Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Electronic cigarette. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Oxford word of the year.

This might be trivial, but I think that it should be noted in the article that the Oxford Dictionary have chose the word "vape" as the word of the year for 2014. http://www.cnet.com/news/inhale-oxfords-word-of-the-year-vape/ TheNorlo (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED editors say that the name of the most substantial mitigation so far of the greatest cause of preventable deaths in both the developed world and emerging economies is the most important neologism of 2014. Why would that be trivial? Perhaps the OED editors need instruction from Wikipedia's medical clique about how representing all major points of view is less important than the personal opinions of unreviewed conference attendees. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

While I would love to include this titbit, I can't honestly see where it would go. ~~@EllenCT: Did you mean representing all major points of view is ~~less~~ more important than the personal opinions of unreviewed conference attendees?~~ SPACKlick (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asking a sarcastic rhetorical question because after being castigated for questioning the wisdom of pesticide manufacturers for the better part of a year, by editors who wanted to include obviously COI failed paid advocacy attempts to mimic the MEDRS criteria, editing this article feels like opposite-land to me. Sarcasm is unproductive and I should try to be above it. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It could easily go in society and culture.TheNorlo (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this WP:TRIVIA? QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how this info is integrated to the text... TheNorlo (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:TRIVIA? It's about sections devoted to trivia, and one of its main points is that statements which you might find in such sections can usually be integrated into other parts of the article. But my question asking why it would be trivia is sincere. Why would it be? EllenCT (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not of earth-shattering importance for sure, but it is an interesting indication of how rapidly vaping has entered mainstream consciousness. I don't think a brief reference would be inappropriate. Barnabypage (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree a brief mention in society and culture. It was noted by a lot of sources. Now all we need is some text. AlbinoFerret 15:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is evidence that words such as "vape", "vapor" and "vaping" are by far the most common words in general usage and therefore the most familiar to the general reader.Levelledout (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pop quiz: what was their word last year? No googling, just do you know? Neither did I. That's about how enduring this is. (For the curious: Word_of_the_year#Oxford) Cloudjpk (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that proves very much - more tellingly, how many of the actual words from the last decade do you recognise and perhaps occasionally use? If you're like me, most of them. In any case, surely it's a recognition of a currently important neologism, rather than some kind of prediction about longevity, and the point it (implicitly) makes about vaping is that it has come pretty much out of nowhere to become a well-known and much-talked-about phenomenon very, very quickly. Barnabypage (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "refudiate" much talked about? How about "hypermiling"? I don't doubt they were the year Oxford chose them. But since then, not so much :) That's my point. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I do take the point. But on the other hand chav, sudoku, carbon footprint, podcast, unfriend, big society and (for now) selfie have all pretty much entered everyday language. Barnabypage (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious claims

The article now states "A refill bottle can contain up to 1g of nicotine". I know this is sourced to a review, but it's still false. A standard refill bottle is 10ml. The highest generally available strength of liquid is 24mg/ml. Do the maths. This claim is false.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have another source to verify your claim? QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes: any website that sells liquid. We do not need a MEDRS source to know the size of a small squeezy bottle.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that supports your claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just told you, Quack: Any website. I buy e-liquid three times a week and I don't need a medical journal to know what size the bottles are. They are 10ml. Refill bottles do not contain anything like a gramme of nicotine. A bottle of high-strength liquid has less than a quarter of that amount.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Different countries may have different levels. Any website is not reliable. I request a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody vapes 100mg/ml liquid. All countries use the same range of levels. You are just abusing the rules to push your POV. You still haven't answered the WP:WEIGHT points against your drug claims, have you?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoa? That would mean a 10ml refill bottle with 100 mg/ml ... i don't know of any e-liquid for consumers that contains 100 mg/ml. Is someone confusing a nicotine base with actual e-liquid for vaping? The actual text in the Lippi et al(2014) is cited to this article, where the claim cannot be verified. I'm inclined to think that this is a typo/error in Lippi... It certainly raises a WP:REDFLAG by being incompatible with reality, and thus shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen 05:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If editors think the source is wrong then I recommend editors can find another reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot? You are asking people to provide proof of the negative. That won't fly - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 05:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to address the WP:REDFLAG here. Do other sources claim that 100 mg/ml refill bottles exist? --Kim D. Petersen 05:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen anything higher than 72mg on sale, and even that was base for DIY mixing. 100mg/ml refills? Nope. If this is to stay in the article we need a better source, preferably more than one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys this is kind of my area. There are larger refill bottles, some people have 50ml refills they carry around. While 72mg/ml is the strongest base fluid you can get in the UK and 100mg/ml is available as base in other countries (the chemistry gets interesting much more concentrated than that) the highest I'm aware of anyone consuming is 32mg/ml, which in a 30ml bottle is close enough to 1 gram of nicotine in the bottle. It's the extreme end of the scale but it definitely exists. The question is should it be pointed to when the vast majority of refill bottles are going to contain 180mg-540mg and what is the point in specifying that figure? SPACKlick (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The point of specifying the figure, obviously, is to create a perception of e-cigs being dangerous. Just like all his other edits.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd accuse QuackGuru of one sided POV, there are balancing posts. The issues are more usually related to writing which is hard to understand and a lot of data bundled together uninformatively. If we can work out why the fact that some bottles may contain a gram of nicotine is important maybe we can work out how to write a coherent article. (unsigned comment by SPACKlick diff)

Fair enough; let's hear from Quack on why the 1g claim and the material about erectile dysfunction drugs are important.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How about replace we work together and replace it with another source or add or replace it with something without a source for now and find another source later. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we just delete it? It isn't interesting or informative. You still haven't attempted to explain why you think it deserves to be in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was called by the 'Bot some time ago due to what looks like edit warring and the inability for some editors to understand the difference between aerosols and vapor. Yet after reviewing the extant article in my opinion there are a lot of unfounded claims being made in the article, and the article itself reads like it was written by eSig industry marketing / sales people. The edit warring looks like it's a battle between eSig industry and a lone quack-busting editor, both of which have an emotional investment in the subject, the industry-related editors holding a financial dog in this race.

No offense intended however going out and soliciting people to take sides in an edit war or an RFC is against the mundane guidelines for Wikipedia editors. As one editor has already pointed out, facts aren't subject to votes, so calling in people to take your side in a debate is pointless.

I see QuackGuru making legitimate requests for references and evidence, and I see other editors asking QuackGuru for evidence however what I don't see is anyone providing independent references to bolster their suggested edits. This article is being contentious, and it looks to me like it's financially-motivated people who are the problem, not QuackGuru.

Resolution of this contention should not be difficult: Open an RFC on specific items of debate and when people respond to the solicited comments, adopt what the RFC conclusions are. You can also ask for a third party resolution instead of an RFC but once again, if you do so you must accept the recommendations of the responding editor. There should not be this protracted argument. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I would caution you about making statements on the motivation of editors without proof. That is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Other people may disagree with you or your position. But keeping to the edits proposed, and not the editor, is best imho. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As for QG, perhaps he has some points, and edits that should be included. But the way he goes about it is wrong. This is a contentious article, and things need to be discussed. Not put up an OR tag and one minute later remove the wording. Not paraphrasing. Adding difficult language. Adding fringe opinions as facts. Adding massive edits with no discussion on consensus of the editors is to include it. This article needs to slow down and discuss things. Serious work needs to be done on some sections that look like someone wrote down claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a hat, and pulled them out and wrote them into the article. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would caution you about WP:NPOV in Talk:: pages as well as extant articles. The edit warring I have been observing, and the edit warring that prompted being called by the RFC 'bot clearly shows highly biased motivations, and the protracted argument yourself and others are engaged in have been getting increasingly petty.

Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and you editors engaged in this petty dispute need to behave more professionally, otherwise few volunteers called in to admonish unprofessional behavior and work to resolve disputes are going to waste their time. As for me, your unprofessional behavior means I'm done with you, and finished with this RFC cycle. If I get called once again to mediate this endless war, I won't respond. Damotclese (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting "mediation" attempt, but I think we were doing better without the unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks that go against the most fundamental behavioral guideline of Wikipedia: WP:AGF. Mihaister (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Per RFC above remove all references to Mist and change most to Vapor

I propose the following changes to the article. First to change every instance of the word mist to vapor. Then 1) Section Lede They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),^[1]^[2] which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor.^[2] to They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol,^[1]^[2] which is commonly referred to as vapor.^[2]

2) Section Safety The aerosol emitted from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor. to The aerosol emitted from an e-cigarette is commonly called vapor.

3) The tag of File:Cigarrillo electronico funcionando.jpg|thumb| from Aerosol (mist) exhaled by a first generation e-cigarette user. to Vapor exhaled by a first generation e-cigarette user.

4) delivered to users and the surrounding air from the exhaled aerosol, even when the same liquid is used. to delivered to users and the surrounding air from the exhaled vapor, even when the same liquid is used.

I look forward to seeing if there is consensus for this change. SPACKlick (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

Oppose Yes we have a huge issue here. You came and "closed" the RfC which is not allowed.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close the RFC and as far as I'm aware nobody has closed the RFC, however the consensus surrounding mist appears overwhelming. SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just requested the RFC be closed by an admin link, the results should be available soon I hope. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither oppose nor support Why not simply explain that "vapor" is not technically correct (as per Grana) but that "vapor" and "mist" are still used (by other sources) to refer to "aerosol" when talking about e-cigarettes. After we have explained that the terms are synonymous for all practical purposes, it really does not matter which term is used in each individual instance (although ideally some consistency would make things less confusing).Levelledout (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Including the different synonyms benefits the reader and this was not part of the RFC to change the wording in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC covers the whole article. it is not limited to any section. AlbinoFerret 16:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support I can't believe someone has changed "vapour" to "mist". NOBODY calls it mist. This article is supposed to be informative, not confusing, so using an unfamiliar (and inaccurate) word is just perverse. It needs to be changed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose We should wait for the RfC to be closed. Yobol (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Previous text: "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.^[1]"

Proposed compromise: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.^[1]"

^[1]

^ ^a ^b ^c Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

Please read: "The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112"[2]

The disagreement at the time was it did not have in-text attribution. It was controversial to exclude it at the time because the disagreement was with writing it in Wikipedia's voice. The consensus could be in-text attribution. So rather than delete it, I am proposing in-text attribution. The change I (and others) made is sourced using a 2014 MEDRS compliant review. I summarised the source. For example, I wrote "The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013." The source says "These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013". The text is relevant for the Electronic cigarette#Legal status section. There is another statement in the same section that is also an opinion: "Pharmaceutical manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson have lobbied the US government, the FDA, and the EU parliament for stricter regulation of e-cigarettes which compete with their products Nicorette gum and nicotine patches.[116]" It is reasonable to include completing interests. I think it is also reasonable to include statements specifically on activates of tobacco and e-cigarette companies that used strategies that were successfully deployed in Europe to lesson the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. Although there is no dispute among other sources, sources with opinions are considered reliable according to content guideline. The impact factor for Circulation is 15.20. A good compromise can be in-text attribution and tweaking the text if there are concerns with the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on proposed compromise

Comment In my opinion, this text is a reasonable attempt at a content addition which passes WP:RS, WP:NPOV, does not fail WP:UNDUE, and should not be dismissed without an explanation. I will not say that I feel strongly that this text must be added to this article, but I do feel that the text should not be dismissed without explanation. Someone may have argued against including it, but if that happened, I have been unable to see where that argument is. The suggestion that I have seen is that this text should go to Legal status of electronic cigarettes, and I agree that this issue should be there, but without some explanation, I would expect that the default action would be to include this content. The source from which this comes is a review which pulled this idea from JAMA and BMJ articles on this topic.

