Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Public Health England - evidence review Aug 2015

E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products". Press release, with links to the review [1] Little pob (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay this is really interesting, and it's important to give it due weight and balance it properly with the negative reports by for example the WHO. I suggest we propose changes here to avoid an edit war – the findings have already garnered some criticism. We should remember that Wikipedia is not news so lets take it slow.

This was released immediately upon the UK-report. I'm unsure it qualifies a reliable source, but it can give some insight. Stanford – Scientists say e-cigarettes could have health impacts in developing world

Note: The UK report is under the OGL licence – similar to CC-BY, but I think not compatible. I'll look into it. It can be use, see {{OGL-attribution}} -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That "E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products"" is not news either - the new report merely endorses the conclusions of: Nutt, D.J., et al., "Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach.", European addiction research, 2014. 20(5): p. 218a 2012 - see page 76 of the report. I haven't noticed that our articles mention that - how strange! Of course they are so indigestible to read that I may have missed it. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We currently state "In 2015 Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than smoking.[95]" here [2]

While this [3] is a primary source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As of a couple of hours ago, yes - that should be qualified a bit. They say "best estimates show" this (p. 5). Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru has now reverted this - I didn't like the exact wording but I don't agree at all that this should not be mentioned here - if so the WHO report and half the other statements should come out too. However I agree with User:S Marshall below that the article should probably remain stable during the Arbcom case, and while the dust settles on the report. After the Arbcom case we should try to begin a comprehensive clean-up of the article, which I think everybody except Quackguru agrees is a mess. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to radical changes to the article until the Arbcom case is concluded. At that point and once we have some behavioural guidelines from Arbcom that will make this article easier to improve, I intend to begin a Medcom case where we'll discuss deleting all of the factlets, most of the statistics, and all of the known unknowns from this article. Then I'll AfD all of the forks one by one with the objective of achieving one, single, comprehensible article on the subject. I'd suggest that we consider the new source during the Medcom case and not now.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I half agree with this - I think it should first be incorporated (along with some other recent stuff) in Safety of electronic cigarettes and Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes before here. That we can start now. I don't think "the forks" should go. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete the facts? Ah no that does not sound like a good idea. I personally come to an encyclopedia looking for facts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume he means the strings of repetitions or virtual repetitions, rather randomly sourced and of various dates, that characterize this article. Anyone coming to this article for "the facts" is likely to emerge baffled on many key points. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope so. Replacing hard numbers with subjective terminology like "lots" is not something I support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I specifically mean the factlets: small pieces of trivial information which are perfectly true, and well-sourced, and useless to the general reader. At the moment, the only editing technique that has been used on this article has been:- (1) find a source; (2) find a factlet or statistic from the source; (3) cite it carefully and precisely and add it to the article; and (4) group the factlets by topic. It's not currently permitted to remove any sourced text from this article at all, which is why the key points are going to be so hard for readers to extract from the article.

We'll make relatively little progress on this point until we can reach agreement about who the target audience is. Right now, the article is only accessible to people who're comfortable with statistics, polysyllabic words and writing that's densely populated with data; people who can read large amounts of data-rich, noun-heavy text and extract the key points with little effort; in fact, people with university degrees who make decisions for a living. Once the article ownership issues are in remission, the correct behavioural constraints are in place and the time has come to discuss this article's content, I will argue that this article is written for the wrong audience.

I also have specific concerns about the practice of grouping statistics from different studies together into the same paragraph. We should only be inviting readers to compare statistics from different studies if we're sure the studies used similar methods.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian story. There is an arbcom case about this article now?!? EllenCT (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a single report. It is not a review. The evidence presented in reviews has not change yet, anyhow. It belongs at Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. See Talk:Positions_of_medical_organizations_regarding_electronic_cigarettes#Public_Health_England_Report_August_2015 for the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, QuakGuru - But: Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom and NOT a medical organization! Furthermore IT IS an expert independent evidence review.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SUMMARY. Do they cite a (PMID 24714502) primary source or a review? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you even look at the review at all? 185 sources where cited!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular page you want summarised? QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a quote from the introduction of the report stating they are "95% less harmful", not more safe – (how do you measure safety?). I know this soundbite was picked up by a number of news agencies, but I'd like to go through the report before taking it as the only conclusion from the report. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 

95% less harmful for those who actually quit cigarettes; the report notes most don't: "Given that around two-thirds of EC users also smoke". Cloudjpk (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The report begins with two sections of summaries at different levels of their conclusions. At 111 pages it is I think far longer and in-depth than any other recent review, and very comprehensive on the key issues. It should be mentioned at several places, as its predecessor is, and the WHO 2014 report is. Several assertions currently in the article are contradicted by it, and as the latest and most detailed source it should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"One review found, from limited data, their safety risk is similar to that of smokeless tobacco, which has about 1% of the mortality risk of traditional cigarettes.[17]" I did summarize very similar information using a review earlier this year. See Electronic cigarette#Safety. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Caponnetto2013_17-2

Let me know what you would like summarised for a specific section. I need to know the page number.

For now I added this to "Frequency". QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not the gatekeeper for this article. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I added it the other page.

I previously explained the text is redundant for the safety section.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this page? QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note. The text about the estimated 95% is currently in two other pages. See Positions_of_medical_organizations_regarding_electronic_cigarettes#United_Kingdom. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Health_benefits_and_concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the general idea of the recent article deserves general treatment in the Lede. The Lede is already horrible and biased and it is wrong to delay the inclusion of contradictory information simply because it's new, after arguing for months and years that the cherry-picked, superficial and inconclusive studies that meant very little to the average reader, nor did they address their most substantive concern which is whether or not vaping was or was not safer than smoking and now we know it the answer is a simple and definitive "Yes". People do not browse Wikipedia to see the bureaucratic output from overcautious editors that go from freely and broadly over-interpreting the early FUD of negative reviews with abandon, who then suddenly become paragons of caution and discretion and want to limit Reader's awareness of balancing information that substantially indicates what we've known all along, despite propagandic attempts at feigned hand-wringing. The Lede is horrific and has been for a long time, and it hasn't bothered anyone enough to actually do anything about it besides find reasons why nothing should be done. Now the same failed methods are being proposed in advance of any interest in fixing this misbegotten article, and I have to wonder if there's more going on here than some odd sense of paternalistic responsibility. Cigarettes kill people every single day, and every day this article fails to provide necessary information about a safer alternative, it contributes to those deaths. The hand-wringers here should be thinking about how many people might be dead or dying as a result of being unable to find a safer alternative than smoking.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I added it the proper section and the other related page. It was originally added to the safety section but it was not a WP:SUMMARY.[4] For the lede we are going by the overall evidence in accordance with MEDRS and reviews. When the evidence according to MEDRS changes in reviews we can update the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Lancet editorial

The 95% number turns out to be based on just one source, Nutt (2013). And that source got the number from, as Lancet puts it: "the opinions of a small group of individuals with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control, based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm. It is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report." Lancet How shall we summarize this on the page? Cloudjpk (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree this makes the number somewhat questionable. However I love the double standard. When others have tried to make similar arguments about reviews showing damage or saying ludicrous things we can't question the review but here it comes up on the most positive source.

In terms of how to deal with it in the article adding "although the lancet has expressed doubts over the accuracy of this figure" should cover it. I'm not wholly convinced by the lancet's argument. My understanding of it is PHE used the number as a base line and said evidence is still in comportment with it.

It has been previously estimated that EC are around 95% safer than smoking.

This appears to remain a reasonable estimate.

— page 12

They're clear that this is an estimated figure and so should we be. I don't think there's any doubt there's dispute over this figure amongst experts.SPACKlick (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to mention "doubts" - vast numbers of assertions in the article are disputed between the sources. There's dispute both ways - the BBC carried an interview with a professor very recently who said he thought the figure too low, it was "more like 99%" less risky. But yes, these are all estimates, and in fact likely to remain so for decades, if not forever. Since most/nearly all serious vapers are ex-smokers, distinguishing between the effects of the former smoking & the vaping, if the vaping risk is indeed low, will be a real challenge when the long-term studies eventually arrive. Note also that many if not most sources in recent years have expressed an unquantified view that e-cigs are less risky than smoking; Nutt et al. in 2014 are I think the first to put a number on that, even if as a guesstimate. PHE express strongly their concern that media coverage (perhaps including us here) has led to a growth in the incorrect perception that e-cigs are more dangerous than cigarettes, & seem to have deliberately pushed the 95% figure as one that journalists and the public can understand. It will be interesting to see if any rival figure is proposed by critics, and what that would be based on! Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Lancet's point isn't that this an estimate. Of course it is. Lancet's point is that this estimate turns out be based on "the opinions of a small group of individuals with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control, based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm". Perhaps an accurate summary would be: Lancet has criticized this number, pointing out it's based on survey of opinion, not data. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The data, such as it is, is "an almost total absence of evidence of harm". It's not that people haven't looked for that evidence, they just haven't found it, to the satisfaction of Nutt & his colleagues. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nutt was satisfied; he's the guy who got the panel that came up with number. Lancet's point is the number is notably lacking evidence; it is an opinion. How shall we incorporate this? Cloudjpk (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Parsing note: Nutt wasn't satisfied that the many papers trying to demonstrate harm had come up with anything significant. Nor were PHE or the Lancet. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lancet's point is that there is "almost total absence of evidence of harm", to which Nutt et al. have attached a number. It's not an opinion, but a guesstimate for something Lancet agree with, though they disagree with attaching the somewhat random number. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Lancet's point here is not about lack of evidence of harm for e-cigarettes. It was "a lack of hard evidence for the harms of most of the products": a range of nicotine products that included e-cigarettes, that the panel was asked about. (The quote is actually from Nutt). And the number is not presented by PHE as a guesstimate; that too is Lancet's point. Now: how shall we summarize Lancet accurately? Without getting into all the back-and-forth? How about: "Lancet has criticized this number as based on opinion, not hard data".Cloudjpk (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we stick to what they actually say, rather than what you would like them to have said. Any mention should in any case be in the "safety of..." article not here. There are any number of assertions in this article that have been challenged, criticized, & disagreed with, & at present the style imposed on the article is to entirely ignore all of that. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, what they actually say is "the opinions of a small group of individuals with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm. It is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report...PHE claims that it protects and improves the nation's health and wellbeing. To do so, it needs to rely on the highest quality evidence. On this occasion, it has fallen short of its mission." Shall we add that then? Cloudjpk (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And per WP:Weight we wouldn't put that much detail in an editorial's rebuttal of a review. The PHE saw the estimate, looked at the evidence and have backed the estimate. The editorial attacks the origin of the number in order to dispute the PHEs agreement with it but it doesn't account for the PHE having assessed that estimate in the light of evidence. I'm having real De Ja Vu from the discussion of the MCneil criticism of WHO here. 1SPACKlick (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are "we" changing now the sourcing and including criteria for health claims?--TMCk (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's discussion on how to weight the comment "small group with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control". The point is that assessing relative risk isn't a tobacco control issue, it's a medical/scientific one. -Jim bexley speed (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Some further statements on this, links copied from below:

Letters to the Lancet from the PHE: [5] and [6]

Nutt fights back, as does Farsalinos, and pushing back against the pushback. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Vaping is Not Like Smoking

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, but without the tobacco combustion.

I realized last night that the entirety of this article is one long argument against an unstated and false premise, and that premise goes something like "ecigarettes are a safe and effective alternative to cigarettes". Maybe that was a reaction to how ecigarettes were marketed and maybe that is the reaction from corporate lobbies, etc... I don't know, but if you mentally compare that idea, that ecigarettes are a safe and effective alternative to smoking, then almost all of this articles problems are explained. Please note the title of the article is NOT "Reasons why ecigarettes are not a safe and effective alternative to smoking", but if the article is going to be that, then it should be titled appropriately, so if anyone objects to any fundamental changes in the articles POV and underlying structure, then they should also be in favor of changing the title to more accurately reflect what the article is really about.

The very 1st sentence says it all, where it makes the hard-wired connection, and comparison to tobacco and the smoking of tobacco, as if (the more accurate umbrella term) "Personal Vaping Device" (or similar) is not a standalone device with no connection to cigarettes and tobacco whatsoever. Insecticide ALSO has nicotine, so perhaps the Lede should include a few lines about how ecigarettes are similar to, and contrast with, toxic chemicals used to kill insects.

