically could be redirected to the more general article on the entire class of devices.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Research literature does not make this distinction, as such neither do we. You'd have to make a strong case with sourced to back you up. As for name choice see WP:COMMONNAME. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I just have a feeling that's simply not true, and I also wonder about how you come to represent "we"? You are throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the path of improving the article when common sense is clear. You seem to be avoiding the assertion that "personal vaping devices" is an umbrella term that includes "ecigarettes". Do you deny this? Are you trying to claim that some vaping devices are ecigarettes, but not all ecigarettes are vaping devices? If so, please give a single example of an ecigarette that is not a vaping device, as I can certainly show hundreds of examples of vaping devices that are not ecigarettes. Also, how come you to know the sum total of all the "research" literature, and are able to speak with some authority? You sound certain that there isn't a single reliable source that places the correct relationship between ecigarettes and vaping devices, and I get the impression you don't want to, and for reasons I can only imagine. Finally I don't agree with, and disagree with, and don't care about whatever added, extra obstruction you seem to think is required here. I think a consensus on the truth of it, with some reasonable research to verify it should be enough. I also think you are trying to use wikipedia policies, etc... to try to prevent improving this article from it's current, laughable and unreadable state. Or do you disagree and believe that the article is fundamentally "good", because if so then perhaps wikipedia policies need to change. My instinct here is that it is your role on this article is to find "Wikipedia" sounding reasons to oppose change and improvement to this article, simply for opposing change. Somewhere there's a thing about "building an encyclopedia". Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or parrot wikipedia policies in order to prevent an inaccurate and useless article from being improved?Jonny Quick (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes is the most common term used in teh literature. We should likely stick with this term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And in the media too. That some 'vaping devices ... are not ecigarettes' is not the general usage afaik. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly my experience that both in the academic sphere and the end user sphere variations on E-cig/electronic cigarette is the more common label and that PV/vape are more hobbyist terms. SPACKlick (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The most famous common name is "electronic cigarette". QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Again back to the point of the question. I say "All ecigarettes are vaping devices, but not all vaping devices are ecigarettes." That statement right there, true of false, will illustrate the direction this article needs to go. It's either "A" or "B". Please pick one and make your explanation as to why you picked one or the other, and not mention less important points, such as the wrong word may happen to be more popular (with media outlets that do not know the difference between the two). Those media outlets come HERE for clarity, and not the other way around.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to put this mildly – it does not matter what you "say". Get some reliable sources according to WP:RS & WP:MEDRS and stop wasting time on anecdotes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to redefine the subject. First I do not "say" (your word) "2 + 2 = 4", 2 + 2 really does equal 4, and I don't care, and no one cares, whether or not every single "reliable source" on the entire internet says otherwise. 2 + 2 does not, and will never, equal 5. Do not use the absence of any reliable sources or published material or whatever irrelevent terminology you are using to prevent basic common sense from guiding this article. Do not try to change the subject from what is to what someone "says" and also stop avoiding answering the basic and fundamental question that should determine the structure and foreseeable future of this article. Are all ecigarettes vaping devices and some vaping devices not cigarettes? Yes or no. Answer this fundamental and direction-defining question. Stop using inapplicable and irrelevant "official" Wikipedia policies to prevent this article from undergoing necessary change. Stop pretending to be interested in improving this article while the actual results of your efforts are to maintain the terribly flawed, inaccurate and biased nature of this article, for reasons that cannot be expressed here, but are perfectly obvious to anyone that happens to read these words. Stop changing the subject to something else. Please answer the question: Are more general terms like "vaping devices" an umbrella term for the entire class, within which other terms like "ecigarettes" should fall, or not. And if not please give useful answers and explanations for why you think the way you do. Also explain how then you propose to deal with the term "Vaping Devices" and similar. Do you propose a completely separate article? If so, how will you (in the exact same absence of any "published material" going to differentiate between "vaping devices" and "ecigarettes". By what standard would you use? This article doesn't even define the ecigarette in a manner that contrasts it with a "vaping device". Perhaps some of the obstructionists would like to include a separate section in the "ecigarette" article titled "vaping devices" so that the encyclopedia gives the false impression to the readers that vaping devices are a subsection of the larger class of "ecigarettes" instead of the truth, which is the other way around. Note to anyone else reading this, I'm not telling these people something they don't already know. Please note how much effort they are putting into pretending to "not get it". Someone else can post the link to the wikipedia thing about "not getting it". I read that in other articles, when discussion pages go south like this. That usually gets pasted when editors that certainly know better pretend that they don't.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Welcome the new user. It is nice to have comments here from new people.