I am sure that people who oppose this content have reasons for opposing it - briefly, what are those reasons? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I appreciate the effort to discuss and promote consensus here. I really do. However, I still think this unsupported opinion of conflicted authors goes against WP:WEIGHT. Such extraordinary claims, attempting to portray tens of millions of consumers as industry shills, require extraordinary evidence per WP:REDFLAG.
As to the validity of this unsubstantiated opinion in the Grana publication, we already know the authors are involved with Pharma, and that Pharma has been aggressively lobbying against vapor products ([3], [4]). Big Pharma's approach of hiring ghost writers to promote their interests using high-profile "reviews" is well documented ([5]) as is the COIs pharma funding creates for so-called "public health" NGOs ([6]). In the absence of hard, verifiable evidence from multiple independent sources, this inflammatory opinion is nothing more that pharma industry lobbying and does not belong on Wikipedia. Mihaister (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the statement of Mihaister and to save space I will not repeat it. What I will add is that the source is reliable for medical claims, it is not reliable for legal claims or claims about people addressing their government. It is beyond the scope of the medical journal and is opinion in another field that the authors are not experts in. Its like trying to use a journal article written by auto mechanics to write health claims on WP. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal....or that reports material in a different field." AlbinoFerret 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
weak Oppose pending more sources. This is an improvement over the original however I would need to see more sources discussing this issue to be convinced on weight grounds. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the sources exist. Some vape companies, particularly those linked to tobacco companies are definitely keen to make advocates of consumers. As for whether the comparison with Tobacco companies of old holds, as I said, I'd need to see better attribution for the claim. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is also a Chicken&Egg one - do vapers support the e-cig manufacturers view because they want to vape - or because the e-cig manufacturers enticed them... --Kim D. Petersen 22:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I mean a lot of this stuff is just a mountain made out of a molehill. "E-cigarette businesses use marketing", surprise surprise. "E-cigarette businesses use social media for marketing", surprise surprise. "Both e-cigarette users AND the manufacturers oppose banning vaping indoors", once again surprise surprise.Levelledout (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose, may support if the issues that I have raised below are addressed.Levelledout (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Some people doubt the validity of the source due to it being from a public health perspective rather than a legal policy perspective. The source cited is based directly on these sources:

Andrade, M. d.; Hastings, G.; Angus, K. (2013). "Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?". BMJ. 347 (dec20 1): f7473–f7473. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7473. ISSN 1756-1833.
Grana, R. A.; Glantz, S. A.; Ling, P. M. (2011). "Electronic nicotine delivery systems in the hands of Hollywood". Tobacco Control. 20 (6): 425–426. doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043778. ISSN 0964-4563.
Rooke, C.; Amos, A. (2013). "News media representations of electronic cigarettes: an analysis of newspaper coverage in the UK and Scotland". Tobacco Control. 23 (6): 507–512. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051043. ISSN 0964-4563.
Kim, A. E.; Lee, Y. O.; Shafer, P.; Nonnemaker, J.; Makarenko, O. (2013). "Adult smokers' receptivity to a television advert for electronic nicotine delivery systems". Tobacco Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051130. ISSN 0964-4563.
Samuels, B; Glantz, SA (16 October 1991). "The politics of local tobacco control". JAMA. 266 (15): 2110–7. PMID 1920699. (about tobacco industry, not e-cigarettes)
Fallin, A.; Grana, R.; Glantz, S. A. (2013). "'To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts': the tobacco industry and the Tea Party". Tobacco Control. 23 (4): 322–331. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815. ISSN 0964-4563.

Each of these papers cite more papers, and going down another level, I think it would be fair to estimate that not fewer than 30 sources with a total of not fewer than 30 authors are available to back this information. If more of these sources confirm the same information then I think that would establish appropriate weight and relevance for this content to go somewhere, assuming that these papers are authoritative, which may not be so.

The allegations of bias and lack of authority in this space are a separate issue. Considering these sources together, except for the historical JAMA article, this is from BMJ's journal Tobacco Control journal. Obviously that journal has a bias against nicotine use. Most or all of the sources in this thread are from the perspective of public health industry. If researchers in public health policy are a point of view to have representation in the legal section of this article, then something here might be part of the message they present. It might be a valid point to say that public health policy should not be included in a legal section; I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They are still out of their field of expertise, and if other claims have sources of this type for legal claims, they need to be removed of other sources found that are not medical. AlbinoFerret 21:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I would tend to agree that medical professionals are generally not experts on marketing strategies.Levelledout (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition I find it disturbing that the Grana review reviewed studies by its authors. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of the six sources cited three come from one man, a known anti-e-cig activist; that should raise some questions about how widely held the view actually is. Another is from a notorious Marxist who hates all businesses and all marketing, tobacco-related or not, and regularly publishes excruciating poetry about the wonders of collectivization. Perhaps a WP:FRINGE issue?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep personal political opinions on the "wonders of collectivization" out of this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sadly Gerald Hastings doesn't. It's quite pitiful to read. He's even worse at poetry than he is at research.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per Mihaister & Albinoferret. This is policy, sociology and history, not medicine. It would be possible to cite this as the view of the authors, but not without presenting the opposing political views. And as the authors here are non-authoritative, and non-experts, i do not really see their views as carrying much weight. Furthermore i would note that the citations given above by Blue Raspberry are mostly presenting the view of Glanz (3 papers), and from my spot-checks of the other 3 sources, i can't see the support for the rather broad claims made. To quote Pf. Hajek: "Books will be written about this conflict", but until these books have been written, this is representing nothing more than opinions, and the bias of the opinion-holders. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support The content of specified websites, social media, and marketing is not a matter of opinion; it is fact. A reliable source is reporting that fact. And I appreciate Blue Rasperry's summary of the depth of the research record behind it. The proposed attribution works for me, and sure seems to address objections. Where exactly it should be placed -- that we can discuss. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that Glantz et al claim the social media activity is organised by e-cig companies. The overwhelming majority of it isn't; it's organised by a loose collection of vapers who are worried about the prospect of knee-jerk legislation that isn't supported by the science. The sources are an RS for what their authors think, but they're just opinions. They're definitely not facts.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is reporting on company use of social media, not others' use of social media. Indeed, what you're saying is completely consistent with what the source says. The fact that lots of people use social media does not change the facts of how certain companies have used social media. What companies put on their websites, in their marketing, and in social media, is a fact, and in general a pretty public fact. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Vaping companies use social media to advertise their products. So does every other company. That has nothing to do with opposing stupid legislation, which with very few exceptions vaping companies have not been doing. Some have even supported restrictions - TVECA members in Europe, and RJ Reynolds in the USA - to protect their own cigalike products from competition. This is just part of the process of smearing vapers as industry shills, which is widespread in academia. Martin McKee is a particularly egregious offender, but Grana and Glantz aren't far behind.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per the previous comments. This appears to be a minority opinion without any real evidence behind it. The fact is that e-cig companies have been, with a few exceptions like Totally Wicked on one side and TVECA's members on the other, very reluctant to get involved in campaigning. The opposition to the EU TPD was driven by individual activists; the same applies to California, where businesses were disinterested and activists led the charge.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Legal actions and policies of corporations have nothing to do with medical content. -A1candidate (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - per the comments from several others above. We don't quote newspapers on their interpretation of health benefits and research so we would not likewise quote the opinions of medical researchers on socio-political trends. Additionally I'm concerned about undue weight. If this point is notable we should be able to find it in other, more appropriate sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Support A reasonable summary, in text attributed, to a high quality source. Yobol (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have a couple of issues with the proposed compromise. I think the proposal is still too partisan and sounds like a coercive conspiracy is taking place (which is not really conveyed in the source). The text is also not fully attributed. I think we need to stick to the relevant facts and to convey the text neutrally and accurately. I would prefer something like: "A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette companies interact with consumers in order to promote their policies. The review also stated that the companies use social media for marketing purposes and encourage consumers to take action against laws that ban indoor e-cigarette use. According to the review, e-cigarette companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the effects of the October 2013 EU Tobacco Product Directive on e-cigarettes.^[1]".Levelledout (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Actually the picture is a lot less clear than that. One of the major trade organisations - TVECA - wanted the TPD made more restrictive, to protect their members' cigalike market. The opposition to the TPD rules came from grassroots activists like Lorien Jollye, Dave Dorn and RHFOS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that I personally agree with what Grana said which I don't particularly. However our personal opinions and own research are irrelevant. I was simply suggesting how we could cite the source in a non-judgemental, neutral manner.Levelledout (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! No, I've read your comments and know that you see Grana/Glantz for what it is. I'm trying to think of a source that would show the real situation, to balance their claims.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that the history/story won't be written, or have a consensus view on what happened until books are written about it in the future. As such we shouldn't "jump the shark", and present a narrative that really only presents one view of what happened. --Kim D. Petersen 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Especially when it appears to be very much a minority view. Even most TC people acknowledge that the opposition to the TPD e-cig rules was led by the grassroots campaigners.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Drummond in the Harm reduction section

Drummond says this

"Until electronic cigarette safety and efficacy data are available, the promotion of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction and cessation tool in smokers is premature, although it could possibly occur if a modified risk tobacco product claim is submitted and approved. Such a claim would require evidence that e-cigarettes significantly reduce the “harm and risk of tobacco-related disease” and “will benefit the health of the population as a whole” (60).

The article was edited here to combine two separate thoughts into one.diff The reasons for it being premature are separate from the requirements to be approved. Combining them is Original Research WP:OR. AlbinoFerret 06:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you slow down a bit on the changes? Revert 1. Revert 2. Revert 3 Revert 4. Revert 5. Is the current wording okay with you or are you going to continue to make changes such as adding "It is possible one could be approved in the future..." Do you still want to include future claims? QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Number 2 isnt a revert, its removing a citation and a tag, thats an edit. #3 is an edit, I added that. #4 was an edit, I added most of that. All three of these were edits. A revert is restoring a page to a former state by undoing another edit. You need to have a page, or at least a part of a page, in the recent past,that existed before, just like it. Editors are also not required to have a memory of all the forms of the page that existed in the past, or to search through all of them for one. With a page like Electronic cigarette , it would be impossible to do. The other two were over a day apart. AlbinoFerret 07:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed on page 237 where it states, "Although there is increasing evidence of e-cigarette use among youth and adults, the population health impact of e-cigarettes is unknown." The text in question clearly states that harm reduction is premature because we don't know about how well e-cigarettes work and if they are safe, and that we need to know specifically if they reduce tobacco related disease or how if affects the population health as a whole (which, of course, comes under the safety and efficacy discussion earlier). We know these last two points apply because we see it used on page 237 and because it takes an incredibly strained reading of the source to say that he is throwing the last phrase out there without making a determination of where e-cig falls, after already stating it on page 237. Yobol (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not speculative information and I disagree with your changes to the lede too. Changing unclear to premature is a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorporating the usage statistics on 237 into harm reduction which is on page 240 is OR. AlbinoFerret 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading and incorporating material from the entire article, in context, is not OR, it's called editing. Yobol (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Page 237 isnt about harm reduction at all, its usage and regulatory history. Secondly, he entirety of page 240 is speculation from a section titled "The Future Directions for e-Cigarettes" and is opinion, not facts and is unusable in its present form. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin? 1) Sources with opinions are perfectly reliable and usable on Wikipedia, in fact we use "opinions" throughout the article, in-text attributed already. 2) Your attempts to ignore the context of the material by looking only at one paragraph out of context with the rest of the article is pretty sad. It's not often that you see someone arguing that we shouldn't be looking at the context of the rest of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what I said, I said it was unusable in its present form as facts. Inclusion of speculation and opinions is by consensus and the material will have to be rephrased, and attributed if used at all. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As for combining things inside an article, its ok if the author does it. But WP editors doing so are creating OR by synthesis. Imediate context is good, within sections. But combining information from diffrent sections is pure OR if the author doesnt state it. AlbinoFerret 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are fine based on facts. But speculation of what facts could happen in the future is beyond the scope of what should be used imho. It also should never be phrased as facts as it is in the article now. AlbinoFerret 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with in text attribution such that the second sentence is also in text attributed . I'm not fine with the wikilawyering above about not being able to use the source as written. We clearly read the source differently, and I have said all I can to explain my position as clearly as possible. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we have a difference of opinion. Wikilawyering has a clear negative connotation link. Discussions of edits and material to be included in an article are to be based on WP policy and guidelines. Not I Just Like It or I Just Dont Like It WP:JDLI. I have learned that basing discussions on guidelines and policy is a better way of discussing things and it avoids personal attacks. Im sorry you dont like it. But I recommend you assume good faith. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. I think you are misreading WP:OR and have no intention on discussing this further with you. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF and the rest of the guidelines are preferable to ad hominem attacks, I suggest you stay away from them. I will take this to the OR noticeboard. Here is a link AlbinoFerret 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removal There is no consensus for keeping this edit WP:NOCONSENSUS per the policy is should be reverted if kept at all. The material is highly speculative and is written as facts in its previous form, therefore it should be removed and consensus gauged on a possible new form to take its place. AlbinoFerret 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I think I know which text you are referring to and I disagree with removing it. After the discussion was over for a bit you started it again and began making changes again? Sources with opinions can be fixed by using in-text attribution and that is what we are doing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support removal per AF. -A1candidate (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Another attempt to remove any and all material that might put e-cigs in any hint of negative light. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yobol has brought a question being discussed here to WP:RS/N