Therefore I propose that the entirety of this article be completely scrubbed of any references to cigarettes, tobacco, smoking, etc... unless there is a specific section in the article for doing expressly that. Otherwise this article conflates two very different devices, activities, etc... and creates confusion between the two, instead of clarity.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm afraid our article has to be based on the sources, and what the decent sources do is compare and contrast vaping with smoking. I don't think it would even be possible to write an article that says what e-cigs are, what they're for and who uses them, without referring to cigarettes, tobacco and smoking. They're devices for delivering a nicotine hit used by tobacco smokers, ex-smokers, and a minuscule, negligible number of people who've never smoked.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And you've failed to address all the substantive points I made, and given a very convoluted explanation for why the article cannot change. It simply MUST be this way. First, let's take 2 giant steps backwards and understand that whatever your merit your points may have, they are based on the fundamental flaw of failing to structure the article accurately, that vaping devices are the general class and "ecigarettes" are a subsection within that class. Now all the limitations you claim exist in your source material evaporate and all that's left to do is construct an honest and informative article about the devices and the activity of using them, instead of the cobbled-together "Frankenarticle" of junk science and FUD. And now we're not encumbered with this ridiculous notion that every single sentence in the article must have a verbatim source, and all the other myriad tactics and strategies that have been employed over the course of this articles "creation" to prevent it from being an accurate and unbiased and encyclopedic article about vaping devices and vaping, instead of a pretext to publish inadequate, biased, and (at least in one particular JAMA article) scientifically dishonest studies. Hundreds of Welsh school children all agree, this article increases the likelihood that they will use cigarettes.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing the name wouldn't change the subject, or the treatment. A statement last year by the Royal Society for Public Health did rather eccentrically call for everyone to "Stop calling the product electronic cigarettes", though they don't suggest an alternative & use the term themselves, and of course their interest is entirely rooted in smoking cessation. The proposition that "ecigarettes are a safe and effective alternative to cigarettes" is certainly not a "reaction to how ecigarettes were marketed" as in the US & UK, & I think other countries too, those selling e-cigs have for legal/regulatory reasons to avoid any reference to them having any role in smoking cessation at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody queried recently why it is "electronic" not "electric cigarette", which seemed a good point, given how straightforward the device is. But everyone uses "electronic". Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

The archiving of all talk pages on this subject has been has been far too sudden, and naturally looks suspicious in the middle of an Arbcom case. One of the pages had fewer than 2,000 bytes turned into an archive! Blanking the page is not normal on WP. Please ask on the talk page before archiving again, QG, since you behaviour has been far from the WP norm. Clearing out the page just encourages people to raise the same issues again and again. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this page auto-archived? Why do it manually? Sizeofint (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone set minthreadsleft to 3, which is absurdly low, especially with 15 day archiving. I'm changing to 15 threads and 30 days and restoring archived sections. EllenCT (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that length of threads isn't counted by the bot. The best solution would be to have a cutoff at a page length rather than a # of threads. While 3 is too low, 15 is way too high–the number of days was good before. Johnbod – asking on the talk-page just aggravates the problem. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 15 is high. Most talk pages with archiving settle on around 20 threads and 30 days. 70KB for about 15 threads is not particularly excessive in an article experiencing a lot of discussion. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Me too, though 10 might be ok too. QG simply removed ALL threads on all the pages. Plus several of the threads here were not finished (arguably few of them ever are). Are you suggesting I shouldn't use the talk-page at all - just leave it for QG? Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Previous review

See here. "The images lack alt text, which is meant to describe the content of the images to readers who can't see them. Please see WP:ALT for details."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You are in the middle of an arbitration about your editing issues, and you want to add alt text to images? EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I added the alternative text for images per WP:ALT. The alter text is helpful for blind people. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Note this guideline has more or less been discontinued, after people with impaired vision said that the instructions on how to describe images were all wrong, & nobody could agree what was the right way. Why bring up this point from 2009 now? Do you really think this is the article's biggest problem? How about the unreadable prose, which literally dozens of people have complained about?

The prose is rather robotic. Sizeofint (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The prose is uniform throughout the article. When significant viewpoints disagree we include both per NPOV. The lede is a good example of disagreement among WP:MEDRS sources. A recent issue has been WP:OR.[8][9] Sourced text was replaced with OR. I recently fixed the problematic wording and the poorly written sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The prose is uniformly poor throughout the article, consisting of often badly over-summarized bullet points that are piled up whether they agree with each other or not, leaving the reader to try to work that out, which is often impossible. Your idea of what is good and poor writing has been consistently disputed by large numbers of editors. Your claim of OR (apparently, anything not written by you) is wrong, and I will return to this matter when I have more time. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources often disagree on this topic. For example, see "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear,[16] but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy.[17]" According to WP:WEIGHT we include both statements for a neutrally written article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OR is when the source does not make the claim. I tagged the OR and replaced it with sourced text. OR cannot be verified. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

New sources daily

See www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Useful BBC story here and Medscape one here. And interesting reflections of an ex-WHO tobacco control guy here. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you recommend to summarise? QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nutt fights back, as does Farsalinos, and pushing back against the pushback. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Bloomberg piece on the US market, and NHS blog on the "gateway" hypothesis. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

When there is a WP:MEDRS compliant source then we could include a response to this using a new source. The two sources[10][11] previously discussed are not WP:MEDRS compliant. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New evidence

See www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette. It led to here and here. Will check for reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't link to things like scoop, which have 20 different stories, and change every few hours. Or if you must, quote the headline. The first one is peripheral for this page, and the second a mouse study. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

They have www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette new sources which has led to improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The neutrally-minded may also be interested in these, from the same page, which QG did not see fit to inform us about: Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes may breathe fewer toxins - new study, and their top story "Should some Arab countries rethink e-cigarette ban?", with interesting comments from top experts. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible source for "History"

• Joseph A. Califano Jr. (10 March 2015). "It's About the Kids". The Huntington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Canada

Quack, since I see you have accepted my change at the legal status article, can you please change this and any other articles to match. The current text " In Canada, they are legal to sell, but nicotine-containing e-fluid is not approved by Health Canada, making vaping technically illegal,..." is as far as I can tell wrong every which way. The activity of vaping is legal, but the sale of nicotine for vaping is not - the exact opposite of what we say. We should have a more authoritative reference too. My understanding is that any nicotine product for vaping would need to be approved by Health Canada, and they have not approved any (& don't currently intend to). I'm assuming this is your text, perhaps wrongly. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I made this change. Some areas in Canada are banning e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

evidence for banning sales, especially via mail? Local bans on vaping in some contexts, eg offices, are different. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. a more recent press story, all bans still seem to be on vaping in specific types of places. But what was Health Canada's response to Parliament? I can't see anything. Must we wait for the election? User:Doc James? a July story Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? P Walford (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, somewhat, thanks! There's also a 17 page PDF report by academics, but as it contains a gross error in a statement on the UK situation (top p.7) I was rather put off that. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New source says 70 percent

• Oscar Raymundo (27 January 2015). "How to Get Started with E-Cigarettes". The Huntington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag was added to the claim but the source said "Because vaping emulates the smoking experience, now 70 percent of American smokers who are looking to quit are turning to e-cigs, according to statistics compiled by Ecigsopedia."[12] We are not using this source for medical claims per WP:MEDRS. We are using this source for the percentage of US smokers who have used e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit "As of 2015, about 70% of US smokers have tried e-cigarettes" doesn't match the source as per your cited sentence above.--TMCk (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

They are also not looking for alternatives, but to quit according to the source. I have changed it to reflect this. AlbinoFerret 16:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS violation

"About 70% of US smokers who are searching for ways to quit have tried e-cigarettes." This sentence is making a MEDRS claim but the source is not a review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think this is MEDRS? It doesn't appear to be, dealing with the motivation of smokers. It comes from this rather small survey in 2011. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Searching for ways to quit is a medical claim. For these type of claims we use WP:MEDRS compliant sources not news articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The effectiveness of ways to quit, or what medical advice is on how to quit, is. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Johnbod, it simply describes the subset of smokers who are trying them. It isnt making any claims to effectiveness. What existed before was WP:OR as the source didnt say that they were looking for alternatives, and the version before was OR because it said 70% of smokers as a whole. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

To me it looks like sociological/demographic information rather than medical information. I don't think it requires a medical source. Sizeofint (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is both a sociological/demographic information and a medical claim. Information related quitting (or smoking cessation) is a medical claim. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that the sentence could be construed as a statement about efficacy for smoking cessation by way of the bandwagon fallacy. Perhaps we should make a note of this in the article. I still don't think the statistic by itself is a medical claim. Sizeofint (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The text could be rewritten without the medical claim or it should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the medical claim exactly? Please explain in detail, rather than the usual unexplained statement of contradiction. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I already explained this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

With "Searching for ways "to quit" is a medical claim", which is an example of "the usual unexplained statement". Please explain why. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary verbiage

I don't think it is necessary to include the additional context. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. The organization is wikilinked. Sizeofint (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And "executive agency" is a touch vague, though it does convey it is a government body rather than say a charity; that is pertinent. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Public Health Consensus

In light of the recent scientific consensus reached by all major public health organisations in the UK, I think a major rewrite of the entire article is in order to accurately reflect this fact. Let's discuss. Mihaister (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A good source and it shows problems with some of the claims in the article Mihaister. Though I am unsure of how much the article should change considering the current case on the topic at Arbcom. Perhaps adding some of the findings in those areas that are addressed would be a good idea though. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The key points in the PHE Report published in August are in the article. It should certainly have a "major rewrite", as currently terse bullet-points, often contradictory, are just piled up in a way that can only confuse the reader. See the complaints of many editors on this page for years. You will also see above the resistance to improving the article. However the UK position is still unusual among English-speaking countries, which needs to be reflected. Nor is it universal in the UK, with (broadly) a divide between the public health sector (pro e-cig) and many clinicians (unsure, but generally less anti- than in the US). The statement should certainly be written up at Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes and mentioned relatively briefly here. This is the BMJ feature they are countering. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

These are positions of medical organizations from the UK not a review. We don't typically replace a review with positions of medical organizations, especially since they are only from the UK. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly - we have a section Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations which is and should be sourced to statements by organizations not reviews. There is plenty in the article that is "only from the US". Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Currently the article largely reflects disparate position of various US orgs, whereas the statement linked above from 12 leading health bodies in the UK represents a major shift in the scientific consensus. Mihaister (talk) 23:17, 18 September 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)

The problem is this is comparing apples to oranges. The reviews that report the high levels are tied to studies that used smoking machines. The Public Health England statement/review page 77 includes the studies with machines but also includes a study with humans vaping at the same settings. Showing that the output at those voltages on the same type of e-cigs is intolerable to humans (dry puff). This isnt in the article, it should be. AlbinoFerret 22:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for at least attempting to fix it QG, but you left off important information. That the original findings were done using a machine. AlbinoFerret 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Round robin and double back

Here is another issue. We are using the same base source for multiple statements on Formaldehyde. It all seems to go back to this Study That Jenson referenced at the NEJM here Then Cook mentions Jenson on 501 of "The Electronic Cigarette: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" which we site in the article. Then Public Health Englind goes back to Jenson and adds more. Why do we have 2 statements from Cook and PHE on the same thing? AlbinoFerret 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A third claim "While e-cigarettes with higher voltage batteries can produce carcinogens including formaldehyde at levels found in cigarette smoke" is in a review that cites back to base source for the claim. All the reviews so far are discussing the same study. AlbinoFerret 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on this in a sandbox a little User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecigarette. I am still not happy with it, and it will take a little more work. Any suggestions are welcome. AlbinoFerret 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Since QG dosent want to combine the findings of 2 reviews that looked at the same journal article into one, I left the review he wanted alone and removed the duplication from the PHE part.AlbinoFerret 21:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Harm Reduction

Looking at the Harm reduction section it contains a lot of information that isnt about harm reduction but quitting or safety. These this will have to be removed/moved as they are off topic. AlbinoFerret 22:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification

This line "A 2014 review stated that regulations for e-cigarettes should be similar to those for dietary supplements or cosmetic products to not limit their potential for harm reduction.[31]" can not be verified in the source. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Regulation

Really we need a section on this one day. Like many of our sources, especially by clinicians with no expertise in the area, we mention "regulation" like it is just one thing, instead of about 100 very different possibilities, some clearly good, others probably counter-productive, and some driving the interests of big tobacco. A good start on these matters is What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: Pros, cons and unintended consequences, Pasquale Caponnettoa, b, , , Daniela Saittab, David Sweanorc, Riccardo Polosaa, b , International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 26, Issue 6, June 2015, Pages 554–559. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is just a commentary (PMID 25857204). See Electronic cigarette#Legal status for regulation. When there is regulation then the lede and Legal status will require updating. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it QG, & I think it's crap in this respect. Commentaries are all you are going to get in this non-clinical area. As always, your resistance to an encyclopedic treatment shines through. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For controversial medical claims we typically use WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I added numerous reviews. When there is regulations in the UK and US I'm sure there will be many reviews to cite. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Legislation is not a "medical claim" but a fact, and not a MEDRS matter, and medical reviews are typically an unsuitable source for covering it per MEDRS itself, as they are written by doctors who are not experts as opposed to lawyers who are. The issues that bring legislation into prospect may involve MEDRS issues, but typically not those that are suitably covered by the normal EBM hierarchy. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Legislation and especially proposed legislation is based upon medical knowledge, and far from it–any properly conceived legislation is the joint product of doctors and lawyers. As such we need to apply similar sourcing guidelines as those on information about health effects. Several high quality reports discuss regulation, even by WP:RS standards using them is preferred. CFCF 💌 📧 20:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Actual regulation in force should generally not have clinical sources, except for convenience. There will be plenty of better sources available, certainly for the Anglosphere. The clinical literature contains, for example, many statements (wholly contradictory in different sources) on the economic effects of potential regulation, that lie well outside their authors' expertise. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Johnbod, there should be plenty of sources in the english language and MEDRS should not be a requirement for the most part since we are talking about a legal claim. If compliant MEDRS sources are available there is no harm using them if they are easier to find. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not ones to make judgment of what falls under their expertise, and it is troubling that you suggest public health experts are not fit to make judgments about economic effects of regulation (not referring to effects on industry). For information on regulation that is in place–it does not need to be MEDRS-compliant, but anything on health effects of regulation most certainly does. CFCF 💌 📧 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC) 

I never said what falls under anyone expertise. Where in the MEDRS guideline can we find that it applies to Laws and legal topics? AlbinoFerret 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Health information is health information regardless what other topics it relates to. CFCF 💌 📧 23:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Laws and regulation is not a health topic or health information. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Their effect on health, or intended effects is. CFCF 💌 📧 05:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• You lot are talking past each other. Let's go back to what Johnbod actually said. It was:- The clinical literature contains, for example, many statements (wholly contradictory in different sources) on the economic effects of potential regulation, that lie well outside their authors' expertise. Clearly, the relevant professionals on this subject are lawyers and economists rather than doctors, and I would invite anyone who thinks otherwise to read the discussion more closely.—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my first response, that statement is incorrect. The relevant commentary is from public health professionals, which are are primarily doctors.CFCF 💌 📧 05:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And a doctor's view of that particular subject is exactly as valuable as a lawyer's opinion about your health.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? CFCF 💌 📧 10:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that I wouldn't pay much heed to a lawyer or economist's view about my health. If either of them had the cheek to express an opinion on that, then I would ignore then and ask a doctor who actually knows what s/he was talking about. Equally, I wouldn't pay much heed to a doctor's view about the economic effects of regulating e-cigarettes, and if a doctor does have the cheek to express a view on that, then their view should be disregarded and a subject matter expert's thoughts should be sought instead.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you are effectively condemning the field of public health on grounds that you feel they aren't competent to comment on what they devote much of their working lives to. CFCF 💌 📧 10:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly am not, having begun this thread by recommending a paper by public health people. I think your responses here have not dealt with what was actually being said. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• Discussion of regulations are not exclusively medical positions and therefore do not need top quality medical source
• Public health / community health and epidemiology / occupational health is a medical sub speciality that deals extensively with aspects of law. Thus its position is entirely relevant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My other point at starting was that we are too vague, referring to "regulation" as though it was one specific thing - as many clinical sources also do. Just to spell it out, types of regulation might cover, among many other things: "medicalization" (compulsory as in Canada, or optional as in the UK - very different things), advertising (by medium, by time, by content}, labelling & packaging (child-proof bottles, colours, claims, warnings), where ecigs can be sold, who ecigs can be sold to, where ecigs can be used, manufacturing controls, types of flavouring allowed, amount of nicotine allowed - and a whole bunch of other things. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the original comment is that the best current sources concerning proposed regulation are those by organizations like the FDA and WHO—giving the suggested commentary the same weight is WP:UNDUE.
When it comes to in which cases MEDRS applies it is down to the intended effect of regulation: if it is aimed towards public health benefits the sources should abide by MEDRS; if it is to increase tax-revenue on sold ecigs then it is not. CFCF 💌 📧 15:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. On the whole I agree with you Johnbod, just not about that specific source. Here is a statement from the American Public Health Association that might be interesting [13] I haven't read it yet
   CFCF 💌 📧 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well not really. Tax is hardly an issue anywhere afaik; perhaps it's interesting that afaik no country has proposed to tax ecigs punitively like tobacco is in many places. Keeping the ecig business out of the hands of big tobacco is often mentioned, though as in the EU, many attempts at regulation or suggestions for it seem likely to be counter-productive in this. See the PHE report on this (which also has a number of specific recommendations on regulation). Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well the PHE report is a much better source. It might be fruitful to draft a new == Regulation == section here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

While it doesnt matter where the section is developed, isnt regulation more in line with the Legal status of electronic cigarettes article? AlbinoFerret

There too, certainly. Unfortunately, at the moment that article is wholly country by country (state by state etc), and the different types of regulation are all jumbled up there, with the main emphasis on the relatively few complete "bans" and medicalization. Arguably, the subject is complicated enough, and with regulation likely to increase on very different models, to justify a new article eventually. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought Legal status of electronic cigarettes and Regulation of electronic cigarettes are the same topic. I was not thinking of adding more information about the "potential regulation" because there is soon going to be regulation in the UK and the US. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If so, "regulation" would be the more appropriate title. I thnk the UK regulations are already settled and passed, and merely awaiting their implementation date next year, in which case they can be covered now. I wish you you avoid this WP:OWN language. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One concern with expanding on the topic of potential regulations is WP:CRYSTALBALL. It might be better to focus on whats actually happened. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We should also cover (somewhere) the general regulation issues that affect all countries, which is the encyclopedic way. At the moment the regulation article is a random and very partial list of factoids heaped up by geographical location. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How many parts?

The number of parts is not static. Most of the sources are relying on old technology. Long ago the manufacturers combined the cartridge and the atomizer. In fact some of the photos on the page show two part cigalikes. The one at the top is. On the Construction page we have a picture of an atomizer, the only reason we can see it is the polyfill that holds the ejuice has been removed. While not perfect this source shows that there are two main parts to every e-cigarette.[14] I am looking for more. AlbinoFerret 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cigalike than dont look like a cigarette?

By definition a cigalike looks like a cigarette, you cant have a cigalike that doesnt look like a cigarette. Any source that says otherwise should be a red flag it is unreliable. AlbinoFerret 21:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Most cigalikes resemble cigarettes, although it is important to note that some do not;"[15] Please read page 15 for verification. The source thinks it is important. There are first generation e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes. For example, there is an image in this article of a first generation e-cigarette that does not look like a tobacco cigarette. See Electronic cigarette#History. The report is accurate and the source is reliable per WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The term is widespread, its in general usage as a Google search shows. Here are a few sources[16][17][18] It isnt what one source says, but how the General reader will use it. AlbinoFerret 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

On page 15, at the beginning of that paragraph - they make a specific definition of what they will call a "cigalike" - that particular definition is context specific to that report. And does include some none cigarette type e-cigs. But without that context, and without that specific definition, the statement doesn't work, and thus isn't verifiable. This is the trouble with cherry-picking sentences from documents: That you may lose the context, that may change the understanding of the sentence. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Aerosol (vapor) exhaled by a first generation e-cigarette user.

I provided an image of a first generation e-cigarette that does not resemble a tobacco cigarette to the right. It is black with a blue LED lite.[19] Of course some first generation e-cigarettes look different than a tobacco cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Look here [20]. AlbinoFerret 22:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We are using a high-quality 2015 WP:MEDRS compliant report that tells us more than just repeating what news articles or vaping magazines state. I think we should not mislead the reader to think that all cigalikes look like cigarettes.

According to you "Cigalikes are a poor product and really don't provide a good representation of todays devices. They are first generation devices." This comment suggests you think the image is a cigalike.

You wrote in the image caption in respect to the black e-cigarette that it is "a first generation e-cigarette." You can take a closer look here.

What about the yellow first generation e-cigarette in Electronic cigarette#History. Do you think it looks like a tobacco cigarette? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You are using a "high-quality 2015 WP:MEDRS compliant report" that specifically notes that it uses its own particular definition of cigalike - in the very same paragraph where you cherry-pick a sentence. Sigh! --Kim D. Petersen 23:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a pic of some black tobacco cigarettes. Cigalikes look like a cigarette by having a cigarette shape; they may or may not have differently coloured "filter tip" cartridges, & have a coloured light at the end. Where is a more specific definition? It is OR to make up your own definition of what looking like a cigarette means. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the definition of cigalikes. This is simply about some cigalikes look different. I provided verification for the claim which is not WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Johnbod, its the shape. But if QG is going to go color by color, here is a rainbow.[21] AlbinoFerret 00:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A black cigalike or a yellow cigalike does not look very similar to a traditional cigarette.[22] Can you acknowledge some first generation cigalikes are shaped like cigars? QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Ruyan e-cigar was first launched in China in 2004. It does not look like a traditional cigarette.

No, an e-cigarette shaped like a cigar would not be a cigalike. A cigalite resembles a cigarette, not a cigar. It would likely be a first generation device, as all I have come across in sources use cartages. AlbinoFerret 02:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not all 1st generation devices are cigalikes, and not even all cigalikes are 1st gen. (see this for instance). But because most cigalikes are 1st generation, and most 1st generation devices are cigalikes, you get this confusion. This conundrum is solved in the PHE report by making their own contextual definition of what a cigalike is. --Kim D. Petersen 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you making a proposal for the page? QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I made this change using a different source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That one looks good, some cigalikes are longer than others and some are thicker/thinner than others. AlbinoFerret 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I made the same edit to the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Average e-cigarette parts

For now I added this claim. Is there a better source for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Already gave a source here.[23] This source gives a general description that applies to the great majority of e-cigarettes. I would say all, but you might be able to find a rare exception. AlbinoFerret 03:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Request verification

I could not verify this claim per WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can. Try harder. They were the only type existing when this rather ancient source was written. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you find a newer source to clarify the wording that would be okay but for now I think we should stick to sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is verifiable, and any newspaper or vaping shop site will explain how e-cigs work. Don't you care if WP is accurate or not? Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source itself verify's it. Look at it, its image is a cigalike. AlbinoFerret 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source does not verify the claim it is a cigalike. The image does not mention it is a cigalike. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we all know it is, and I hope we all know that tank systems do not have cartridges. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@QG, remember paraphrasing? We could say "e-ciagarettes that look like cigarettes" because thats what they are talking about from the context and information in the source. But we have already defined what a cigalike is, heck the word itself is descriptive. There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information. AlbinoFerret 15:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to replace the source with another source that specifically mentions "cigalikes" and rewrite the claim to match the source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source can be updating since it is too old. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very little new information on cigalikes pertaining to construction has come out. There are not a lot of construction sources. The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

When the source does not mention cigalikes it is an unreliable source for a claim about cigalikes. You claim "Look at it, its image is a cigalike."[24] and "There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information."[25] However, the image and source does not specifically state it is a cigalike. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The source was removed and replaced with a higher quality source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Videos