Jonny Quick, Wikipedia is a summary of what is already published, and not original thought or unpublished observations. Wikipedia is supposed to copy what other sources say and not diverge from what is already published. If there is an idea that you want included in Wikipedia then please present sources which have already published that idea, so that they can be cited. In this article, things get tense because the sources are unclear, so there is lots of room for you to propose ideas if you present sources that first published them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, please read my words to the previous editor as the apparantly apply equally to you. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, and no honest editor acting in good faith would ever propose that the article reflect a falsehood that everyone knows to be false. It's an indicator of a lack of common sense and dishonesty on your part to, whatever nonsense about "good faith" obstructionists may spew, like Forrest Gump says "Good faith is as good faith does." Stop blathering the empty words of building an encyclopedia and build the encyclopedia instead. Please answer the fundamental and direction defining question "Are all ecigarettes vaping devices, and some vaping devices not ecigarettes." and allow the article to be what it is supposed to be, instead of insisting upon it remaining the misbegotten pile of drivel that it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks WP:V

Resolved

If the text is unsourced please add a citation needed tag or verify the claim with a citation. Unsourced text is forbidden. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you found a source for this fundamental fact without any difficulty, as I said would be the case. Thanks. Personally I prefer that the text is correct rather than wrong but referenced, though I can see there are other views. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer no unsourced text even if true. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Requiring every single statement in the article be sourced is the primary reason why it is completely unreadable. It's a Frankenarticle.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If one does not source every single statement someone will come along and tag it with in no time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod I agree with you when it comes to less controversial articles, but as any statement here is likely to be challenged we need to properly source all statements.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I left an edit summary explaining the issue, & QG then challenged it and fixed it. It was not in fact a statement anyone else was ever likely to challenge. On inspecting a number of statements with accessible sources here, too many have turned out not to accurately reflect their source. Many many more have inaccessible sources, which is concerning. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod If you or anyone needs help accessing any sources just mail me, I have pretty much everything. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue with this edit is that there is a reference at the end of the sentence that did not verify the claim. In the future I hope a tag is added to the sentence if the meaning is changed or ask on the talk page for a source. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Spotted OR

See diff. Do both sources verify the word "some"? QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The two sources are the "some" - and one could could quickly compile a longer list, probably just from the repetitive titbits that litter the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting two refs together is obviously OR. The type of OR is WP:SYN. Each individual source must very the claim "For some" otherwise it should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is about the first of these where I agree with Quack. Do we have any source claiming certainty on this? The "some" is clearly OR and I have removed pending source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When you have a group of different reviews drawing somewhat different conclusions from the same limited body of evidence you can either follow the QG method of scattering contradictory bullet points over the article at different places with no attempt to give context, or attempt to describe the situation as it is. If several studies say the same thing, it is not OR or WP:SYN to group them as such. SYN deals with the situation where people "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is not what I did. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle but your use of "some" here doesn't group them. It takes a statement of overall position "The benefit is uncertain" and caveats it to a limited group "For some, the benefits are uncertain". This would imply either there is some second group that has certainty or some other group about which we can be certain. Either way it's at odds with the conclusion of the RS's that there is great uncertainty over the long term benefits on smoking cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to rephrasing but there is a clear division in the conclusions on whether EC are useful in smoking cessation drawn by RS sources in the last two years, and just stating the different conclusions at different places merely baffles the reader. The other group include Cochrane & PHE who conclude ECs can be useful. The two text versions are:

a) mine: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][79] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from the two randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had been published at that point,[13] but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary. For some, the benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain,[15][41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[8]..."

b) QG's: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][78] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from two randomized controlled trials (RCT).[13] The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[7]..."

QG's text implies that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven," - where do they say that? That does represent WP:SYN (as regards "unproven" - "uncertainty" naturally goes with the territory). Johnbod (talk)

The current text does not suggest that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,...". That is a totally different sentence using different citations. The previous text was too wordy. For example, the part "but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary." is unnecessary and does not tell the reader much. This article is written for the general reader.

"These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking."[36]

"Because electronic cigarettes are unproven as cessation aids, are unregulated,..."[37]

"The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22]" The current sentence is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with these points less, but will have to return to this later. Frankly, you have some cheek reminding me that "This article is written for the general reader"! Isn't it strange how completely different your preferred bullet point style is from anything that people trained professionally to write for the general reader use. And also how complaints about your style on this page stretch back through the archives at very regular intervals. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There was even more vague wording and OR. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will have to return to these later, but it is unhelpful to the reader to eliminate all references to RCTs. It's a pity you won't actually just read the sources complete. What is it you "could not verify" about: "Adriaens, K., et al., Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: An eight-week flemish study with six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2014. 11 (11): p. 11220-48? PHE Report p.46, & note 41. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The text at Electronic cigarette#Smoking cessation says "A third RCT in 2014 found that smokers who were not interested in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions from smoking in the e-cigarette group.[80]" The word some was OR and this was OR. There was not a third RCT published in 2015 and the wording was unreadable and vague for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious point from of 2011 paper.

The article has, at the start of "Harm reduction": "Tobacco harm reduction has been a controversial area of tobacco control. The health community has not endorsed e-cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction strategy, in part in response to tobacco industry deception."

- The online version was published in December 2010. I can't see the full paper, but the abstract reads (in full): "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco. We review the existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes. We then revisit the tobacco harm reduction debate, with a focus on these novel products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate."

Apart from showing strong signs of being cherry-picked for anti-e-cig points, more recent material makes the wording of the 2nd sentence pretty clearly outdated, as a generalization, as 'Health advocates who are not reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach' are pretty thick on the ground, though obviously the controversy rolls on. The first sentence is fine, but needs a more recent source. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDDATE, we can keep the source until a more recent source is found. I have deleted the second sentence for now. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Something that reflected the current state of mixed/emerging acceptance of the harm reduction argument would be useful sometime. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Lancet editorial responses

Please comment on [38] and [39]. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

See section Public Health England - evidence review Aug 2015 above.--TMCk (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Now section "Lancet editorial".--TMCk (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)