Here is a link to the discussion. link 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

He should have informed the editors here before canvassing other forums. -A1candidate (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for letting us know, AlbinoFerret. Mihaister (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, its best when everyone has input in such discussions, especially the parties involved. The only notice I could find was on the Medical Wikiproject talk page link. AlbinoFerret 22:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new "Controversy" section

I think there's now enough reliable material for us to have a "Controversy" section detailing the conflict within the medical and public health communities. Several prominent PH figures have now complained that e-cig opponents are being dangerously negative; others disagree. However we're getting papers like this from Hayek and articles like this in the British Journal of General Practice, accusing opponents of distorting or misrepresenting data to push their own agenda at the expense of public health. This is definitely an important issue and shouldn't be overlooked.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there is significant controversy about the opposition to e-cigs in medical literature. -A1candidate (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Almost every other aspect of electronic cigarettes is disputed or part of some controversy or another. A "controversy" section would encompass half the article. A more appropriate route is to describe in the appropriate sections any controversies, with appropriate weight to each viewpoint in relation to their prominence in reliable sources. Also, I will note that my experience is that "controversy" sections almost always fail NPOV, as they segregate material away from other sections, making appropriate WP:WEIGHTing impossible. Yobol (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Yobol on this one. Would be half the article, would make WEIGHT very difficult. It's better just to mention in all sections that prominent reliable voices are not yet in agreement and detail the prominent positions. SPACKlick (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, so far the article is sort of lacking in references to the fact that a lot of people disagree with the endless scaremongering.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with the idea. We do not need to have a huge controversy section detailing every single point of disagreement but the controversy is very real and this would be an effective way to make the reader aware, at a glance, that electronic cigarette is a controversial topic. That way the mildly-interested reader can be made aware of this fact without having to read heavy detailing of scientific research. TheNorlo (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, this would be a NPOV issue. Issues not placed in a "controversy" section would be assumed to be uncontroversial, by definition. However, every other aspect of e-cigs (including 95% of the health claims and legal/regulatory issues) are disputed or considered controversial by one party or another. It would be impossible to detail even most controversial aspects as well as explain with due weight the controversy and their relationship to the entire body of reliable sources on the matter in any succinct way. Yobol (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You assume it's impossible. Instead of just saying it's impossible to summarize the controversy, why not give it a shot.TheNorlo (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone taking their own time placing every controversial aspect of e-cigs into one section, with appropriate weighting and discussion of the controversy. In fact, I would encourage those who want to create such a section to do so, being careful not to violate WP:WEIGHT by including only the material they want to include, but truly explaining every significant controversial aspect in due weight to the literature. This should be enlightening to those who favor this approach. Yobol (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What would be truly enlightening is for the MED cabal to look at the actual evidence, rather than vague "concerns".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a huge list of everything that's controversial, more a section discussing how the medical and PH communities have split on the subject. It's a real issue because we have leading researchers accusing other researchers of lying, being puritanical or rejecting harm reduction on ideological grounds. The UK's health department has basically told the WHO to shove its e-cig ban. There is a debate raging between opposing professionals and the article doesn't mention it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost every single aspect of health related concern is subject to "controversy" or dispute. A true "controversy" section will not only include material you want to include, but also every single controversial aspect (it would be assumed that if it is not in the "controversy" section, it is not controversial). Yobol (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that the Safety section already includes discussion from a review that states the review believes concerns are exaggerated, so it is not missing from the article (it is, however, given due weight as only one review out of over a hundred medical sources). Yobol (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No "controversy" or "criticism" section, this sort of thing is called out as potentially problematic at the WP:STRUCTURE discussion on the WP:NPOV policy page. I think the advice at WP:CRITICISM discouraging a separate section is sound, the respective views should be integrated into the article content within the appropriate topic discussions and not pulled out into a separate section, which would create a WP:NPOV problem. These sections can end up tagged as problematic with the {{Controversy-section}} template, let's not create this problem. Zad68 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a controversy, and that's what the section should describe. I am not for a minute suggesting we revisit all the scaremongering claims again, just that we discuss the fact that a controversy exists in the real world and is becoming quite heated.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's unresolved concerns regarding evidence or safety or efficacy, etc. then those should be covered within the discussions of those topics, there isn't a reason to create a WP:NPOV problem by pulling that out of context into its own section. Zad68 15:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you read? That is not what I am suggesting. I am saying we should describe the conflict this issue is causing in the medical and PH communities.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hajek and West items are an individual's commentary and a letter to the editor. They serve as primary sources for the opinions of the respective authors. Can you find dispassionate overview article that covers the positions and the players involved? That would help provide a basis for this discussion. Zad68 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There's been plenty in the media.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's Mike Siegel calling Stan Glantz an ideologue. David Abrams warning against the dangers of ideology getting in the way of harm reduction. The BBC have discussed the fact that there is a controversy. There are plenty of RS for this, and it definitely merits being in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive edits before protection

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two massive edits were made before the page was protected diff1 diff2 there is either consensus to remove them, or no consensus that they remain per WP:NOCONSENSUS they should be removed found here. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Note

AlbinoFerret was WP:ADMINSHOPing to get CambridgeBayWeather to revert back to an old version. The proposal was flatly rejected. AlbinoFerret claims my editions are causing disruption while I am focusing on content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My request for the admin that protected the page to roll back edits, and his not doing it, do not preclude finding what the consensus is for those bold edits to remain. There is a process, it has been followed. Your continued denial of that fact is a clear example of WP:IDHT. Regardless of how may things you add, all your comments are from you, multiple comments from one person do not add weight. Eventually the consensus of the editors will be followed. This is starting to become an ownership issue. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic

Yobol reverted the page today to the point after the previous protection.diff1. It at least gave us a chance to discuss some of the edits. QuackGuru then did two massive edits, reverting what Yobol did and adding more. diff2 diff3 What is the consensus for keeping these edits that happened without discussion? AlbinoFerret 23:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Though I share QG's view on many of the issues here, he broke the atmosphere of working toward consensus that developed during the previous period of protection with a lot of unilateral edits. So I would support reverting to the state it was in at the end of the last protected period. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Removal They were added without consensus and can be added again if consensus is reached on each part of the edits through discussion. AlbinoFerret 00:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep "I don't like how it was done" is not a compelling reason. Yes, the style of how it was done may indeed offend! But it's the substance that should be under discussion. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support removal Edits appear to be an attempt to WP:GAME the system. Not to mention no consensus, neutral point of view, WP:REDFLAG, etc, etc.Levelledout (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support removal until a consensus can be gathered on the individual additions/changes. Unfortunately the edits seem to me a continuation of the POV problems already in the article, by focusing on primarily one review, and primarily on the negatives and ignoring the overall agreements amongst WP:MEDRS's - cherry-picking is a good word, and FUD another. --Kim D. Petersen 01:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Unless editors can show what is the issue with the changes there is no reason to revert to an old version. The changes also added new MEDRS reviews to the article and removed original research from the article. Now all the text in the lede is sourced too. Making vague accusations there is a problem with the text is unhelpful and shows editors just don't like it and will continue to oppose. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Content is not decided with an ILIKEIT vote. Any proposal has to be based on evidence showing a problem. The dynamics of this talk page (fifty edits per day) are such that no reasoned discussion can occur and there can be no proper evaluation of consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote on if someone likes or dislikes the material. But that no consensus was reached before they were added, and now it appears there is no consensus to keep them. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you don't like the contributions. You haven't explained any problems with the contributions. Side-note. Neutral observers can read WP:FILIBUSTER. We should strive to improve the article and not get into a heated discussion to revert obvious improvements. The recently added MEDRS reviews are the highest quality evidence available. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They're only "obvious improvements" in your opinion. You had no consensus to change the article so much.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support revert to version prior to the expiration of PP. The massive edits have been reverted by multiple editors, which, per WP:BRD is reason enough to have all text removed and opened for discussion here. Even without overwhelming opposition from other editors, massive edits like this are also in violation of WP:CAUTIOUS and are clear attempts to WP:GAME the system. Mihaister (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support revert - QG needs to stop making bad edits without consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what are the bad edits. It is unreasonable to remove all the text and all the MEDRS sources. It is also unreasonable to restore the original research that was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Process is important as well as content QG, you re-inserted material I've disputed with these two edits. What is the benefit of having "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles." in the lede? What is the benefit of referring to the vapor as mist when nobody else does and consensus went against you at RFC? Why do you over rely on Grana when the weight of scientific research shows Grana as an outlier particularly for dubious claims like those about cannabis? Why don't you check what you've written is in English like where you've added the bold part "Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this shows that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths, with the addictive drug nicotine.". Why do you keep adding things to the lede which are far too detailed for a summary of the article? Why do you constantly not hear the objections people have to your style of content and editing? In essence QG why do you kepp taking steps to make the article harder to read and convey less accurate information to readers rather than seeking consensus and working with people to build an article that is high quality? SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can support removing this sentence from the lede: "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles." Removing one sentence from the lede does not require reverting back to an old version. You have not explained how it would improve the article to remove all the MEDRS sources and to restore the original research that was removed. There are several editors who disagree with you at the RFC that is still open. The text is obviously sourced and you are not explaining why you want to delete it. Please read the source: "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes."[10] You want to delete sourced text from the body without a good reason. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Revert - I really think QG needs to step off this article. Bad edits, in Bad faith causing a Bad atmosphere leading to a bad article. It's a shame everything got closed at AN/I just as GQ stepped up his biggest example of bad faith. (unsigned comment by SPACKlick diff
Why? Many of the changes were simply adding refs. Removing some bit sure. But removing all of it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Some text can be removed and improved. I have two proposals for the lede: "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles.[3]" This sentence I added to the lede was too much detail for the lede. I think it can be removed now.