This article needs videos discussing e-cigarettes. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the quality of the videos. I think WikiProject Medicine is encouraging videos in articles. They are probably good from an accessibility standpoint as well. Sizeofint (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I dont think we can use them directly in the article, this might be a good place to link to. Its a page of conference video's from the Global Conference on Nicotine and has a lot of e-cigarette videos. [26] included in the collection are authors of sources we use in the articles like Peter Hajek and Konstantinos Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 05:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are the 2014 ones; these are 2015. A link to the main conference page saying there are many videos might be best Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these videos allowed to be uploaded for this article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious saying they have a CC SA or similar license Sizeofint (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Then we should not use them, but a link in see also might be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that would violate EL for links. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, what on the WP:EL page would it violate. I took a look and #3 of WP:ELYES seems to fit for allowing the link. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The site is not very informative and it is not neutral. The video Vaping Advocate of the Year Awards is irrelevant. I think a video about the society and culture for "Society and culture" would be good. According to a 2014 review vapers act as "unpaid evangelicals".[27] I think our readers would like to know the backstory about the extreme excitement about sucking on metal to get a quick burst of nicotine. I would like to understand a bit more about the fanaticism. There is even cloud-chasing competitions. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me to be rather POV - don't you think? What does the WP:WEIGHT of the literature indicate that this particular subbranch of interest of yours should receive in coverage? --Kim D. Petersen 09:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The site contains vidos of presentation by authors of sources we use in the articles like Peter Hajek and Konstantinos Farsalinos. Link directly to them. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to QG's comment :) The GCN videos seem very relevant, and i could ask if we may use them. --Kim D. Petersen 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, please do, asking would allow us to put specific video's in. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The site is also unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how it is unreliable. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That is one thing that i would be curious about as well. Why would the GFN be unreliable for this? The individual videos are naturally the views of the speakers in the video, and thus under the same reliability restrictions that we normally place on such - but why would the site itself be unreliable? Afaik the only thing that could make the site itself unreliable, is if there is a suspicion that it has an unreliable editorial policy. Is that what you are saying QG? --Kim D. Petersen 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

QG what i think you may be trying to say is that conference material generally are less reliable than peer-reviewed sources, which is entirely correct - we should always use WP:MEDRS reviews etc. in preference over conference material. But then again, that is not what we are talking about - is it? The case in general for videos is that the material is significantly less reliable than peer-reviewed material - so we are probably talking apples/oranges - correct? --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better to upload a video of Hon Lik discussing e-cigarettes. It could be added to "History" or "Society and culture", depending on what he said. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would be rather difficult since Hon Lik doesn't talk english, and holds speeches via interpretor. At least that is what he did at GFN15. --Kim D. Petersen 04:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You could ask him for an exclusive video for Wikipedia. Someone on Wikipedia could interpret the speech with words added to the video. I think people want to hear first hand from the inventor of the modern e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you mistake Wikipedia for journalism. We aren't here to satisfy peoples curiosities, but to document subjects according to the WP:WEIGHT of the literature about that subject. Your request is smack down in WP:OR land. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is simpler than you think. A video can work like this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have anything to do with simple vs. complex or difficult. It has everything to do with core Wikipedia policies. Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette - his views aren't interesting outside of journalism. Thus my mentioning of WP:WEIGHT, and creating a video is the epitome of WP:OR. You are confusing this with journalism - which WP is not. And you seem to be basing your suggestion entirely on your personal view of what is "interesting" instead of relying on reliable sources to guide you. --Kim D. Petersen 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette than that could be what the video covers. At least add an image and/or video to the Hon Lik page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you even discussing Hon Lik here? Why would WP:WEIGHT indicate that we should have a video on/about him? And why on earth are you suggesting that we as wikipedia editors should engage in WP:OR? Either WP:RS's have made such material available or there isn't a an interest in it. You are suggesting that we break a heck of a lot of WP policies. Please stop. --Kim D. Petersen 02:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Kim, our job as editors is to find reliable sources that have information we can add. Not to create the material ourselves, that would be WP:OR. Its just something that breaks core policies. Now if we can get approval the GFN Farsalinos video from 2015 would be perfect for construction. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A few primary studies not for inclusion

Flavours added to e-cigarette liquids at high levels

Search for review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877377 QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

QG - you are off the deep-end. As wikipedian's we present topics the way that the weight of the secondary literature presents it to us. We most certainly do not look for tidbids in the primary literature, and then cherry-pick material from secondary sources, to include that primary material! That is gaming the system, synthesis and clear and present WP:POV problem. --Kim D. Petersen 07:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pyrazines increase addiction to e-cigarettes

Search for review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26063608 Note. Pyrazines are added to e-cigarette liquids to reduce the harsh flavour, but this chemical increases addiction to e-cigarettes, making it difficult to quit using e-cigarettes.[28] QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you going off on a tangent that has very little WP:WEIGHT in the literature? In fact as far as i can see, it has no weight at all. And why are you presenting primary material here? Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for our own personal views. --Kim D. Petersen 07:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the wildest OR! The paper has one paragraph on "ENDS", which has a couple of sentences on them, and then talks about "smoking" and smokers rather than vapers. The only reference is to this Swedish list, apparently by a manufacturer, giving the ingredients of 2 flavours of zero nicotine e-liquid, which hardly supports their point, if any! Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Notes

Searches for reviews in the future.[29][30] Both sources are not usable. I am only making a note here on the talk page for future reference for reviews to clarify the matter. Thanks.

Free radicals detected for the first time?[31] Lingua villosa nigra associated with e-cigarette use.?[32] Search for reviews in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you making a new section - instead of responding in the previous two sections ..... about the very same thing!?

We as Wikipedians do not search for reviews to support our points. What we do is write the topic in proportionally the same way that the secondary literature covers it. If you want to write articles that support your personal views - then write a blog! --Kim D. Petersen 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And may i please remind you that primary studies and case studies - positive or negative are a no-go for Wikipedia? (per WP:MEDRS). --Kim D. Petersen 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we briefly mention this in the safety section?

Jury awards $2.7 million to woman burned by exploding e-cigarette Moriori (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the coffee article discuss the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself? Sizeofint (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there many Wikipedia editors who actually answer a question without strawmen? I'm not aware of the woman who spilt hot coffee on herself -- please provide a link. But I am aware a woman was badly burned by an exploding electronic cigarette. Do you think she caused it to explode? Moriori (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The safety section is a WP:SUMMARY. The Safety of electronic cigarettes page is for detailed information on safety. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. I see the cases as analogous. Sizeofint (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Going back to my question above, which you didn't answer -- "Do you think she caused it to explode?" The answer is no. Was the hot coffee lady in any way responsible for her burns? The answer is yes, and the court ruled so. No analogy there. Moriori (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the coffee article doesn't discuss specific legal cases pertaining to safety and I don't think this article should do so either. I think we should simply leave it at the general statement that e-cigarettes have been known to explode. Sizeofint (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps then you would add that general statement to the article? Moriori (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is in the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The general statement that "e-cigarettes have been known to explode" does not appear in the safety section. Battery explosions are, but no e-cig explosions. Moriori (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are all explosions caused by battery explosions? What else could explode? Sizeofint (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than add general information about "e-cigarettes have been known to explode" I included specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Now there is a bit more information about explosions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

One interesting fact is that the brand she used in 2013 was Vapcig. They do not sell car chargers.[33] This source describes the problem of pluging it into a cigarette lighter in a car.[34] Its the same as any device powered by a lithium ion battery including cell phones. I think we already cover the possibility of this happening on the safety page.AlbinoFerret 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Moriori, see McDonald's legal cases. What is next? Electronic cigarette legal cases? QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, how could a page dedicated to e-cig legal cases in any way have relevance to my question above which was "Should we briefly mention this in the safety section" of the article? Moriori (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to answer your specific question. There is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Therefore, there could be "Jennifer Ries v. VapCigs" if there is enough sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be a very small page, and this is the first case reported, per the source I pointed to before. That source also points out that it is included in the 2014 report on e-cigarette fires and explosions by the U.S. Fire Administration that is already in the safety article.AlbinoFerret 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Search for possible reviews later

New form of advertising on YouTube?[35] Ideas to reduce metals in e-cigarette vapor?[36] QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Metals emitted from e-cigarettes are NOT a reason for health concern: "Are Metals Emitted from Electronic Cigarettes a Reason for Health Concern? A Risk-Assessment Analysis of Currently Available Literature"--24.134.158.188 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That paper's already obsolete anyway. Only ancient cigalikes use soldered joints.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplication and removal of well sourced material

The edit summary claims it was a review and there was no explanation for deleting the other text. This edit added duplication and removed well sourced material. I did summarise the same source with almost the identical wording in another section. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-McNeill201576_84-0. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a review, and it makes the other text obsolete.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You will have to elaborate.CFCF 💌 📧 20:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a report. I don't think we should add duplication or delete the reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again? Really? We were there before and it's better than just a review - It's a review of reviews, critically evaluating and summarizing existing literature.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, its more than just a review, not just a "report" it has critical evaluations and cites sources rather well. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What about the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As it's safety information it makes sense to remove it from "Positions of medical organizations" and have it under "Safety".--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is other information at Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations that is about safety. The "Positions of medical organizations" is a summary of the main article for positions of organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article needs a rewrite to make it coherent.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for doing this. That text is very coherent using reviews and other sources such as WP:MEDORG complaint sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Getting rid of any overlap that gives even a smidgen of coherence isn't going to achieve that. CFCF 💌 📧 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

AttackOfTheSnailDemons, you also deleting useful material that is still relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When the world's largest health organization says "They're 95% safer than smoking", vague worries are no longer relevant.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDORG does not mention Public Health England. They are not the most authoritative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been round this before - they are very authoritative, and the authors of the report leading researchers. The Nutt estimate they use was also produced by a large group of experts, though all the figures produced by any sources remain pure estimates. Don't forget that we are never going to get RCT evidence on this point, and the best evidence from epidemiology will take 20+ years to emerge. Most of the "reviews" are just shrugging their shoulders and saying "dunno". The (old) text is the usual piled-up heap of points that half-repeat and half-contradict each other without any balance or explanation, and very far from "coherent". The new text is probably a bit too drastic, but we should thin out the old considerably. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no "new text". This sentence is already summarised in the article. WHO is very authoritative but we don't delete or ignore other sources. The text for safety has been continuously updated in the lede and body with new reviews.

There is balance. See "One review found, from limited data, their safety risk is similar to that of smokeless tobacco, which has about 1% of the mortality risk of traditional cigarettes.[19]" The text suggests vaping is more than 95% safer than smoking when the risk is only 1% that of smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I Think your right Johnbod. AlbinoFerret 04:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The other text is not old and the 95% claim belongs in the section with the positions of other organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Noone has argues against hat Public Health England is authorative-they just aren't the most authorative and it all needs to be balanced against the WHO etc. who are more authorative. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this comment interesting. What exactly makes the FCTC (WHO) more authoritative than PHE? You are aware that the FCTC is not a medical, but a political branch of the WHO - right? And that they make no scientific assessments themselves. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has hit the nail on the head. This one source hardly obviates all others. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i said anything of the sort... but if you can explain why the FCTC would be more authoritative that PHE please? --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See here. WP:MEDORG lists WHO not PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer QG - it is not even an attempt at one. FCTC is a policy arm - not a science arm, while PHE is a science/research arm. So at least make an attempt. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason WP:MEDORG doesnt list it is the page is two years out of date. It does list the British National Health Service. Looking at the Public Health England page we find that it was formed in 2013 in a reorganization of the British National Health Service. It is part of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom. It is very much a major medical organization as described in WP:MEDORG and should be listed. It looks like a combination of the FDA and CDC. AlbinoFerret 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, WHO is not more authoritative because we list them, but exactly the other way around – they are known to be very authoritative and are therefore listed. In general the WHO's opinion is of greater weight than that of any national body, and as for adding PHE to the guidelines: it is a far smaller organization than the NHS (which still gives out plenty of authorative recommendations) and does not need to be added.
(As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO. Neither are they the only WHO division to publishe information about smoking etc.)