The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[9] This sentence I added to the lede can be shortened a bit. I propose it can be shortened to: "The evidence suggests that products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[9]" QuackGuru (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why put information about nicotine inhalers in the lede of an article that's, you know, not about nicotine inhalers?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support additions As per Cloud, that you don't like the way the additions were made is not a reason to remove them, rather give a reason why they are incorrect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see a rough consensus to revert to an earlier version. (I wasn't quite sure which version was being requested, so I have gone back to revision 636495336 for now.) In any case the onus is on the editors making changes to show consensus. I suggest QuackGuru makes separate proposals for each of his/her additions and the uncontentious ones will be applied shortly. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Interesting new FDA-funded paper

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems that, as vapers have been saying for a long time, e-cigs are much less addictive than smoked tobacco. No doubt someone will be along soon to explain why it can't be mentioned in the article, but it definitely has an impact on a lot of the "concerns" that have been expressed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a news press release. Please use a better source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry; as soon as the paper is available I'll be suggesting some edits based on it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which paper you are referring to. Do you agree we can't use the news press release paper? QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll link you to the paper when it's published.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a primary research study and of course per WP:MEDRS we're looking for secondaries. If it's a high-quality primary study it'll be picked up and incorporated into secondaries in due time. The press release itself appears to confirm many things already in this article, such as the many unknowns regarding these devices due to lack of high-quality data. Zad68 20:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the unknowns.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That source is not MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gee, Quack, you don't say? My friend's blog isn't MEDRS? I'm all crushed with disappointment now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Come on let's stay on target here please, if you know it's not going to be an appropriate source to support an argument on Wikipedia you shouldn't bring it to the article Talk page. Zad68 20:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is supporting an argument. The people who oppose e-cigs because "we just don't know" could have been doing some research, but instead they've been lying to the press about gateway effects and yelping about bubblegum flavour. Meanwhile all the research that has been done (Farsalinos, Burstyn et al) is being conspicuously ignored. I don't know if you were around here when people objected to Robert West's STS data, despite it being fully MEDRS compliant, because it was in the wrong file format? That's why I get frustrated about this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-open this discussion when you can link to something that isn't a press release or a blog post. NW (Talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of out of date WHO report

The positions of organisations section contains

A previous WHO statement from July 2013 stated that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be effective helping people quit smoking.[11] It also recommended that "consumers should be strongly advised not to use" e-cigarettes unless a reputable national regulatory body has found them safe and effective.[11]

This statement is not the most recent and was published before the majority of papers that now show that e-cigs are at least as effective as other NRTs. I therefore propose removing it. Also stylistically it falls between discussion of the 2014 report and a response to the 2014 report so removing it would improve readability. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A new statement of that sort is not out yet per [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support The WHO FCTC do not have a current statement/position, and apparently the new one is going to differ so much from the old one, that they have retracted/revised their old position. Thus referring to the old one makes no sense, it implies something that we cannot know --Kim D. Petersen 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support We have later statements from the WHO, this one is older and gives only speculation. That speculation is mirrored by other sources. AlbinoFerret 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Suport The citation links to web.archive.org, not the WHO's web site. From a quick Google search, the statement seems to have been replaced with [this one] which says "The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently reviewing the existing evidence around ENDS". Therefore we should update the information accordinglyLevelledout (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That removal alone should be reason enough to remove it. AlbinoFerret 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A previous 2013 statement from WHO is not old per MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is if further statements by the same source are found, the source removes the statement and replaces it, or if it is clear the information is later found to be questionable by later sources. AlbinoFerret 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Suport WHO has withdrawn that 2013 position as evidenced by its removal from their own website. Mihaister (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support The section is titled "Position of medical organisations". Clearly this isn't the WHO's current position or they wouldn't have withdrawn it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Position of medical organisations". This is not the position of a medical organization so obviously shouldn't be included.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support per Levelledout. We should use the WHO's latest statement from 2014, not from 2013. -A1candidate (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Support per Levelledout. The current statement is misleading to the reader since WHO has removed it from their website. We can include WHO's new statement when it is published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It is still up to date as there has been no newer statement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@CFCF: How can a statement that the organization that made it removed and replaced, that only exists in the wayback machine, be "up to date"? Its possible it has no weight, I have asked the question on the NPOV noticeboard and I might to reliable sources.AlbinoFerret 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The new statement weighs nothing here, for lack of contradictory or additional claims since last year's. If I say cancer is a myth on Friday, then simply don't say it on Saturday, people on Sunday shouldn't assume I now believe in cancer. To be clear, I didn't say either of those things. But the WHO said what it did, when it did, and we've their own words to prove it. Things that verifiably happened carry weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

However if you put up a poster on Friday saying "Cancer is a myth", then go back on Saturday and take it down, it might be reasonable to assume you no longer wish to make that claim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New NHS Survey

I haven't dug through the figures from the Primary source but new intel on the position of British groups in the last couple days in response to the survey which found C. 3% of respondents were vapers and <1% of never smokers were ever vapers. “While it is clearly important to continue to monitor smoking rates and the use of electronic cigarettes in adults and children, so far there is no evidence that use of electronic cigarettes is proving to be a gateway into smoking” Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH “Although there is no indication that e-cigarettes are anywhere near as harmful as smoking, we wouldn’t recommend them for children and non-smokers, at least until more research has been conducted into the long-term health impact of sustained use” Dr Penny Woods, Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation.

There'll be more comment soon I've no doubt, just thought it might be worth pointing people to. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I found that a few days ago, I hope a review uses it in the near future. This page has a graph that puts it in perspective.AlbinoFerret 12:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the HSCIC and ONS reports broadly concur on the negligible number of non-smoking ever-vapers - nothing new there, of course, but they're pretty much as solid as sources get. I thought the most interesting material in the former was the age/gender breakdowns of vaping and smoking prevalence, though that's getting a bit too detailed for an article with a global perspective (it may well differ in other countries, in fact probably does). Barnabypage (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to add image

I would like to add an image in the opening of the article of 3rd generation e-cigs to reflect what is mentioned in the article.

TheNorlo (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the image is very appropriate. It is a little on the big size, but it can be made slightly smaller. AlbinoFerret 16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think showing some current devices would be a great idea. All the pictures currently in the article are a bit old.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Vaporshark rDNA 40 on the left is actually a fourth generation PV due to it's temperature control of the coil, but the technology is no new that we can disregard it for now.TheNorlo (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also no visual difference between 3rd and 4th, yet. AlbinoFerret 12:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It'd be really nice if whatever features make it "third generation" (or fourth) were clearly visible and labeled in the image. Also with this image we'd have 3 generations represented, I suggesting using the {{Multiple image}} template to keep the images together and of the same size. It'd also be great if the image could be edited to remove the emotive elements like the moody lighting and soft focus. Zad68 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things. The features that make it Gen 3 are all clearly visible, but they vary between devices so labeling would not be useful. We already have all three generations represented (cigalikes, eGos, a mech mod and my old SVD), but a photo showing all three together would be useful. As for the "emotive elements" that's a bit picky, don't you think?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And add something to indicate the scale. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of an image showing all 3 generations together. A tobacco cigarette could be used to show scale and also for comparison, perhaps help to dispel the misconceptions spread in the media that e-cigs "look like real cigarettes". Mihaister (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the extremely poor quality of pictures that are present in the article as it stands, I don't know what the fuss is all about. "remove emotive elements, do this do that" Really? TheNorlo (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The photo looks ok to me, no matter what you do its impossible to make everyone 100% happy. The description as "emotive" is subjective. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of extra space in the photo that could be cropped, it isn't giving any size information either. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it could be cropped. I don't believe size information is actually required under WP rules though.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the emotive elements including the moody lighting and soft focus, and adding a tobacco cigarette to show scale will fix the issues with the image. The image can be redone. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

On you go then. However until you come up with a better image I don't see what's wrong with this one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn Quack, do you work for a stock photography agency? Should the image sensor of the camera be cleaned to, or would you prefer a different ISO?

I didn't want to have a debate about this image. The only reason why it is not in the article is because the article is still locked. The only problem with the image is that you complain about it. If you want something better feel free to do it yourself but until then, this image is relevant to the article and should appear in there without any problem. TheNorlo (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Lighting and background not terribly good. Image could be better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Then supply a better one. However until you do, this is better than anything else we have to show modern gear.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding!!! Look at the images that are in the article!!! They suck ass big time and no body complains about thatTheNorlo (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Except for mine. Mine's great.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up version of the image, cropped and white background. I prefer to show them like this, without lens-flare/soft focus and other artistic elements that can be percieved as "emotive". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks pretty good. Thanks for actually doing something to improve it instead of just dripping.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice, I like it.... Approuved, now let's post it TheNorlo (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been added to indicate the scale. I recommended using a tobacco cigarette to show scale. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But, would we use a regular size cig or a 100mm? We probably should use something to indicate the scale of the cig that will be used to indicate the scale. Do it yourself Quack!TheNorlo (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You could use both a regular size cig and a 100mm to show scale if you want to have a good image. QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think that's a good idea go ahead and do it. Nobody's stopping you.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking us to show a photo of our vaping gear with a cigarette for comparison is a nice idea, but has a major flaw: We don't tend to have cigarettes around any more, because thanks to e-cigs we've quit smoking. For myself, I have no intention of spending money on a pack of cigarettes that I'm going to throw away after taking one photograph. If anyone is determined to have such a photo do it yourself; if you're not willing to do that the one provided by TheNorlo, and improved by CFCF, will do fine.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How about something easily on hand, like a quarter? AlbinoFerret 11:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't do that. It would associate e-cigs with saving money.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Our shadowy masters in the marketing departments of Big E-Liquid would be pleased with our initiative, though. Barnabypage (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just wish they'd be quicker at sending the cheques out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wile I can tell your both joking, sarcasm and text dont go together for a lot of people. AlbinoFerret 16:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's sadly true; there are people too stupid to recognise sarcasm. However life's too short to waste time on them, so I shall sail merrily on my course and not give their miserable, humourless lives another thought.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Low EC risk compared to smoking

Lets try and keep this conversation in one place. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The the lower relative risks of e-cigarettes is not really an uncertainty

That the lower relative risks of e-cigarettes vs. combustible tobacco cigarettes is no longer an uncertainty. A wider-ranging and strong agreement exists on this point.

Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control:

"FCA Policy briefing: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems," (October 2014):

"E-cigarettes are almost certainly considerably less hazardous for individuals than cigarettes."

http://www.fctc.org/images/stories/policy_brief.pdf

Public Health England

“Electronic cigarettes: A report commissioned by Public Health England,” (May 2014):

"Overall however the hazards associated with use of products currently on the market is likely to be extremely low, and certainly much lower than smoking."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf

US Food & Drug Administration (May 2014):

FDA Tobacco Products Director, Mitch Zeller, Testimony before Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees:

"If we look at a subset of smokers who are otherwise unable or unwilling to quit – half of them will die prematurely later in life from that decision – if we can get all of those people to completely quit all of their cigarettes for one of these noncombustible products that would be good for public health."

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4510243/zeller-e-cig-safety

Cancer Research UK

"Cancer Research UK Briefing: Electronic cigarettes.” (May 2014):

"There is a consensus that e-cigarettes are almost certainly much safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes"

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy_may2014_e-cigarette_briefing.pdf

American Heart Association

"Electronic Cigarettes: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association." (August 2014):

"The levels of toxic constituents in e-cigarette aerosol are much lower than those in cigarette smoke, there is still some level of passive exposure to organic compounds, nicotine, and fine particles."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/16/1418.full Zvi Zig (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is no longer a question of lower risk. Safe, no, but lower risk than tobacco cigarettes that have been proven deadly is not an unanswered question. This is not a question for current smokers, who we know are killing themselves. How great a reduction of risk may yet have to be proven, but some reduction of risk is proven by these statements. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

While the precise risk profile of anything is always somewhat elusive, words like "much" or "considerably" are used in four of the above statements in order to delineate a lower risk. All of the statements above are definitive. Most of them explicitly use the word "certainly." The statement in the main article saying "the limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer," [emphasis added] certainly does not reflect the position statements above. There is no reason the statements in the main article should not reflect the position statements above.Zvi Zig (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note this is risk per puff. Actual risk depends on use patterns: dual use versus switching. We need to be clear in stating what is lower than what. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are any of these sources reviews? We are using better sources in the article for the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we state "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes." Would be happy to see that changed to ""The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes." We can discuss other wording aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

But that doesn't reflect what the sources are saying. They're all saying that e-cigs are much safer than smoking, and the scientific debate right now is where in the order of 95-99.9% safer they actually lie. "Probably safer" doesn't convey what the vast preponderance of RS are stating.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Again: that's puff for puff. Actual risk depends on patterns of use. Reduced quitting smoking because of device use, for instance, is less safe. And this is not a hypothetical; this is the pooled results of five population level studies (Grana). And this is why we need to be clear and specific: the "lower risk" comparison is puff for puff. Saying e.g. "e-cigs vs. smoking" does not make that clear. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation population studies by Grana et al has refuted in a letter by 50 scientists to the World Health Organization:

http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/2003-glantz-letter-to-who-the-importance-of-dispassionate-presentation-and-interpretation-of-evidence and a in peer-reviewed response published in Addiction: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12730/pdf Zvi Zig (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

But "reduced quitting" is purely hypothetical and conflicts with all the actual evidence. Grana is a bad review; it's cherry-picked, because it's advocacy not science, and it's a disgrace that this article has such a disproportionate reliance on it. Why did Grana and Glanz ignore all the data from the UK and Europe? Why is half their paper filled with policy recommendations and diatribes against (irrelevant) tobacco advertising, instead of science? There is no reduction in quitting due to e-cigs. People like Robert West are adamant that the actual effect is increased quitting, and unlike Glantz they have the data to back that up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it does not conflict with all the evidence; it does not conflict with the published evidence of 5 population level studies, as reviewed in a reliable source. That source is used because, if I may quote Zad68: "Grana et al. is a recent review article published in Circulation, which has the #1 top impact factor rating among all journals in its subject area, and further is associated with the AHA, one of the most prominent and influential medical associations. Therefore per WP:NPOV it deserves huge weight in our article." Cloudjpk (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But none of those studies found reduced levels of quitting. All they found was the not exactly startling conclusion that e-cigs users are more likely to smoke. As the American Legacy Foundation pointed out, so are people who use nicotine gum. And how respected Circulation is in its field is completely irrelevant, because that field is not smoking cessation. Go see what Addiction have to say; it's different.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Vickerman(2013) and Popova and Ling(2013) found reduced levels of quitting. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively they found that smokers who try e-cigs are more heavily addicted. Nobody has offered any credible explanation as to why e-cigs might reduce quitting and the claim conflicts with the evidence on how effective they are. 700,000 UK smokers have used e-cigs to quit completely since 2012. That's six times as many quitter as the NHS stop smoking service has achieved in TEN YEARS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestion that e-cigs result in reduced levels of quitting is, without a longitudinal study - which hasn't been done - just worthless speculation. All the actual evidence shows that even Gen 1 cigalikes are at least as effective as conventional NRT, and Polosa's latest paper suggests that Gen 2 devices (now the leading market segment) are around five times as effective. As for Gen 3 I haven't met a single user who still smokes. Not even one. As soon as someone designs a study for Gen 3 I expect that's exactly what it will find.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The recent Antwerp/Leuwen study is interesting in that respect (http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11220/htm) because it used smokers who didn't intend to quit combustibles in the near future - removing the obvious selection bias inherent in studying people who took up e-cigs (particularly complex Gen 3 ones) deliberately of their own accord. Barnabypage (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is about Harm Reduction it isnt about Quitting. Its a realization that there are those that will not quit and making the lives of those who are hopelessly addicted better by taking away as much of the harm as possible. Commenting that some people do not quit does not mean they are not less hazardous. It means that some people will never quit. Its like methadone and heroin, we know methadone isnt completely safe, but its better than a junkie shooting up heroin. AlbinoFerret 05:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Cloud, those reviews don't say "Puff for puff" they're talking about the use profile. A smoker switching to using e-cigarettes is much safer than one who doesn't given how they each use their respective nicotine delivery systems. That's the current scientific consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Some sources do make that distinction clear. For instance, among the sources cited here, FCA: "...depends not just on the extent of this reduction in hazard, but also on the extent and impact of dual use, on the uptake of e-cigarettes bynever-smokers, on the impact of e-cigarette use on continuing or prospective smokers" and Zeller: "if we can get all of those people to completely quit all of their cigarettes". Emphasis mine. So I'm not saying no one mentions that distinction, or takes it into account. I'm merely saying it's important that the article does not confuse or gloss over that distinction. I don't think there is any question that e-cigs are less harmful, puff for puff. But actual risk depends on patterns of use. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This should not be a discussion on quitting. None of the sources are discussing it as relates to quitting. Zeller, in your comments, was discussing the law that requires him to look at populations. He made no conclusions but mentioned those things that would impact population related findings. Zeller also said at about 2:17 "Any of these products at an individual level can do good". We should narrow the focus to individuals who cant or wont quit and suggest more study is needed for it to be recommended on a population level. I also seriously doubt anyone is suggesting dual use has the same reduction as completely replacing them. But this is something we dont quite know the percentages of, there will be some. Focusing on the unknown positive number to downplay what is known is a weight issue Its probably better to have some replacement vs 100% tobacco cigarettes. Do you have any sources that suggest there is a problem at an individual level for replacement? AlbinoFerret 01:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the same user is going to use an e-cig as they did tobacco ones. This is arguing over fractions of percentages, which probably wont be in the article. The information is also not limited to the above statements by major medical but reviews like Hajek have said it. Though an addition of lower risk for current smokers may make sense. AlbinoFerret 15:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the results reported by Grana et al on cessation has been brought up here, but the use of those 5 population based studies as evidence against EC-induced cessation has been strongly criticized subsequently and for several different reasons, see

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/add.12730/

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/glantz-review-article-is-little-more.html

http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/2003-glantz-letter-to-who-the-importance-of-dispassionate-presentation-and-interpretation-of-evidence

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/189-method

Zvi Zig (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Grana/Glantz is the only reliable study ever done on e-cigs and it's POV to even imply that it might not be correct in every single tiny detail.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove false/subjective suggestions that lowEC risk is based on "limited" evidence

Dear editors, please remove the false, or at least subjective, suggestions that a significantly lower EC risk is based on "limited" evidence. The following are some quotes and sources to back up this change:

there is also overwhelming evidence that e-cigarettes are by far less harmful compared to tobacco cigarettes

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4597/rr/760890

we already have more comprehensive knowledge of the chemical constituents of electronic cigarettes than tobacco ones

Cahn, Zachary, and Michael Siegel. "Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes&quest." Journal of public health policy 32.1 (2011): 16-31.

Therefore, in my opinion, statements like "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes," should be removed.Zvi Zig (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. There are more than enough sources saying that everyone accepts it's orders of magnitude safer than smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The cited reference says "The limited data available suggest that the products are not likely to approach the health hazards of cigarettes". I'd agree that there is a strong preponderance of evidence that electronic cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes, but remember that up unti the early 1960s, cigarette ads featured physicians endorsing cigarettes as a digestive aid. There are no long term studies of the effects of deliberately concentrating and inhaling propylene glycol on a daily basis. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because doctors were advertised claiming cigarettes aid digestion, doesn't mean Wikipedia can contradict when experts experts say evidence is strong. I don't see a connection to the digestion claim, never did scientific literature claim "overwhelming evidence" or "certainty" regarding safety of smoking. With regards to long term effects of propylene glycol, we cannot just say maybe, we don't know, it may be more dangerous than smoking (and even though tobacco cigarettes contain up to 7% in weight of added glycol and glycerin & that was never a major concern); there is a whole science called toxicology. Burstyn has shown that even using default levels allowed for organic mists with no specific exposure limits, PG exposure for "extreme consumption of the liquid per day via vaping," will not violate workplace safety exposure limits for lonng term exposure. Furthermore, all this is not taking into account the strong evidence for toxicological safety already known regarding PG, for example see Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. vol. 4. P.104.203. Geneva, International Labour Office, ’98. 4 V — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But as it's being compared to the effects of deliberately concentrating and inhaling cigarette smoke on a daily basis the scientists who say it's 95-99% safer would seem to be on firm ground here. I am not suggesting we say vaping is safe, only that it's much safer than smoking - a fact which is no longer being challenged by anyone worth mentioning.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of limited is inaccurate when used in this fashion for the general reader.

lim·it·ed : not high or great in number, amount, etc.

we are no longer dealing with just a few studies or reviews, so it cant be limited. What your describing is basing objection to the material based in what may happen 20 or 30 years down the line. If this is the case all claims on the article should be noted to be based on limited data. We do need to show that long term data is needed, but the current data is no longer limited. How about language like "As of 2014 current data shows........but long term data is needed" ? AlbinoFerret 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Most medical sources, including medical organizational position statements, say that the evidence about health effects is limited because, well, e cigs are new, so the evidence is limited. When the majority of medical sources stop saying it is limited and that the evidence is concrete, we can make the switch, not before. We should not be cherry picking one review to counter the views of the majority of MEDRS sources. Yobol (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about health effects in general; we're talking about the relative risk compared to cigarettes. As one involves inhaling a hot plume of burning plant matter, carbon monoxide and several dozen known carcinogens, and the other involves a vapour largely consisting of a substance that's generally regarded as safe and has no known inhalation hazard (and yes, that's been tested) it's a no-brainer to say it's much safer. And, indeed, we have plenty of sources saying it's much safer. How many say it isn't, or might not be, much safer?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to removing mention of "limited evidence" for that one statement about the toxicant levels compared to tobacco, if we were to note that the lack of regulation makes this conclusion impossible to say with certainty as unregulated devices tend to have wider variation in contents. I would not agree to such removal in any discussion about safety in general, which requires long term studies (certainly longer than e-cigs have been studied up to now). While it would seem intuitively correct that lower toxicant levels = safer, this is not necessarily the case as different combinations of toxicants may be in play, lower levels may not lead to lower disease if all you need is a lower threshold to produce disease, etc. Too many time in medicine we make conclusions about what would seem intuitively correct and are dead wrong in the end. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Public Health England states that the unregulated products currently on the market are certainly much lower than smoking: "overall however the hazards associated with use of products currently on the market is likely to be extremely low, and certainly much lower than smoking. They could be reduced further still by applying appropriate product standards."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf

There are variability with everything. That doesn't mean we cannot make a statement that smoking are more dangerous than soda. Cigarettes have variability too, does that mean we must state that not all cigarettes have been proven overwhelmingly dangerous? Of course we can, science is about induction and generalities - especially epidemiology.

There isn't really much variation in contents at all, even without regulation. The fact is e-liquid is an extremely homogenous market, and all the stuff about "lack of regulation means anything could be in there" is simply propagated by people who don't understand the market and don't know what they're talking about. The only real variation is the PG/VG ratio, and the literature (including secondary sources) makes this quite clear. As for the possibility of the combination of ingredients turning out to have a lower toxicity threshold than tobacco smoke, that's just laughable - especially as the exact same ingredients are approved as safe when delivered from a Nicorette inhalator.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Unregulated devices" is also misleading; if anything it would be unregulated liquid that might have varying composition (although, as I said, in practice it doesn't to any real extent). The device has very little to do with it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

One word, Flavourings. Everything isnt known on long term inhalation for safety. The risks need to be known. Are they still less harmful that tobacco cigarettes? Yes, but there is sometimes words of wisdom coming from people who want testing. One of the most knowlagable people on hardware today, P. Busardo wants more testing of everything. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for more testing too, but we need some perspective. The issue we're discussing is, are e-cigs safer than cigarettes? The worst issue found so far is diacetyl, and cigarettes contain up to 100 times as much of that as the e-liquids that contain it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Major medical organizations and science papers use the word "certainly" regarding the significantly lower risk in EC versus smoking - even when referring to unregulated devices. There are still is some uncertainty regarding the absolute safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So are we going to talk for a few more sections or try and nail down some language that everyone can live with? AlbinoFerret 16:11, 12 December 2014

"There is a consensus that electronic cigarette use is significantly safer than smoking."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Then start a subsection here with specific wording to be changed, and what it is changed to, and see if there is support for the change. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Atomizer section

This change should be easily passed. The current wording is:

A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations are available.

I proposes the more neutral wording of

A lot of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations exist.

AlbinoFerret 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a neutrality problem; it's just verbose.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I try to keep language used in selling things out. The replacement only says that they exist, and it doesnt remove the information. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case you only wish to change available -> exist. Why change "a wide range" to "a lot"? It looks far less professional. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Array" looks slightly odd, but "range", "choice" or "variety" would do. Not sure about "combinations" either - it's not really accurate. The container is usually an integral part of the attie. "A wide variety of atomisers is available"?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I didnt write the line so I cant be sure, it might be talking about catro tanks. Its also applicable to second generation devices that have atomizer heads with different ohms ratings available, that is very common. AlbinoFerret 11:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion the new form would be

A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations exist.