To rehash once more; PHE's report is valuable and should be presented in this article, but it does not trump other reports – especially not those from more authoritative organizations. CFCF 💌 📧 12:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the NHS makes its "authorative recommendations" on public health issues any more, as the people who covered that are now mostly in PHE after the reorganization. No doubt there is some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are correct. PHE is the science branch, and the NHS the warm hands one. And to back that up, the NHS now is in the process of changing their pages on e-cigs - like for instance[37], which means that we probably should update our NHS info on this and other articles. --Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO <- this is incorrect. The FCTC is a subpart of the WHO, and not part of the medical branch. The FCTC is governed/run not by doctors/medical expertise, but instead by governmental and NGO consensus - and they are not there to provide medical information, but to guide a intergovernmental political solution to the FCTC treaty. Which amongst other things include lobbying, advisory on taxation and other non-medical processes. Thus they are quite distinct from other branches of the WHO. They do not have any medical or research requirements... That part of the process (the science part) has already been done - what they do is guide the war on smoking - which is entirely political CFCF! --Kim D. Petersen 13:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As an example - i would say that the surgeon generals report (SGR) on smoking is a significantly more authoritative document on smoking than anything that the WHO has put out. Simply because that is that the SGR is supposed to summarize the science, while the FCTC is supposed to guide the legislative process. --Kim D. Petersen 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is correct, otherwise it would not be a part of the WHO. The WHO's various bodies are all tied together and its policy bodies communicate with the other bodies extensively. Also I stated that the FCTC is not the only body of the WHO to present reports on tobacco use, and as far as I'm aware we're not even talking about the FCTC. CFCF 💌 📧 10:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know that we are talking about the FCTC here, then i suspect that you haven't looked into this subject at all, or checked the RS. The report was specifically produced for the FCTC by outside consultants - the Grana paper was/is the base. --Kim D. Petersen 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I btw. would very much like an RS that verifies your assertion that the FCTC is tightly bound into the WHO - especially since that normally isn't the case for such treaty commissions within the UN framework... normally the umbrella-organization just delivers the secretariat etc. An example at the top of my mind is the IPCC under WMO. --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we are speaking generally about a number of WHO-reports, one of which is produced by the FCTC. I never mentioned that specific report in any of my comments, which were meant to be very general. But to be explicit we do not need a source for the fact that an auxiliary branch of the World Health Organization builds its policy suggestions upon medical knowledge, that is ridiculous. CFCF 💌 📧 16:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually we are only talking about one FCTC (WHO) report (we're only using one, which other WHO report are you talking about?), which is clearly marked FCTC. The claim of yours that authority(FCTC)>authority(PHE). And the claim that FCTC is tightly integrated into the WHO, and not as i noted above a treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO. --Kim D. Petersen 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO is clearly tightly integrated, and I think the burden of evidence lies on you to prove otherwise. From my first comment I was speaking generally of the WHO, and the fact that this specific report is from a specific branch is irrelevant. CFCF 💌 📧 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. A treaty organization is not "clearly tightly integrated". That is an assertion that you would have to back up, especially since other such treaty orgs. under UN umbrellas regularly aren't. From experience with other such organizations, this is usually not the case. And finally: Where a report is produced is just as important, as it is to know which particular journal publishes a paper. --Kim D. Petersen 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not there position statement

It is not there position statement. Therefore, it does not not updating. It is there campaign website. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been updated. Since it has, and its not duplicative, it can be used for other claims. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health". It is there public health campaign page not a position statement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to go through the articles and remove all the claims from government websites? There are a lot of them. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny that you say so. Because the current NHS link is not to a position statement either. (ref #22 in the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes) And i'm rather certain that you were the person adding that link to the pos article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. Quack says it is not a position statement but then adds this to the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes article?--TMCk (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate claim using public health campaign page

We already state "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84] using a position statement. Now we are adding a very similar claim "They have also stated that e-ciagrettes cause approximately 5% of the harm of conventional tobacco cigarettes."[38] What is the purpose of the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Its another source from NHS, the website is NHS, I just clarified that in the claim. Thanks for the source QG. AlbinoFerret 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Harm reduction is about lowering risk of harm

The edit that moves it to the Positions section is wrong. It should be in Harm reduction as its about lowering the risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The reason i changed "harm" to "risk" in accordance with the RS, was because it indicated that there was 5% harm involved. Ie. there is a risk of harm, but not solid evidence for harm. A figure of risk would normally be set more conservatively to incorporate unknowns. --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other statements about less harm but since they are statements from organizations we add them to the proper place. See "In a joint statement in 2015, Public Health England and other UK medical organizations stated that "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking."[83] for another statement. See Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations. I think when there is a review that make such a statement or similar statements we can add it to the harm reduction section. I added the same claim to the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and placing it in the Positions statements is the wrong place. The claim is specifically about harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So now a lower risk is not (anymore) related to harm reduction? Really?--TMCk (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is specifically about the risk (safety) according to WP:V and how is it not appropriate for the section "Positions of medical organizations" for claims made by organisations when it is a statement made by an organisation. I'm not sure if it is an official statement. If it is just a public health campaign website it might be unreliable. I think the tag was a mistake because we are already using a source from the same website. Now have two sources from the same website next to each other. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Risk of what? AlbinoFerret 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please answer the question, risk of what? AlbinoFerret 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes. According to the source it is about safety. See "The British National Health Service have stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[22] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years.[22]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In what way? Let me tell you, risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplication and misplaced text

In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[96] This is duplication from the same organisation and it is misplaced text. It is mainly about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isnt, its from the same NHS website, not PHE, and the discussion above said that it was better in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[39] To be clear NHS was initiated by PHE. Is there a reseaon to keep the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a duplicate, it is not from PHE https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england. It is on the NHS website http://www.nhs.uk. While PHE may support them, its support and not a duplicate. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were from the same agency, its a different source. We dont disqualify multiple sources from anyone else anywhere else.AlbinoFerret 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like duplicate material from much the same source to much the same effect Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. And the removal was against consensus above. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

One is already on the page. You're welcome to attempt to build consensus for including both. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats easy, we do not have these specific claims in the Harm reduction section, since you moved them and removed one of them. The specific information is Harm reduction related. By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yale study finds state youth e-cig bans lead to increased traditional cigarette smoking

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/yale-study-finds-state-youth-e-cig-bans-lead-to/article_dc594f51-b940-5dad-a2ba-3f9e53823978.html

Even if it's not MEDRS it is instructive and I hope it gives people pause to consider the life and death magnitudes of the issues at stake. 75.148.42.9 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, although I would characterize the issue as life and death in the same way as obesity and sedentary lifestyles - cumulative effects that kill you off twenty or thirty years early. Sizeofint (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting new source

From the CDC [40] AlbinoFerret 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Secondhand Vaping

There was a time when people were led to believe that smoking is good for them, or at least, not harmful. Now, some decades later, they know better. Yet, that same tactic is used on them again, into believing that e-cig and vaping are mostly harmless. While certainly people should have the right to decided what is good for them and what's not, the article should emphasis to them that "lack of evidence" does not equate "safe". What's even worse, is that bystanders, including children, are forced to inhale these carcinogenic and hazardous particles with complete disregard to their welfare and right because it is supposedly not that harmful, or at least not as harmful as secondhand smoking! Why they have to choose between two evils? Shouldn't they have the right to vape fresh air?

This article "Electronic cigarette" seems to completely evade the subject of "Secondhand Vaping", and finding some info digging through its multilevel links is no excuse.

http://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-secondhand-vaping-harmful-your-health --MarkYabloko (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have referred you to WP:MEDRS, it is clear that source is not MEDRS compliant. I will also point out that these points are on a breakout or daughter page Safety of electronic cigarettes sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. AlbinoFerret 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again AlbinoFerret. I DID agree you with you that the above link is NOT MERDS compliant. No arguments about that.

The point that I am trying to make it that lack of MERDS evidence does not mean something is safe. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is 100% safe. The articles reflect this. Right now there is a controversy as to how safe, or safer they are. Current MEDRS sources say they are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. If you are seeing this article as saying they are completely safe, I urge you to reread it. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The key point is whether e-cigs are less unsafe than cigarettes, and there is MEDRS evidence that they are, by about 95% on current evidence. There is also evidence that the false perception that they are about equally as unsafe as cigarettes is growing in the general public, smokers and non-smokers both, which concerns public health experts. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several reviews and reports that comment about "second-hand vape", but contrary to your personal point of view they are not as uncertain as you make them nor do they document a significant increase in harmful substances. In fact the most comprehensive report to date notes that:

EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11

And as AlbinoFerret notes above: We can only write what is found in WP:MEDRS's, and describe it so that WP matches the prevalence of evidence in the literature. Popsci is a really really bad source for science and/or health information, even if it, if you read it carefully, says much the same as our article and the PHE report. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicotine is certainly much less in e-cig, but this is not the issue here, is it? There are many other harmful pollutants in cigarettes and e-cig other than nicotine.

A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using e-cigarettes.[23] The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapor" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses.

And going back, the fact is: No amount of nicotine is safe to administer to fetuses which has nothing to do with my point of view or yours point of view. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the PHE2015 report closer - since they aren't referring to "just nicotine". Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes, and that most measurements have found the amount of substances to be within the norms for air-quality. There are no raised red flags - sorry. And even in the WHO report there is no alarming data. --Kim D. Petersen 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Kim D. Petersen, I wasn't commenting on PHE2015 p. 11, I was commenting on your statement " EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11".

I also agree with your statement that "Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes", but that is not the point!

The implication is that if you are a Smoker then you are better off switching to e-cig. My point is that Non-smoker should not to be forced to compromise. --MarkYabloko (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article is not written from the view of a smoker, but for and about the general conclusions that the literature presents. You may not like the material, but it is what is there. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I will also add that Wikipedias role, and our role as editors, is not to right great wrongs but to put forth what is found in reliable sources, in this case MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good start in reading would be from page 76 and forward in the Public Health England report, which covers most of what you are commenting on. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kim D. Petersen. Popsci was pointed as an example NOT as WP:MEDRS. I am sure as more studies start piling up we will get a clearer picture some decades from now, and you will get your WP:MEDRS, just as we did with cigarettes.

Until then, secondhand vaping, secondhand smokers, children and fetuses should have the right to say NO.

--MarkYabloko (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So far the general trend within the science has been: Must be dangerous => Might be dangerous => suspecious => we don't know enough => we can't rule out danger => danger is very low.

As for your personal opinions - they are irrelevant on Wikipedia - we write according to what the literature says, and not from personal views. --Kim D. Petersen 14:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming more and more soapbox like, and unless there are direct suggestions for improvements based upon reliable sources, then this discussion should be closed. --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

This may be of interest, its a review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598199/ .AlbinoFerret 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Farsalinos, Konstantinos; LeHouezec, Jacques (2015). "Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)". Risk Management and Healthcare Policy: 157. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S62116. ISSN 1179-1594. PMC 4598199. PMID 26457058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The impact factor is zero. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Impact factor, while important isnt a clear reason to not use it. The author is also the author of other reviews we are using. There is more in it than just medical claims, it also addresses regulation and usage. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to it being a zero impact journal, the authors have a potential COI. See "A small minority of KEF’s studies were performed using unrestricted funds provided to the institution (Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies. JLH has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre."[41]

They are contradicting many high-quality reviews. Some of the reviews by the authors are grandfathered in but moving forwarding we should try to be cautious of non-neutral sourcing. There is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Which "many high-quality reviews", and how? Our article is chock-full of "non-neutral sourcing", which is not surprizing in an area of controversy. If there "is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources" why is our coverage of regulation issues so vague, spotty and poor, as previously discussed, here and in other articles (see last section)? We repeat a bunch of assertions by non-specialist clinicians suggesting "regulation" without specifying which of the dozens of types of possible regulation they actually want. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do we dump papers by scientists who have at some point in their careers done research for the pharmaceutical industry... because they might have a "potential COI"? Do we start now to figure out which papers that should be chucked? Because we need to do so, if COI of this kind is considered. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Framing legitimate criticism as "dumping papers" doesn't do anything to make this paper less biases. This is not potential COI - that phrase is in the disclosure section of the paper. Also there is an enormous difference between a low impact factor journal and a zero impact factor journal. CFCF 💌 📧 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I was reacting to a particular aspect of the "criticism". A particular aspect that has no relevance here, as other than a Red herring, the COI referenced is not something that has impact on the paper. The COI aspect as used in QG's commentary is thus not legitimate criticism - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author. While it may have a zero impact factor, there are non medical uses for this paper. AlbinoFerret 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author." How can you say that AlbinoFerret?!