AlbinoFerret 11:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really like "e-liquid containers". Wouldn't most people assume that referred to the bottles it comes in?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Make a suggestion then. AlbinoFerret 12:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"atomizer and tank assemblies"? Not sure. Most people I know use "atomizer" to mean the coil/head, base and tank combined, not just the coil.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That differs from the usage I'm familiar with where atomiser/atty means head (the coil and mount) in a clearo but not the base or tank itself. Same with a Carto, atty would mean the coil inside including the wicking material and not the whole assemblage. SPACKlick (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going off the usual terminology, like RDA standing for rebuildable dripping atomiser.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Im starting to think this line should just be removed. It really is not about the atomizer. AlbinoFerret 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It doesn't seem to add much, does it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote the line. Back then carto tanks, eGo C punch style atomizer where quite popular, and I didn't find anything anything better than "atomizer and e liquid container combination" to describe them... English is my second language so I didn't find any better way for describing them. But I still think that we should find a way to say that a lot of attys are available (clearo, RBA, RTA etc etc) TheNorlo (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheNorlo: Thank you very much for the background on that sentence. I said I thought it was about cartotanks. I agree it would be nice to give an idea of how many different devices there currently are, but I am 100% sure it will need a citation. I think a good place for that information would be in the Components paragraph. Was the line always in the Atomizers section. I know I did a lot of reorganization awhile back. AlbinoFerret 01:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the line was originally in the intro of the construction section.TheNorlo (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I cant seem to find a number of devices being offered, I have a citation for "many devices" on the market. Another says about 400 brands, but its only talking about cigalikes. The intro to Construction would be best. I would like to find one that gives a better idea of how many. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With all the companies jumping in to make a quick buck, particularly in china, it would be nearly impossible to even give a good estimate of all the available devices that are out there. Think about all the different mechs, their clones and knock-offs. And then you have all the different eGos. I don't see where one could find a WP:RS listing all of those. TheNorlo (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a study in Tobacco Control (you're probably aware of it, http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_3/iii3.full) which found 466 *brands*, but the number of models is obviously greater than the number of brands, and it only looked at products available online through English-language sites. I've never seen an estimate for total models, worldwide, through all channels. I guess you could use a phrase like "466 brands advertised on English-language Websites alone" in order to both be reliably sourced, and indicate that there must be many others in addition to that number. Barnabypage (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I went looking and didnt look at the reference from digitaltrends.com I placed on the sentence in the article now. It has some interesting wording thats probably going to have to be paraphrased

"To get the good stuff, you need to go online, where you’ll find a whole universe of devices:

could that be rephrased to "a very large number of devices can be found"? Perhaps someone else can suggest something. AlbinoFerret 02:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Given how many types of atomizer we can describe, we shouldn't need much in the way of a citation to say "many different models of atomizer are on the market".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we are now looking past just atomizers. AlbinoFerret 16:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

The line "A wide array of atomizers and e-liquid container combinations are available." will be removed from the Atomizers subsection.

The line "A wide array of component combinations exist." will be added to the Components intro with the same citation. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support That looks like a good option.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Support AlbinoFerret 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Fine with me.TheNorlo (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Connector types

The device generation sub-section of the construction section says the following:Common connection types are 510, 901, 808 and 801 with the 510 being the most common. It should be noted that every other connection than the 510 is only common on cigalikes and in no way are common on any serious PV.TheNorlo (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the eGo connection is probably the second most common after 510 and it's not even mentioned. The rest are pretty much cigalike only.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

All we need is a reliable source to add it. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not much, but could this source be used just to show that the 510 connector is the industry standard, I don't care about and don't want to promote the lame mōd Power Kit V2 that the MarketWatch article is talking about. I would also erase all mention of the other types of connections since they are basically obsolete. Even most of the cig-a-likes now uses a proprietary BS connector that only works with their crappy cartomizers, kr808d might be the only exception. TheNorlo (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly it states its a press release, so we cant use it. AlbinoFerret 11:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is this page still locked.

It says that the article will be lock until December 2nd. Is that December 2nd 2015? If not, then why is it still locked?TheNorlo (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Its locked to the 17th. AlbinoFerret 21:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

This well-designed RfC attempts to resolve a difference of opinion on the form of words to be used to describe the substance drawn out when one puffs on an e-cigarette. It begins by asking five questions:

Q: Should we use mist?
A: The preferred terms are "aerosol" and "vapour". Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist".

Q: Should we use the word the medical source uses?
A: There is no consensus on this point, so for all practical intents and purposes the answer is "not necessarily".

Q: Should we use the word the source uses?
A: There is no consensus on this point, so again, for all practical intents and purposes the answer is "not necessarily".

Q: Should we use any one term exclusively?
A: No.

Q: Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used?
A: No.

Q: Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article?
A: Not necessarily.

Reading the discussion, there's a lot of discussion about what the least ambiguous term is. No consensus is reached on this point, and there is no requirement always to use the least ambiguous term. We should use the term that best fits the rhythm and flow of the sentence, provided that term does not mislead the reader. The consensus is that neither "vapour" nor "aerosol" are misleading.

I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

There has not been consensus on usage of the terms Vapor, Mist, and Aerosol as to the best word to use for what comes out of an e-cigarette. This disagreement has the words being changed all the time. The common term used by most average people and the media to describe the inhalable product of E-cigarettes is Vapor. A number of Medical journals describe it as Aerosol, but there are also a lot of uses of Vapor in journal articles. No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist. There is a discussion now on the page discussing this issue.[12] There is also one in the archives[13] that ended in a limited agreement for the start of the lede only. Some editors of this page have suggested that in the interest of being accurate we should use Aerosol over the common term Vapor.

Questions:

A. Should we use Mist?
B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?
D. Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)
E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used? AlbinoFerret 23:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article? AlbinoFerret 09:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines

As always the Wikipedia guidelines should be the basis for your answer. The controlling wikipedia guideline at this time is WP:MEDMOS because this article has Health sections in which the word will be used. MEDRS states:

Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, these two groups do not by themselves represent the target audience.

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words (for example, consider using "kidney" rather than "renal").

The controlling Manual of Style guideline for Wikilinks is WP:SPECIFICLINK. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been a few comments on closing I will address it here. I fully intend to have this RFC run for some time while comments are still being added. Other editors that have been away from WP for a few days should get a chance to comment. The minimum is a week, but I think longer might be a good idea. When commenting has stopped for a day or so is when I will seek closing. Since there is controversy on the topic and clear consensus doesnt look possible in all sections I will go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and request it since I started the RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have requested closure since the RFC stalled about a week ago. link AlbinoFerret 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Answers

Please leave comments on the questions under the question sections below. If you leave them in the Discussion area they may get lost among people talking. AlbinoFerret 16:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A. Should we use Mist?

No. Not at all. Ever.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
No This should be used in no locations on the article, it is used nowhere else and is confusing. AlbinoFerret 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also a good time to point out that if we link to the Mist article the first thing the reader will see is that mist is "small droplets of water suspended in air". As Quack is always quick to say, e-cigs don't release water vapor, so this is a spectacularly dumb word to insist on.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No Mist never made sense. It is called vapor in general parlance and in a significant number of reviews, and aerosol in the rest, with a few using both terms. I can't recall anyone ever calling it "mist". --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Mist is the neutral wording. The terminology "vapor" is used in the marketing strategy for these products."[14] According to NPOV, we should write from a neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, "mist" is not neutral wording. It's incorrect, misleading and idiotic wording that isn't used anywhere except here. "Vapor" is used in most of the RS, the media and almost everywhere else, not just "marketing".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that mist is a synonym for vapor[15][16] and the text must be written from a WP:NPOV? QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If "mist" is a synonym for "vapor" why not just use "vapor", like everybody else in the fucking world does? You can't seriously be arguing that "vapor" is POV, can you?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So let us use effluvium instead - it is after all just a synonym.. and thus by the same measure even more NPOV since no one uses it, and no one favors it. Never mind the inaccuracy, the lack of sourcing etc.... just as with mist. --Kim D. Petersen 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How about "zephyr"? I kinda like that. "No adverse health effects of e-cig zephyrs have ever been found despite desperate data mining by the pharma industry and its lackeys..." Sounds good, right?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Vapour is the usual term and it is the term that a novice reader is going to understand. Referring to it largely or exclusively as "mist" is only going to confuse them and beg the question, is this "mist" the same thing as the "vapour" they read about everywhere else? Moreover, just because the term is used in marketing doesn't automatically exclude it from use here - that would be absurd. However, we can if necessary cover all bases by saying something along the lines of "a mist-like aerosol, usually referred to as vapour". Barnabypage (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Call it "A mist-like aerosol, usually referred to as vapor" in the lede, then "vapor" throughout the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Mist is not an accurate term for this, a "mist" is more akin to nasal sprays which are much larger droplets which usually describes a water-based fluid, so the term is not approprioate here. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus, opposed only by one editor with a long history of tendentious editing, POV-pushing and edit warring, that "mist" should be removed from the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please wait for a sufficient amount of time to pass before seeking a close. Zad68 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I intend to wait a bit Zad, I want a lot of comments on the topic and each question. I will wait at least a few weeks and when it starts to not get responses its time to close. Then I will go to the admin board for closing. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes mist is acceptable as an accurate term, it's certainly more accurate than "vapor". Zad68 22:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How is mist ("small droplets of water suspended in air") more accurate than vapor, which is what actually comes off the coil when you hit the fire button? And why do you want to use a word that nobody else in the entire world uses? Almost every RS says vapor. We should use vapor.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with Zad Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No Looking at the definitions for both words shows that Vapor is the correct word to use. Arzel (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Mist is acceptable I do not find most of the "yes" or "no" suggestions here to be admissible in making a decision, because most of them are giving personal opinions without reference to any reliable source. QuackGuru presents a source which discusses this and related terms, and because in that answer a good source is cited, I am persuaded that mist is acceptable. A thesaurus is not a reliable source for determining what words are equivalent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the source BR? The source refers to it as an aerosol throughout, vapor twice and mist never (although it refers to Propylene glycol mists in quotations). This source does not support the use of mist, Mist is not used in any source, the only options are the more technical Aerosol and the more Colloquial Vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I quote another source that is part of the discussion section? The answer is Yes. Please read the quote. Thanks. "Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[17] QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is one of the few that directly refers to the emissions as mist, once. It refers to them as an aerosol a dozen or more times and as vapor 3 times. Mist is not a common word nor an accurate word for the visible emissions of e-cigarettes. SPACKlick (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"These are likely to be due to exposure to propylene glycol mist generated by the electronic cigarette's atomizer. Exposure to propylene glycol mist may occur..."[18] QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mist is not acceptable The NIH source Bluerasberry cites above calls it "vapor", and the only use of "mist" is when they quote another source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No I cannot find any significant use of mist for the emissions of e-cigarettes in either medical or layman's literature. The technical definition of Mist explicitly relates to water so it isn't accurate either. Mist is the compromise that's worse than either of the original options SPACKlick (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After 6 days of discussion we have 8 No and 3 Yes. Arguments for No are that Mist points to water which is misleading. Mist is not commonly used in either technical or lay sources additionaly this novel term will lead to confusion. Mist is technically inaccurate. The compromise "mist like" to descrive the aerosol was proposed. Arguments for Yes are that Mist is neutral whereas Vapour is POV (which was disputed and not answered), That mist is a synonym for vapour that mist is a more accurate term than vapour (which was disputed and not answered) and that one source uses mist (which was disputed and not answered). This question seems to have a consensus both by vote and merit but the disputed points are probably what needs addressing if there is a swing for yes. SPACKlick (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No - I don't see "mist" in significant use in the sources. "Vapor" appears more frequently. Joja lozzo 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No It's nearly always always referred to as vapour, if that's also more accurate there's no reason to use mist. Half Hat 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No Use of mist would be resorting to a word that is used far more rarely than vapor. Oxford's "word of the year" was vape. If editors on Wikipedia are using mist while majority of the rest of the world is using vapor, then Wikipedia would show up as out of step with what is the common word that is most widely used, even by some in the medical and/or scientific community. Gw40nw (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

Yes, if If the answer to D. does not reach consensus this is the best choice. AlbinoFerret 00:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the term Aerosol is accurate, not only medically but it is also the accurate term for the physics involved. Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Damotclese: that should really be a No then, because B is to use the word that a particular medical source uses when citing it, and they are not consistent between aerosol and vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes but it should be the case in every usage in the article. In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe One term should be used consistently throughout the article. I expect that medical sources define the right term, but whatever happens, after all close terms are reviewed in one place then only one term should be used throughout the article regardless of the original source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
'Weak No It would be preferable to have one term throughout. Whatever the source says (as long as we're talking about the same thing). Where a source distinguishes the emissions in a vapor form and in aerosolised form then we may need to refer to sourced words but in general a consensus word throughout would be preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No Use one vernacular term consistently per WP:MEDMOS. There is no need to mimic each source individually. Joja lozzo 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No' The goal should be to use the simplest, most widely understood terms possible so WP is as accessible as possible. Only resort to professional terms for the lack of better. And once the most applicable synonym has been chosen, it should be used consistently. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No' The word ought to stay consistent among Wikipedia editors. If based on an article, then Wikipedia editing takes precedent and consistency matters. If quoting the article, then of course go with what word is used in the quote. Gw40nw (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

Yes, If If the answer to D. does not reach consensus this is the best choice. AlbinoFerret 00:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is preferred. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and there already was a previous consensus where editors agreed to use mist (in the lede) with a wikilink to aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to consensus reached in the the agreement, limited to only one sentence in the lede, that delt with both the word vapor and aerosol? If so you are incorrect as that consensus was limited to one sentence. That you broke that agreement by placing "mist" it in selective spots, ignoring aerosol, has me questioning why you are citing it now, I am sure others will to. AlbinoFerret 15:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Another editor acknowledged there was consensus to use mist in the lede. If it is good enough for the lede then it was good enough for the body. If you supported it for the lede then what would be a rationale objection for the body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Except the agreement expressly stated it was not for the entire article, and in choosing to selectively change it you broke that agreement. AlbinoFerret 23:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, consensus can change. AlbinoFerret 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, stick with one term, specifically Aerosol as that is the most accurate term. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No agree with Damotclese Cloudjpk (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No Wikipedia does not need to carry ambiguity into this article. One term for the concept should be used in this article regardless of variation in the original sources. If various terms are used then they should be used while distinguishing various concepts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak No as above. Single term is preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No Use one vernacular term consistently per WP:MEDMOS. Joja lozzo 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No The word ought to stay consistent among Wikipedia editors. If based on an article, then Wikipedia editing takes precedent and consistency matters. If quoting the article, then of course go with what word is used in the quote. Gw40nw (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

D.Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)

We should use Vapor exclusively, because that's what the intended audience (as well as the users, manufacturers and most studies) use.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Vapor should be used because it follows the WP:MEDMOS guidelines not to use jargon. AlbinoFerret 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor is also the most widely and comon term the general reader of average reading ability will understand. The definition of Mist is a fog, or something created naturally by the environment. The definition of aerosol is a liquid spray under pressure. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But you previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agreed to one instance in the lede, but you have done it all over. You broke the agreement that was only for the lede by replacing vapor all over the page, except you left Aerosol alone. But the agreement was to opt for mist over both vapor and aerosol in the lede. This is an ownership issue WP:OWNER. Secondly your repeating wikilinks to other pages has added to the very possible confusion to the general reader. Situations change, and this one has because of your breaking the agreement. Hopefully this RFC will come to consensus and we can move on to other matters. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Other editors disagree with you. User:Cloudjpk disagreed with your changes.[19] User:Johnuniq disagreed with your changes.[20] User:Yobol prefers to use the term aerosol because that is what the sources says.[21] More explanations about what is behind all of this can be found here. More details about the term aerosol are explained in the body. The article says "The aerosol produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you want to delete this sentence from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I want to delete it from the article. The vast preponderance of RS call it vapor, as do all the users, all the manufacturers and the majority of academics. Just because you want to insist on a word that suits your obsession with "particles" (actually droplets) and have found a source that supports that is no reason to stop using "vapor". This is not a medical article. It is an article about a consumer product and should be written for a general audience.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They are free to comment on this RFC, as are all editors. If you have additional comments to make, make them in the Discussion section. AlbinoFerret 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor should be used, except possibly in a section describing the intricates of how it is both an aerosol and a vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 01:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Vapor should be used exclusively throughout the article, as it is the correct English word per OED: [22]. I do think it's important to have a brief technical discussion about the exact nature of vapor as an aerosol/mist, but it should be confined to a small section. Mihaister (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister right at the top directly under the introduction of the word itself is the note informal. You are saying it is appropriate to use what is clearly identified as an informal definition in an encyclopedia article? Zad68 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED "informal" applies to vape, not vapour. I agree we shouldn't be talking at length about vaping and vapers in the article but that doesn't exclude vapour (which is the source of vape, not vice-versa, of course). Barnabypage (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Informal or not, "vapor" is the accurate and appropriate English word used by scientific and lay sources alike. In contrast, "mist", which is currently used throughout the article, has no verifiable support either in the scientific literature or news media. Mihaister (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mist can be used in this article rather than the vapor. Mist is neutral and a synonym for vapor.[23][24] Editors can read the section Ultrafine particles which clearly explains vapor is inaccurate. Aerosol can be used where the sources use the term aerosol or we can sometimes use mist. The section name can be mist. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the majority of WP:MEDRS sources use the "inaccurate" term vapo[u]r [25] as opposed to the "accurate" aerosol[26]. (and if you use the filter for "review"s only - then you get the same result). --Kim D. Petersen 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment. "Mist" is just odd (makes me think of Keats). "Vapour" is problematic because of its overlap with a promotional use. I think we'd do better with something more neutral like "emissions", which also has reasonable support in good sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol is the most accurate term which should be utilized exclusively, it is medically correct (and we are talking about a drug delivery system here) and it is also the correct term which describes the physics of the drug delivery system. Damotclese (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and commenting in the RFC. But e-cigarettes are not a medical device. A drug delivery system would be a medical device. E-cigarettes are a consumer product that to date has not been approved for any medical purpose, and the article is not in a medical category. AlbinoFerret 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment "Aerosol" is the accurate term. But I'm OK with the compromise term "Mist" felt to be more neutral. "Vapor" is inaccurate and misleading. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Vapor should probably be used as it is the term used in most general-audience writing about e-cigarettes. A paragraph explaining that the physically correct term would be aerosol should be added somewhere near the top of the article if it is not already there. More general terms such as 'emissions' as mentioned by Alexbrn above could also be used, particularly in sections where it's desirable to reinforce the notion that vapor, aerosol, mist, etc. are all terms for 'the matter that leaves the e-cigarette during active use'. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol is the correct scientific term. "Vapor" is misleading and should be mentioned as the common term. A vapor is a substance is entirely in the gaseous state. Mist is not entirely scientific, though more so than "vapor". The content of the e-cig plume contains condensed droplets of propylene glycol and/or glycerol. Therefore, the plume is not vapor. Glycerol has a boiling point of 290°C / 554°F, Propylene glycol 188°C / 371°F. Inhaling significant amounts of these as a vapor could cause severe burns. If "vapor" is used, the article should clearly note that it is not the scientifically/engineering correct term, and scientifically, the plume is actually considered to be an aerosol. Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol for technical descriptions, mist is an acceptable accurate, more reader-friendly term for word choice variation. Zad68 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Vapor Aerosol is defined as a liquid released under pressure. This is not a spray of liquid. Vapor is the correct term. There seems to be an odd disconnect that because that is the term used by the manufacturers, then we cannot use that term because it is simply a marketing ploy. There seems to be an active effort to go out of the way to re-define the issue as to avoid using terms used by the manufacturers. Arzel (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol Cheng 2014 clearly states that the emission is an aerosol, not a vapor. As vapor appears to be the incorrect term, no matter how commonly it is used, we should be using the scientifically correct term (noting that the common term is vapor, and that it is incorrect). Yobol (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. But that goes against the WP guideline WP:MEDMOS as the article is to be written to the general reader and not like a medical journal. You might also be interested in this definition. The words used are starting to come into the english language disctonaries, Oxford is a very good one. AlbinoFerret 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe when we have a choice of being "readable" and being "correct", I think "correct" wins out. In this case, that means we should use "aerosol". In the case of "renal" and "kidney", both are equally correct, and we should use the more easily comprehensible word; in this case, one is correct, and one is incorrect. In that case, we should always use the correct word. Yobol (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we can say it's technically an aerosol, or a mist, or an iguana, or whatever, and then note that most people call it vapour and use that term in the rest of the article. That way we give the technically correct information and produce an article that's comprehensible to the lay reader - win-win. (I don't have an opinion on whether it is strictly speaking a vapour or an aerosol or both or neither. I only know that almost everyone uses the former word - apart from anything else, it's the word they're going to search for if they want to know about the emissions from an e-cigarette.) Barnabypage (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer not to use the scientifically incorrect term. Like I said, I would be up front in that discussion that the common term is "vapor" so that there is no confusion ,and then explain why we use the word aerosol (that it is the correct term). However, that the incorrect term is commonly used shouldn't mean we should use an incorrect term commonly as well. One of the goals of an encyclopedia should always to be correct. Where there is a common misconception, it is our role to correct that, not to propagate it. Like I said, if all terms were equal, I would agree that we should use the common term; however, in this case, the common term happens to be incorrect, so we should not use it. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary seems to think its correct, read the usage sentence in the link. I put more stock in a well respected dictionary than I do in a a review or two on the correctness of a term. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, being in the OED doesn't mean it's correct, just that it's in common usage. Barnabypage (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer academic sources such as the peer-reviewed literature over general use dictionaries for scientific information. If you prefer dictionaries for scientific information, there really isn't much else to say. Yobol (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mist or aerosol Mist is an acceptable term in layman's language while aerosol is probably the most precise term. Vapor seems to be a marketing term, and as a marketing term, it is an incorrect use of the scientific term "vapor". I fail to recognize a source which defines "vapor" outside the context of marketing use but I have seen a source which uses "aerosol" and "mist". I hesitate to suggest "aerosol" only because it is not a layman term, so for that reason, I say that "mist" is acceptable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand where this belief comes from that vapour is purely a "marketing term". Yes, it is used in marketing, but so are "battery" and for that matter "e-cigarette". Here is "vapour" used by Tobacco Control, the UK National Health Service, The Lancet, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, the BMJ, Public Health England, and JAMA:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70495-9/fulltext

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6882

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1812953

Other scientific/medical sources do use "aerosol" and "mist" as well, of course. But we shouldn't exclude "vapour" on the fallacious grounds that it is only used by marketers. Barnabypage (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know this is going to be unhelpful but I'm pretty even between Vapour/Vapor and Aerosol. Vapour is the common term for the emissions and also the common term for persistent colloidal suspensions visible in air. Aerosol is the technically correct term for colloidal suspensions of droplets in air. My preference is in the lede and any emissions section to make it clear that the "Vapour" is technically an aerosol and then use vapour throughout as it makes the article more accessible to use the lay term. SPACKlick (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After 9 days there are an equal number of people who find aerosol and Vapour acceptable as the unique term and a greater number of people find vapour unacceptable than aerosol, so on purely VOTE! aerosol has the consensus. I think the article would be perfectly acceptable using Aerosol rather than Vapour although it may make some passages slightly less readable for those with only a passing interest. SPACKlick (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor per MEDMOS. Joja lozzo 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We should use vapor, as this is what general readers will understand best and are most likely to use themselves. There should be a short section explaining that what leaves the device is technically a mist, and the water soon evaporates converting it to what is technically an aerosol (or whatever the words are that physicists prefer). Maproom (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Vapor, i think mist is too associated with water vapor. Aerosol is unnecessarily scientific. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol because that is what it is. Informally sometimes called a mist. It is not vapour. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Aerosol I guess as no one wishes to use the simpler term mist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Use vapor to describe molecules in the gas phase. If those molecules condense to form particles suspended in the air, they are an aerosol. A mist is a specific kind of aerosol comprising solvent droplets (typically water) as opposed to suspended solids (e.g. dust). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Vapor is the most common vernacular term, even if not strictly pertaining to the precise scientific usage of the term. Aerosol is a confusing term, as in common usage, this term refers to aerosol cans (e.g. air fresheners) and their spray. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
'Vapor is, to date, clearly the most widely used term. If there were scientific consensus and all scientific opinion pieces only used a word other than vapor (i.e. aeresol), then Wikipedia would be wise to revisit this topic. As it stands now, most people use vapor, Oxford dictionary made 'vape' its Word of the Year, and scientific articles do make use of the word vapor in at least some instances. Gw40nw (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used?