Funding is a stark example of Conflict of Interest. It is the pillar of COI. --MarkYabloko (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that what the guideline WP:MEDRS tells us. AlbinoFerret 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried another impact factor search.[42] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? AlbinoFerret 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

After posting that I did a google scholar search.[43] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the impact factor is not 0.[44] it is around 1.57. Researchgate must have failed to calculate impact factor for this journal. --Kim D. Petersen 08:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• This source should certainly be used. It gives more detail on the issues around regulation than we currently have (As I've previously complained, this is an area we cover very poorly). It also provides a useful account of the current state of the controversy, which we lack any coherent coverage of, just piling-up contradictory statements without any attempt at an overall narrative (more comments above). QG's opposition to a paper by one of the leading experts broadly in favour of the harm reduction approach is sadly completely predictable. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the first proposal or any other proposal relevant to the Safety section?

First proposal: Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found later-generation and "hotter" e-cigarettes (e.g. 5.0 volts) may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another 2015 review stated that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated at a maximum voltage users could not use the devices because users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and they concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

Second Proposal by AlbinoFerret - Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out explained that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

Third proposal: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

I tweaked the third proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth proposal, a mixture of the last two, using "power" rather than "voltage", and other minor tweaks: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the same studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal, adds the study: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider. Another 2015 review looking at the Kosmider study stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the similar studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." AlbinoFerret 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on reduced volts and aldehydes

Backstory: I thought it would be better to shorten the text. The misplaced text was eventually removed from the harm reduction section and I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction. for the previous discussion.

Proposal: I propose including this text in Electronic cigarette#Safety but with better clarification. I think the reader will benefit from knowing reduced volts are generally safer than high volts and according to a report users are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC):

The RFC is malformed. The RFC does not ask a question, and misleads any editors leaving comments. The reason the edit should be removed is the Public Health England report [45] on pages 76-77 shows that the results were obtained by faulty methodology. This paragraph is especially insightful

The EC was puffed by the puffing machine at a higher power and longer puff duration than vapers normally use. It is therefore possible that the e-liquid was overheated to the extent that it was releasing novel thermal degradation chemicals. Such overheating can happen during vaping when the e-liquid level is low or the power too high for a given EC coil or puff duration. Vapers call this phenomenon ‘dry puff’ and it is instantly detected due to a distinctive harsh and acrid taste (it is detected by vapers, but not by puffing machines) [139]. This poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled.

So they set the experiment up to fail by setting the device to maximum and then increasing the puff length till the wicks ran dry. It is no surprise the found evidence of "thermal degradation" (burning). AlbinoFerret 03:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

older proposal no longer on the table AlbinoFerret 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose this alternate text if some text is needed. While later-generation and "hotter" e-cigarettes (e.g. 5.0 volts) may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking when tested on a smoking machine, reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the same studies concluded that when you push the voltage to maximum and increase the time the device is used past what humans normally do with a puffing machine, it is possible to thermally degrade eliquids and so detect high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it. AlbinoFerret 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC) The 2015 review stated "However, a more recent study utilizing the newer “tank-style” systems with higher voltage batteries reported that these e-cigarettes might expose users to equal or even greater levels of carcinogenic formaldehyde than in tobacco smoke."[46] The part you added "when tested on a smoking machine" is not verifiable with the source you used. I think the wording you want to add is too long. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Ok take the smoking machine off the first sentence. But I think the rest of it can stay. These sources are all doing the same thing, pushing the device to its limits and doing something that humans will never do. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the simple truth "Under normal conditions e-cigarettes generate neglible levels of formaldehyde" as an entry?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point Merlin, let me try another crack at a proposal, and remove some of the synthesis

Proposal by AlbinoFerret - E-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

That looks better. AlbinoFerret 09:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO: That sums it up very well.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

At a normal voltage generate is too ambiguous. The part "pointed at" is a phrase to avoid according to WP:CLAIM. I expanded my original proposal. I added [Second proposal] below my proposal in case you want to formally propose an alternative. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edited proposal, which should not have been done in an RFC and this whole section has little resemblance to a RFC if any, leaves out to much information. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Voltage generate it too ambiguous"?? Voltage is meaningless! Don't you know the difference between power and electric potential? It seems to me, you're trying to paraphrase some findings, without knowing the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as proposer. Support first proposal. It can be tweaked, shortened or expanded. It is relevant to include information about the safety of different volts in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I have made one formal proposal. AlbinoFerret, I tried to keep the information brief for a WP:SUMMARY. The additional details are in the main Safety page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) As a second option I support Proposal by AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NPOV The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources. AlbinoFerret 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You stated "The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources.", but you have not stated what was left out for a brief summary. You can make a second formal proposal. The specific question is if the first proposal or any other proposal is relevant to the Safety section? Do you think your proposal is relevant to the safety section? QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare The above "Proposal by AlbinoFerret" to see whats left out, the summery you suggest is to short and leaves out details. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The changed proposal by QuackGuru is misleading and did not reflect the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This entire topic is Original Research OR being done within Wikipedia. There is no thing called "hot" cigs. Normal volts is reference to unregulated power sources, which are now for enthusiasts in 3rd Generation format. Not to get into the weeds to fast, the work the researchers did was without the benefit of an Electrical Engineer EE. Volts are not critical, but rather the delivered Wattage at coil which has the coils resistance factored. If you want to get even more into it you need to look at airflow, in the creation of overcooked E-Liquids. The entire term used in the lede of "hotter" is "OR" not supported by citations or practices. It needs to be removed. I don't think I need to register opposition to OR, but I will say OPPOSE, and will be reviewing uncited content. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See "As e-cigarette manufacturing changes, the newer and “hotter” products may expose patients to higher levels of known carcinogens."[47] QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

When I read that link, its points to data that has widely been discredited under peer review. Simply put, it takes a product that is intended to be used at 3.5-3.9 Volts, and ups the Voltage to 4.8V. This is not some sort of new fangled E-Cig. It is a product purposely being misused and measured. Its a burnt toast means of testing. Taking a toaster that toasts fine on setting 2, and turning it up to 10, and saying the resultant burnt toast is bad for health. 1. Yes of course it is, 2. nobody would eat it regardless. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a better proposal for the wording? I think we might be able agree that "Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

We can start here with information about reduced volts. QuackGuru (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we're not able to agree. It would be correct to write: "At normal power levels e-cigarettes generate negligible amounts of formaldehyde." If you ask yourself "what is unnormal?" I suggest, you think of the toasterparable.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to use a primary source, especially when there are reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be even more incorrect to use false/misleading information.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And how are you saying we define it as false/misleading? Wikipedia isn't about reporting the "truth", but about what is WP:Verifiable, and the content of reviews trump that from primary sources here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We usually "define it as false/misleading" by using a verifying source (which happens to exist in this case) that points out such false/misleading claims.--TMCk (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The new secondary source below does use normal "at normal vaping conditions, the levels of aldehyde emissions are by far lower than the levels of cigarette smoke." I agree with TMCk that against using verifiable claims with false information. Especially when it is proven to be false by other verifiable sources WP:NOTFALSE. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively."[48]

"Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

I think the text is accurate and neutral. Stating it as a "normal volt" is too vague. I'd rather the text be more precise and readable. How is the reader going to know what is a normal volt if we don't tell the reader what is the volt? The source says "at a lower voltage". QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That way you are likely to mislead the reader, as some earlier versions have done, by implying that a particular voltage is "normal", or safer, for all e-cigs. What the normal voltage is relates to a specific piece of kit, and is tied in with the other electrical characteristics. There is no point in just specifying one part of the set-up. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We must not use faulty claims. "Reduced voltage" is incorrect. It is all about the power and not the voltage. The term "normal condition" is reliable and reputable because it is used in an scientific paper AND it is not a health claim!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, do you have a better suggestion that will be easier to understand using the current sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Albino Ferret's version is fine, except we should omit "of 5 volts" for the same reason. "Lower" has the same problems as "normal", if not worse. Since this research has been covered by the PHE report and several reviews, just quoting their summary might be best. Personally I'm hopeless at electrical stuff, but at least it is a "known unknown" for me. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part normal voltage makes no sense because what is a normal volt. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the whole point. What is the normal voltage is what is normal for that particular set-up. What we need to avoid doing is implying any particular voltage figure is normal for all equipment, which is misleading. For this reason we should avoid giving specific figures outside a full description of the equipment used, which would of course be much too long for here. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Normal usage of e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde.[1]" I changed the wording to avoid confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes based on johnbod's comments. I think the specifics that replaced the "low" are good. I also think capping the voltage at 5 is the wrong thing to do as other mods likely go higher. Normal is sourced QG. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the last proposal of AlbinoFerret. It provides interesting and informative facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, there is a small issue with the following sentence. "Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes" Both sources do not verify the same claim in accordance with WP:V. One source verifies the first part of the claim and the other source verifies the last part of the claim. This appears to be a WP:SYN violation.

The sentence "A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking.[3]" is not accurate. " A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes at a higher volt may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking.[2]" is closer to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, your comments have been very helpful. I rewrote my proposal. Please review and edit the third proposal if you wish. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the first source verifies the claim entirely, I was thinking of removing the second source. I will wait until others have chimed in before agreeing to your newest proposal QG, but its looking good. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source says "The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively." I could not verify "Normal usage of e-cigarettes" using the first source. There is still an issue with another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source also says this "however, in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke." Which can be paraphrased as normal usage. I have removed it since striking doesnt work on references, it underlines them. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we are getting very close to agreement, which is good. I've done a 4th proposal above, a bit of a mix and using "power" instead of "voltage", which I think is better. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the 4th proposal! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin 1971 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good and usable. AlbinoFerret 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part "looking at the same studies" is editorialising. Does the source state is was "looking at the same studies" as another source? QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In the references attached to the claims in the sources they both look at the exact same studies, Kosmider, L.; Sobczak, A.; Fik, M.; Knysak, J.; Zaciera, M.; Kurek, J.; Goniewicz, M.L. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tobacco Res. 2014, doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu078 is one of them. If you would prefer we can add the studies each looked at, but that will be rather long and wordy. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The source did not explicitly state is was "looking at the same studies".[49] It is not necessary to state it reviewed the same studies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is an important fact, we can leave the wording in, or list the study, your choice. AlbinoFerret 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader does not know what the same studies are. I do not have a suggestion to improve the wording except for deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal added the wording. If same study is a problem now, I can add the full studies name there also. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it would be much simpler without having to debunk the "flat earth" claim in the first place but so far the 5th version is agreeable.--TMCk (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader who does not know what the same studies are, is able to read the sourced papers.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I spelled out the study looked at in the 5th version Merlin. One slight change to the 5th, the PHE report looked at similar studies, not the same. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, this is way too much attribution, especially the part "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason its in there is because they looked at the same studies and you objected to the same studies wording. Why do you want to remove wording shows the false methodology claim is talking about the same study as the one that found high levels? AlbinoFerret 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, I have an issue with the part "looking at the same studies" with your proposal. If you could remove it or reword it then I can support your version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, as proposer. It is relevant to include specific information about the levels of formaldehyde in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I support the Third proposal and Fourth proposal. The difference between the third and fourth proposal is that the fourth proposal includes the part "looking at the same studies". The fifth proposal has too much in-text attribution such as "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• The fourth version above seems mostly reasonable. The long source-naming in the middle of the prose, in #5, isn't necessary; that's what we have citations for. I kind of liked the specific figures in the earlier versions, but maybe that makes me geeky. Also prefer "voltage" over "power" which can be mistaken for "potency of delivery" or something. In all of them, I suspect that the "dry puff" debate can be compressed to a single sentence with less detail, maybe by leading with the important part, then saying it refuted earlier assumptions, and avoiding the jargon. That bit borders on trivia anyway; it's basically reporting on an idea that turned out to not be a real concern and wasn't widely reported to begin with, so it's probably an idea few readers are familiar with and don't need to know about to understand the overall topic, thus it may not really be encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As its lost in this ongoing research I will quote the 4th proposal

   Proposal by AlbinoFerret - E-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde.[1] A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking.[2] Another review looking at the same studies pointed out that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage.[3] A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde.[4] This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it. [4]

This is inescapably a proposal of creating Original Research by putting together various sources, and then directing the reader to new conclusions, or to make conclusions. The creation of bad emissions can be created by not using a device properly. (see Toast above). Scientist took a variable setting device and used it improperly in ways that user would not, and then measured the output, and asserted that those finding were valid to users. It is clear to know this because at the designed and instructed usage formaldehyde was not created and with only trace measurements. This proposal takes apples and oranges, and then says rotten fruit is bad as the premise.

• The problem is newer devices do not use the same voltages as standard. It is an interplay of resistance volts, which then relates to heat. The same volts against a different resistance will always have a different impact on heat. Ohms law won't be broken. Dry puff is a bad term also. It relates to a wick that has burnt off too much e-Liquid, to be dry. It can happen from too much heat at once, and it can happen from running out of E-liquid. The design of the device makes a difference, for some that can be explained as generation of device. With high airflow, there is more cooling, so even if more volts creates more heat, the time of the e-Liquid is against the hotter coil, is less. It's a process. A car traveling at a speed can have the engine working very hard, or in a higher gear, at the same speed, working less. I say all of this not to add to the creation of a more perfect OR, but to say that no matter what, this will end up becoming OR. Voting to install OR, won't help it, and it will not stop it from being removed for cause if it were to be miraculous agreed upon here.--------At this point from the voting, it should be well understood consensus won't be achieved.
  

This is an issue of OR, putting items together for the explicit reason of creating a perception in the reader, and a song and dance on how to buffer their confusion. I suggest this entire effort simple be abandoned and closed. New devices work differently, volts are not a measure, they are just a component of the equation. The last sentence "This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it." ---> What is "This" in that sentence, and there is NO WAY you can say it does not pose a harm to humans, because regardless of a dry puff, humans do different things, and some may entirely ignore dry puff or wet puff or whatever else. The proposal should be abandoned, in specific and for the entire concept being asked for inclusion. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I say, the whole 'dry puff' bit can be compressed or otherwise massaged, or probably just deleted. The earlier parts of the proposal, before "A 2015 Public Health England report...", do not appear to raise any theoretical OR issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree that this particular RfC should be abandoned. It was started by a now-topic-banned editor when he objected to one of my reverts. He actually began five discussions in separate on the subject in different places in rapid succession: 1, 2, 3, 4 (which ended in him being topic banned for 6 months), and 5 (this one); it is, in origin, a conduct dispute being continued by other means. The question was also changed several times during the course of the RfC after some of the replies had been added. Most of the changes were unambiguous improvements made by well-meaning editors and this has now become a much more productive discussion about content, but I would suggest that the confusing chronology of the current RfC, split across several pages as it is, will be rather challenging for an uninvolved closer to unravel. I recommend archiving the current discussion without result, and beginning a fresh, clean one.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Finally! We're now able to start a constructive debate :)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall, lets box this up and start again with just a discussion. AlbinoFerret 13:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

New "full range" image uploaded

I've uploaded an image found and linked at MED talk by CFCF. Having all generations in one image will be useful for a wide range of pages.--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That image has too many devices that look similar as each other. The image is not a good option if the purpose is to illustrate concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its a bit compact, but otherwise a great picture. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you describing this image that you were so keen to force into the article and then was stuck there for over half a year and after it was removed recently you sneeked it in there again before reconsidering and replacing it with a single devise?--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kim. Compacted it is but otherwise almost perfect.--TMCk (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Add to Quack: Not to mention this image you had in mind as replacement.--TMCk (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good image. Some second gen, but mostly third. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 cigalikes, too. Aren't they 1st generation?--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the black cigalike on the edge, it blended in. So there are first gen also. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. Bright, high-color, logos displayed, mirrored on the surface. If you want WP to advertise product, it's a fine choice. If you want to provide information such as types, similarities and differences, generations, and so on, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Cloudjpk: I presume I've missed something. Did you seriously mean to tell us that File:E Cigarettes, Ego, Vaporizers and Box Mods (17679064871).jpg looks like an advertisement to you, or was this some kind of humour or sarcasm?—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Replace with better when possible The items featured in this picture are hard to distinguish or identify. I would prefer a single e-cigarette depicted clearly, which is the usual way of illustrating product articles. There is no explanation of the significance of showing these designs or how they might differ from each other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An image with the 3 (4 or 5?) different main types would be better indeed but if wp were to be that picky there were (almost) no images (and no text).--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I restored the older images which show individual products. I think these are more traditional as product images than the group photo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous.--TMCk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I fail to understand your perspective but would talk more. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The new image you replaced shows a broad spectrum of devices, including newer devices. The old ones are dated technology and show only 2 of the devices that are e-cigs. The newer image is better. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I assert that most Wikipedia product pages only show one current example of the product. To what extent do you agree? If you agree, then why do you feel this article should be different? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because of the pace of innovation and the number of devices that dont look like each other that are classified as e-cigs. You cant simply insert images of two kinds and expect it to visually describe what you are talking about. This is part of the cigalike problem I have mentioned in other sections. The articles are to focused on one type out of the multitude of types. AlbinoFerret 20:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The newer image contains repetitive pictures. For example, there are 5 pictures of box mods and it is difficult to tell where is the cigalike. It would be better to find a better image than use this one. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The most designed and innovated object in the world is the chair and still the article there only has one picture. One representative example is the norm. Suppose that a group image were better - why this one? It is crowded, does not allow differentiation of models, and shows outdated models just like the single image. It would be unorthodox to not use a single product image and stranger still to use a lower-quality group photo. If you like new devices, then why not a single image of a commonly used new device? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason for this one , is because we have this one. If you have another that is better, by all means suggest it. But suggesting the older images should not be replaced because one we dont have is better is faulty logic. As for other articles, perhaps Inhaler is a better comparison as they are similarly used. It has a multi image in its lede. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret That article also shows a single image. Can you provide a single product image that you like, that could be shown with the group image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Since QG pointed out the cigalike is hard to see in the new image, keep the cigalike one already there and replace the ego image with the new one. AlbinoFerret 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

fyi Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Smoker v Non-smoker

Hello User:SPACKlick I see you reversed some recent changes in the Electronic cigarette article, because, according to you, "Not per source, sentence refers to all people not just users". Would you then kindly explain to the rest of us, how is it "The benefits.." include non-smokers? And how is it that the safety risk from inhaling smokes from e-cig is like that of watching smokeless tobacco chewers for non-smokers? The article is obviously comparing the "benefits" for smokers ONLY, isn't it? And hence, changes should be made to reflect that, or in other words: THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING, Agree? --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not SPACKlick, but it appears he reverted you because of failed verification. All content must be based on a WP:MEDRS source for that type of claim. We cant add anything unless the source makes the same claim. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a matter of verification. The way the wordings stand right now imply that there are benefits to non-smokers too, which is obviously misleading at best. --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarkYabloko, I tried to clarify the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better QuackGuru, thank you!

But wouldn't 'smokers' be even better than 'users'? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every vaper is a current smoker or former smoker. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. What about adding the word "users" to: "Their safety risk is like that of smokeless tobacco"? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I added users to clarify it is users. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you QuackGuru --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, this page requires WP:MEDRS sources to state any medical claim, you might want to read the guideline. Also please be aware that daughter pages exist with much more detailed health risks. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Logical concepts in these types of arguments are very sensitive to context, which can distort or even invert flat conclusions. Consider:

"THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING"

certainly sounds conclusive rather than only persuasive, but on analysis it is less of a principle than a slogan, with all the question-begging characteristic of most slogans.

For example try instead:

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE SOME THINGS RATHER THAN OTHERS, EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS UNDESIRABLE

or

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE LESS OF SOME THINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE UNDESIRABLE

Each of these separately and both of them together are relevant to the question of the acceptability of vaping, if not necessarily of its positive desirability. However consider also:

THE UNDESIRABILITY OF INTRODUCING VAPING INTO A NON-SMOKING COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE BENEFITS OF INTRODUCING IT INTO A SMOKING COMMUNITY

Note that I speak as a non-smoking, non-vaping non-industry-connected disliker of smoking, who has yet to be significantly incommoded by vapers. I fully realise that that proves nothing, including my own honesty, good sense or relevant experience, but possibly I am gun-shy and I do wish to forestall certain classes of ad hominem responses that are common in such debates. JonRichfield (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Entry For "Electronic Cigarette" is a Hideous, Unreadable Mess

A critique of this article. Enjoy (or not)! http://blog.thedripclub.com/the-wikipedia-entry-for-electronic-cigarette-is-a-hideous-mess - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not from a very neutral source, but many of these points have been made here for years. In fact the "bath salts" bit is not as crazy as it seems - it turns out it is an American street name for substituted cathinones, but it was lazy of the authors of the study not to clarify their sentence. Adjusted by this edit. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree this page does have serious problems, mostly related to sourced content from very old content for a rapidly evolving technology product. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Safety claim in Harm reduction.

This claim is not about harm reduction and should be moved, I do not believe this to be a harm reduction claim but a safety one.

A 2015 review found vaping e-cigarettes at a high voltage (5.0V) may generate formaldehyde-forming chemicals at a greater level than smoking, which has been determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than smoking;[13] the underlying research had used a "puffing machine".[101] Another small study with people using similar devices and settings found that the users could not use the devices because of "dry-puffs" at the high settings, which according to the 2015 Public Health England report "poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled" and "At normal settings, there was no or negligible formaldehyde release."[101] They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[101]

Any suggestions on a location? AlbinoFerret 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole 3rd para is safety rather than harm reduction, which does not = everything to do with "harm". I'd suggest spiltting the 2nd para of "Safety", and adding it after " varies in composition and concentration across and within manufacturers.", then sorting the para arrangements afterwards - most are too long anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the safety section remain 4 paragraghs. Is it possible to shorten the text a bit? It says "They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[101]" Since there is no indication of exposure to dangerous levels of aldehydes this is a harm reduction compared to smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That cant be removed regardless where it is placed, if the first claim is kept. It is not harm reduction to say that the findings of a previous claim is wrong. In fact that whole section should be removed from the articles because PHE shows that the results were the product of failed methodology. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Harm reduction is not about detailed clinical aspects of safety like this, otherwise what is the difference with safety? It is about, with a considerable difference in risk levels accepted, how useful e-cigs are are at replacing or reducing tobacco smoking for individuals or groups. "Gateway" and "making nicotine accepted again" type issues belong here. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources often contradict each other on this topic. If we remove all the disagreements there will be very little left. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal would not be on the basis of disagreement, but that a source has pointed out the flawed methodology of the findings. AlbinoFerret 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the text to the safety section. Moving all of the text was too much detailed information for a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The text was misplaced. I moved some of the text to safety. This was not new material. This edit deleted the text, but did not give a specific explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I moved the claim to safety, and then you removed it without waiting for a response to a talk page section you started on Safety. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the claims to the safety section in this article because it was misplaced in the harm reduction section. I removed duplication from the safety page. According to talk page consensus the text was misplaced. After I moved some text the correct section it was deleted. The text was in the article for some time. I do not see consensus to delete all the information from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is that most of that paragraph was safety, I removed all the safety claims from Harm reduction, if anything removed isnt already on Safety, it can be placed there. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete it all from this page. You added mostly duplication to the safety page. There was talk to add it the another section.[50][51] QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not deleted, but moved to the Safety page. As I see it Johnbod agreed and so it was moved. The information is not lost, and if some was inadvertently misplaced it can be retrieved from history and placed in the correct location, the safety page. The addition was suggested to go to the safety section, but that should be a sync of the Safety lede, I am not sure such detailed information is necessary in the Safety lede. You also argued against it being in that section, so it went on the Safety page.AlbinoFerret 21:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You added mostly duplication to the other page. I explained it was too much info to add all of it so I added only some of it to the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Didnt see it was already there, so I added it, no biggie. Logic indicates if its to much for the summery of Saftey on this page, it should go on the Safety page. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Check sources

www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/ QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru PLEASE READ THE TOP OF THE PAGE This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification

The review does not mention "cigalikes",[52] but we do mention "cigalike" in the lede.[53] QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So add one of the hundreds of MEDRS sources that do use the term, eg the PHE Report Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarettes in general are not called "cigalikes". There are many different names for different types of e-cigs such as box mods. We don't need to name all the different types in the lede. But the lede does have specific information on "cigalikes". See "There are disposable "cigalikes" which are known as first generation cigalikes and there are reusable versions.[6]" See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Bhatnagar2014_6-0. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a common term that has made its way to MEDRS sources. I see no reason it cant be added if its sourced. There is also still a ton of cigalike problems in the articles where claims about cigalikes are applied to all generations. AlbinoFerret 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the specific names we also state "There are also second generation,[7] third generation,[8] and fourth generation devices.[9]" The first sentence would be too long to include all the names. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Farsalinos2015_9-0. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While its true that these generations are in sources, I think it best to only mention those that have specific common names tied to them like cigalike, I am waiting for a Medrs source to use "ego type" to describe second generation as this is common usage. AlbinoFerret 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede now says "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco combustion.[2]" QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, coming to this late, I don't like the current start: "An electronic cigarette (EC, e-cig, or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV), or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". There are too many bolded names in a row, and "cigalike, eGo, mod," are terms for particular types. It would be better to move these to the "generations" sentence a line or two down, and keep just the general terms that can cover all types at the start. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree here, that many alternatives when you are beginning a definition is not readable. Best to use the term Electronic Cigarette, continue the sentence, and then another sentence of alternative names. Possibly an entire section to have names reflected in relationship to Generations of devices. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now changed, & I'm happy with the current version. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

exploding cigarettes

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-seriously-injured-by-e-cigarette-explosion/

I thought only cigars were supposed to do that. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to use it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Want to update "mobile phones", "laptops", "Powered Screwdrivers", etc everytime a battery fails? They are battery powered - every now and then a battery fails. Simple.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already claims on the Safety page about explosions. If it goes any place that would be the best location. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

<a href="http://www.southwestsmokeless.com"><img src="http://www.southwestsmokeless.com/image/vape-responsibily.jpg" width="30%"></a> TheresaJordan (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Pure SPAM. AlbinoFerret 21:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unadulterated, indeed Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly this addition is opposed, and edit requests are meant to be uncontroversial edits Cannolis (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Vape Shop nominated for deletion

Here is a link Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vape_shop AlbinoFerret 16:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This request was CLOSED, with KEEP Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

"What to Advise to Respiratory Patients Intending to Use Electronic Cigarettes" by Riccardo Polosa, Davide Campagna, and Pasquale Caponnetto. Published Sept 2015, a review, and free access.[54] AlbinoFerret 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, and at least 2 of the authors are well-known, but is it strictly a review? Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I an not 100% sure if its strictly a review, but that is what it appears to be as it reviews work by others and is not new research by the authors. The article is undoubtedly a secondary source in a pubmed indexed peer reviewed journal and not an editorial. That two of the authors are well know and have other sources already in the articles is a plus. I like the fact that its newer source that is free to access, that is a plus to verifiability as readers of the articles may not have access to pay walled journal articles. AlbinoFerret 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for GA?

Has there been any thought about taking this article through Good article nomination. It seems fairly comprehensive content- and sourcing-wise. The prose could use some improvement but I don't think that is as a huge issue for GA status as it is for FA. Sizeofint (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, things are being deleted from the lede that summarise the body. Sourced text is being replaced with vague text or original research. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess at present it would fail the stability criteria then. Sizeofint (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, I noticed someone added MEDRS violations, restored a COPYVIO, deleting sourced text to recent reviews, and replaced sourced text with original research.[55][56] User:SMcCandlish, they never wandered away. The second I stop editing this article it will quickly be turned into something very different. You said "There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic."[57] Sanger said "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule".[58] Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I dunno at this point. The ArbCom thing is still ongoing. The copyvio insertion is best dealt with at the copyvio noticeboard. Then it's the community resolving the matter (in a way that can restrain a copyvio-habitual editor if necessary) instead of one party at an ArbCom case opening himself to claims of editwarring (invalid claims or not) by trying to revert the copyvios unilaterally. I.e., I think this has basically become "political" and has to be treated as a political process instead of a normal editorial one. If someone's inserting OR, an an initial attempt to rectify it fails, then use the OR noticeboard, and so on. It's a drama-ish, drawn out approach, but when dealing with WP:CIVILPOV matters, that's the only route, probably, especially on a major, controversial topic that may attract fandom-based or even industry-shill editing. Anyone pursuing a civil-PoV tactic would already be playing a political game and angling to use dramaboards to get what they want strategically, so probably the only antidote for this is to ensure that the boards are already familiar with what is going on before you get vexatiously hauled in front of them with cherry-picked diffs only chosen from, say, moments in which you've lost your temper or done something potentially controversial yourself (if you even want to be the one to deal with this stuff, a duty I'm not sure I'd volunteer for). This all has to be about the encyclopedic end result in the end, so stick to that and to what's being done with the content in anti-policy ways, rather than who's doing it and what their possible motivations might be. The problems need to be shut down more than any particular editor doing something problematic. Anyone who is WP:NOTHERE will lose interest and go away if PoV-pushing avenues are shut down to them, without the side effect of making martyrs out of them. (And that can happen; I've seen it with my own eyes.) PS: Another technique, though potentially a quasi-pointy one in spirit though not in execution, is just walk away and quietly encourage others to do so, and let any dominant PoV-pushing faction just hang itself with its own rope over the next 6 months or year, creating a pseudo-article that everyone can see is crap, so it can be razed and something better built on its ruins. Another technique is to write new articles on narrower topics that are bulletproof-sourced (it can help to prepare these offline until around B-class level), then work to integrate that sourcing into the more general articles, using RfCs as necessary to resolve contradictory POVforks in the overview article that resist merging.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-clarification: In light of ArbCom and WP:AC/DS and all 'at, I should make it clear that I don't think any of the present editorial pool are industry shills. I think some have edited this page and might return if one or more of the regular editors who would revert PoV stuff from them were to disappear for a long time, however. As I said on my own talk page, I would hope that enough non-WP:NOTHERE editors would remain watchlisting this page to prevent an actual going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket result. That said, such results have happened before and been swept clean and turned into better articles, so I think it'll work out one way or another. Nutty PoVs tend to stay long-term in articles (and could thereby even influence public thought about the topics) mostly when the topic is esoteric and attracts few editors to moderate the PoV-pushing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the stability thing would get this punted from GAN. Which is a shame, because that kind of review process is precisely what would weed out a lot of the PoV pushing (and there are multiple forms of it; I think we've identified at least four different "viewpoint camps", along at least two axes, in this topic area). I find it very frustrating because I'm not in any of them and just want to see a balance emerge. It's not WP's job to "declare a winner" in these debates (it's important that we don't; that's the job of external sources). This article needs to lay out:

• The view that e-cigs cause more harm than good because they attract would-be-nonsmokers into a form of smoking/addiction, and the long term health effects are unknown (plus other issues, like too few dosage regulations, toxic ingredients, accessibility by minors via Internet orders, etc.).
• The view that e-cigs are a boon because it is not plausible that the effects are worse than breathing in burning material, and there's evidence that e-cigs help real smokers quit real smoking, meanwhile there's already an increasing raft of laws and regulations on e-cig aerosol content, availability to minors, etc.
• The view that whatever the medical debates, e-cigs are being unfairly targeted for regulatory scrutinym even banning, by a hypocritical system that condones alcohol drinking and other worse habits and is singling out one lifestyle choice as a distracting scapegoat and out of reactionary neophobia.
• The view that society needs to better control and discourage all of these things, and that this is not simply "just as good a place to start as any", but an obvious and urgent one because of the misleading way that these products are promoted, and the politically weak position they're in compared to big tobacco and big liquor, and the drug cartels for that matter.

And there's probably some other well-attested viewpoint or two or five to work in. Let the readers draw their own conclusions (which may be no conclusion; I find myself neutral on each axis I outlined, for reasons that would not necessarily be obvious). Some of these are clearly MEDRS matters, some are socio-political.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of spaces

QG looks like he wants to remove all the spaces in references. As a byproduct there are no spaces in the references at the bottom of the page making them harder to use by readers. AlbinoFerret 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru is also removing references. I have no idea why he is doing so many changes to references but it harming content. CERTAINTY removing spaces is not productive. I bring in a reference to the full study, and that reference is deleted in favor of a source that puts out an Abstract, and then paywall for them to sell you the full study. These are often publicly funded studies, which are published in multiple places. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The spaces in the reference section are still there. Reducing the bytes is not a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret informed you of a problem, I confirmed and told you of other problems with your edits to reference. You now say you are trying to save space on the internet by removing ASCII spaces here and there. WHY? Why is this even a thing. Use the standard Citations mechanism. Its really really quite good. It will either create the reference automatically from the link, or it will just ask you to plug in information. After that there is nothing else to do. Use the standards, this is not your webpage. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the references before and after the changes. The references are the same. I wanted to reduce the bytes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever's going on, it would be helpful if we settled on a WP:CITEVAR, such that references were formatted consistently. I would advocate using the most common way, which is this: {{cite journal |title=Yadda Yadda |first1=Jane |last1=Smith |first2=John |last2=Doe |...}} (without implying anything about particular parameter order, though I have a practical approach to this, which varies based on whether Harvard referencing is being used or not). This formatting makes it easy to read and edit, permits usable line wrapping, and uses minimal but not impractically minimalist space. The various conflicting vertical styles are a pain in the butt and vastly lengthen the page, while also making it hard to get any sense of the paragraph structure. Also of poor utility, taking up too much space and looking like symbolic soup, is "super-spacing" of the form {{cite journal | title = Yadda Yadda | first1 = Jane | last1 = Smith | first2 = John | last2 = Doe | ... }} "super-spacing"; because of the amount of horizontal arrow-key scrolling required, it palpably slows down editing. The worst is run together with no spacing at all, which is hardly human readable and has major line-wrapping problems in source view:{{cite journal|title=Yadda Yadda|first1=Jane|last1=Smith|first2=John|last2=Doe|...}} PS: It works best to add one space between the = and URLs, as another line-wrapping aid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal status of electronic cigarettes vs Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Legal status of electronic cigarettes is limited to only legal status. But with the title Regulation of electronic cigarettes it is very broad. I can create a new article for Regulation of electronic cigarettes. Please provide at least six refs and possibly start a sandbox if anyone is interested in my services. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• ... or you could, you know, let someone else do it. Just a thought. I've asked Arbcom to stop you from editing in the topic area until the case is over.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, please provide some references and we can create a new page. After you provide the references you will soon see a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to play to our relative strengths - you provide the refs, & i'll write it up? Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not have time to gather the references. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, the previous discussion here fell on deaf ears and we now have effectively two articles covering the same, legal status and legal status disguised as "Regulations of electronic cigarettes". Yet another article that needs competent rewriting.--TMCk (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a start! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. At the moment all it does is repeat legal status stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, now he's moved "legal status" to the ungrammatical Regulations of electronic cigarettes, without discussion! We should have two pages, which I'd suggest should be called Legality of electronic cigarettes (by country, essentially exists) and Regulation of electronic cigarettes (by issue; yet to be created). Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Having two articles on the same subject with nearly identical names that basically say the same thing is confusing. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, one is answering the question "Are e-cigs legal in Aruba", the other should deal with the far wider range of types of regulation (I recently gave a sample list here) and not degenerate into a by-country list with no generalizing narrative. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allow others to fix it.

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) AlbinoFerret 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Regulation" is broader, and can include industry self-regulation. "Legal" may be too limiting (if not now, then eventually). But it's a trivial matter to rename a section, so it may not matter all that much right now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)