No This practice is confusing. Wikilinks are fine, but they should go to the page of the same name as the word. AlbinoFerret 00:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hell no that would be a dictionary of thesaurus function, not really something dcone when talking about an electronic drug delivery mechanism. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, definitely not Wikilinks should link to the correct page, not one cherry-picked to suit an agenda. If you say "mist" link to Mist. If you mean "aerosol" say "aerosol" and link to that. No deceptive links.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure There are articles for mist, aerosol, and vapor. Only one of these concepts is best for describing what comes out of an electronic cigarette. I would not want disputes here to carry over into those articles, but yes ideally, one concept is used here, the name links to the article of the same name, and those articles are not disrupted to make a case here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No When the word is first introduced (whether it's mist, vapor, aerosol or emissions) it should be clarified that it's commonly called vapor but that the vapor condenses and leaved the device as an aerosol and the wikilinking should be done there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No Since we should use a vernacular term not a technical term, a link would be confusing. Joja lozzo 02:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No Not if consistency matters on Wikipedia and we are trying to embrace NPOV. Gw40nw (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article?

Yes in the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No A consensus must be reached here. Only one word should be used in this article to describe the concept being discussed. If multiple terms are used, then each term should be tied to a distinct concept. All sources discussing the same concept will have their term of choice translated into the Wikipedia term of choice when their information comes here. There should not be multiple terms used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" The lede clarifies this matter with the different synonyms. It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. There was obviously a previous consensus for the term aerosol because there was no prior dispute until this recent edit in October. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
No Work for a consensus that is in accordance with policy not personal preferences. Joja lozzo 02:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No Wikipedia editors ought to determine the term to be used if claim is based on an external article. Consistency matters more than consensus, and consensus ought to be sought always, but if minor opinion is detracting from said consensus, then a consistent term ought to be used and talk page will reflect that there is exhaustive debate over use of that term, but that Wikipedia is on main article page foremost concerned with consistency of the term within that article. Gw40nw (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

I'm not participating in this because I think minor questions of terminology which are very unlikely to confuse the reader are the epitome of trivia, and can serve only to distract from our far more important NPOV disagreements concerning whether inconclusive reviews of smaller numbers of primary sources "contradict" the multiple conclusive, prescriptive, high-impact journal MEDRSs reviews of larger numbers of sources. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, I respect your right to not comment. Sometimes the way words are used makes a difference,and some may be glad that others dont comment. If small issues are cleared up, more time can be given to larger issues. You also have to pick which things are possible to fix at this point in time because of continued argument on even the smallest point. That arguing shouls show you how important it is for each editor to post in RFC's. Every day more research is done. We will see in the long run which side is correct by the available sources. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." At the time he agreed to wikilinking to aerosol and did not have a problem with mist in the lede. Now he wants to change things back to vapor and delete the wikilink to aerosol? Please read the source: "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas".[27] We already had a discussion on this. Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are using a limited agreement for one sentence in the lede to change all instances of the word. This was caused by you constantly changing Vapor to Aerosol even though the source said Vapor. Situations change. When you broke the agreement by replacing vapor with mist in mass you lose the right to say there is an agreement and try and twist words which were part of the agreement. This RFC will hopefully find the consensus on the issue. If there was any consensus here it was limited and now gone because you broke the agreement. Your arguments fail because they go against Wikipedia Guidelines WP:MEDMOS and WP:SPECIFICLINK. 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Other editors disagreed with you.[28][29][30] QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, thats what a RFC is all about. Hopefully we will get the opinions of some editors who are neutral third parties on this. I also hope current editors can come to come to consensus on something. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless—a local consensus cannot decide to use incorrect terminology. It would be fine to talk about aerosols briefly, and to use other terms thereafter while noting that they are incorrect colloquialisms, but the sweeping wording of the voting topics is quite unsuitable. Many problems will go away if we focus on good article content using the usual criteria whereby the page must be neutral, accurate, and non-promotional. I wrote this before the ping above but was called away. I don't think more is needed from me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, While I disagree with you that it is incorrect terminology. I ask, your personal definition of accuracy, or the accuracy of the source? Because we are not allowed to correct sources. I also ask for you to provide a link to the policy or guideline we would be usurping locally with this RFC. As I see it, the guidelines I pointed out apply and they tell us what to do. The questions also include keeping the word the source uses, instead of replacing it all over the article with inaccurate terms like "mist". AlbinoFerret 03:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think I might imagine my personal opinion mattered? My edit summary pointed out that the source (Cheng2014) says "aerosol". Also, others have described what mist says so that word is out except as an acknowledged colloquialism, and vapor may or may not be appropriate—sources would settle that (although an acknowledged colloquialism would be fine). By the way, adding a ping like this does not work—the ping and the signature have to be added in a new comment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am not assuming anything, but asking questions. We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR. We are allowed to paraphrase and reform sentences for the general reader and not use jargon as WP:MEDMOS states. Again, I ask you for the Wikipedia guideline or policy we would be usurping locally with this RFC. Please provide it.AlbinoFerret 04:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors can read the section Ultrafine particles. This article clearly explains vapor is the incorrect terminology. AlbinoFerret continues to disagree with what reliable sources say. A 2014 review found "At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products."[31] Repeating what is promoted in the marketing here on Wikipedia that e-cigarettes are "vapor" is bordering on WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to carry on ideological WP:BATTLES. QuackGuru (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous again, much not to my surprise. "Not water vapor" doesn't mean "not vapor". When it comes off the coil it's vapor. It may or may not have partly condensed into an aerosol by the time it comes out the drip tip, but what comes off the coil is vapor.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack,

We are not allowed to correct one source with another. Thats WP:OR.
You are no longer debating the merits of this RFC. Posting negative statements about what you think my motives are, that go against WP:AGF, its just not right. This RFC is to see where consensus lies with the questions rather than the endless edit battles where one thing stays for a few hours or days.
Some sources use Vapor. But vapor is not the only option in the RFC. The option exists to comment on letting the source tell us what word to use. But you have ignored that. My personal opinion is that we should use the word the General Reader is most likely to use. The same word the media uses. While they cant be used for medical claims, they can be used to show us what the common term is, vapor.

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: the matter emitted by e-cigarettes is likely to be a vapour (i.e. gas below critical temp.) when first leaving the device, which then condenses into an aerosol as it cools. However, as most sources (and the general public) refer to 'e-cigarette vapour', that is probably the best default term to use. A paragraph explaining this somewhere toward the beginning of the article wouldn't go amiss. 'Mist' is not widely used and is a far more inaccurate description; a mention of the term's colloquial use at most I think. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reticulated Spline: Thank you for your comment. The short description at the top does state that the average person and the media use the term vapor. Do you think it can be improved? Also if you meant this as a comment to the RFC questions could you add it above to one of the question sections so it doesnt get lost in the discussion? Thanks again for the comment. AlbinoFerret 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying - I will have a look at the lead paragraph, but won't make any changes until the RfC is complete to avoid further inflaming matters. I shall also add my view to the question section above, thanks. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like one term for the whole article may end in no consensus. If so, there will be no specific term specified for the article because consensus did not exist before except for one sentence in the lede. If C falls to no consensus also I will retry that question alone. Some are answering as if the two are mutually exclusive, and in some ways they are. I should have worded it a little differently. I think I will add a question. AlbinoFerret 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would of requested from editors a first choice and then a second choice. This RFC is clearly malformed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

B, C, and D are all choices. But I did add F in case the other sections, mainly D do not come to consensus because B and C are close. AlbinoFerret 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting: "Oxford Dictionaries has chosen their 2014 word of the year, and it’s vape." [32] -- Mihaister (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pop quiz: what was their word last year? No googling, just do you know? Neither did I. That's about how enduring this is. (For the curious: Word_of_the_year#Oxford) Cloudjpk (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret claims because other editors prefer to use a synonym that using a synonym is OR. How could using a synonym be OR? QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you are tracking my edits. I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist. You previously claimed it was OR and you have not provided any evidence this is any OR. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont remember saying the changing of a word, based on editors wanting to correct other sources was OR. But it is sounding more like it to me by some of the answers surrounding this topic. Its a difficult question, best left to the more knowledgeable, uninvolved editors, at the OR notice board. The question I asked was just that, a question. To gain more information. I also question if you are getting your synonym information from your source or a general usage dictionary. Because a synonym is a word that means the same thing. If thats the case it cant be inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See Electronic cigarette#Ultrafine particles: "The aerosol produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" The synonym you want to use is inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You didnt answer the question. Synonyms are words that are spelled differently but mean the same thing. You source is saying they dont mean the same thing, one is a gas state and one has droplets. Where are you getting that aerosol or mist is a synonym of vapor from? It isnt Cheng he is saying they are different, not the same. AlbinoFerret 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents (Figure 1) invented in their current form by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in the early 2000s.1"[33]

"Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[34]

Please read the references presented. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have not answered the question, let me try and be more exact. What source, be it online or a book that gives information on what words are synonyms are you using to find out that vapor and aersol are in fact synonyms. I am not asking what source in the article says they are one thing or the other. AlbinoFerret 01:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources did answer your question. The text highlighted in black shows the sources are using it as a synonym. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, but its not worth the time. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this diff on 14 November 2014 and this diff on 15 November 2014 it appears you did think aerosol, mist, and vapor are synonyms. QuackGuru (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus in the past?

Consensus.

There was a previous consensus for some text. AlbinoFerret was changing the wording back on 13 October 2014. I and User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the change to vapor. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you are still claiming consensus for a generic change of vapor/aerosol into mist. By now you know that this is incorrect or you should lay down diagnosed with a very strong case of WP:IDHT. Your links doesn't provide backing for your claims either. --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back a number of months at least as early as 10 July 2014 aerosol was in the lede (and seen in the body) before this ever become an issue. It only become an issue after this recent edit on 13 October 2014. If there is no consensus to change we shall stick to the status quo according to Wikipedia's WP:CON. Any editor who would try to say there was not a previous consensus for the wording such as aerosol being in the lede should read historical revisionism first. We can't change the history or the facts. This is a truthful account of the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are presenting a narrative here that is at odds with reality. The change[35] that you claim to be the "origins" of this, has nothing at all to do with the conflict over mist/aerosol/vapor.. but was instead a problem with direct copy/paste of sentences from sources. It is the the wholesale change of vapor into mist (or aerosol) that lies at the bottom of this conflict. --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent change[36] was disputed. I provided strong evidence for the previous consensus for the word aerosol before there was any content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought QuackGuru's actions here, and all the disruptive acts in the recent past to WP:AN/I. You can find it here. AlbinoFerret 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[37] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff [38] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[39] However, this diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We have went over this art least once. You dont seem to get it. I explained why you are wrong yet you still persist. Here is the answer I gave yesterday on why I went to the OR board. I never claimed anything, I simply asked a question for information. Here is what I told you yesterday:

"I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another."

I changed the word because of a copyright issue, the whole sentance was a close copy of the source, I should have changed it more. We have gone over this quite a few times in the past. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed it to vapor but what did the source say? You changed it because you also preferred the synonym vapor over aerosol. Why would anyone think synonyms could be an OR issue? QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

All this discussion of synonymy is a side bar. The subtle differences are what matter in this RFC. I skimmed through some 600 Papers from a Google Scholar search (numbers after [] are total results) for ["e-cigarette" mist]737 , ["e-cigarette" aerosol]721 and ["e-cigarette" vapor]908 & ["e-cigarette" vapour]871, Mist: Almost always implies water which gets us back to the lie (that i'd love to see the origin of) that it's "just water vapour", very rarely used in sources discussing e-cigarettes although sometimes in relation to fog machines. Aerosol: Technically the most accurate description of the emissions as they are inhaled, any vapour has condensed to suspended droplets. This term is used reasonably often in the literature although it is commonly, but not mostly IME, couched as e-cig vapour is an aerosol of... Vapour: Technically incorrect for emissions as inhaled, Although the production of the emissions is by vaporisation not atomisation or aerosolisation. This is by far and away the most common term used in non technical literature and edges out Aerosol as the most common term in technical literature. The answer seems clear to me. Why is this even a discussion? SPACKlick (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by QuackGuru were inappropriately moved here from another section above.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor.QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your post was moved here to Discussions because it was off topic in a section about closing, please keep all comments in discussion areas. I will remove the section header so the closing comment becomes part of the RFC question area so you dont think its an area to post in. AlbinoFerret 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And the lede is accurate, nobody is questioning the sentence introducing the emissions should refer to them as an aerosol commonly known as vapour. The question is whether in the article we should use the technical term "Aerosol" or the common parlance "Vapour" The medical literature uses both, the industry literature uses both. One is the technical term for the emission, the other is the common term. Mist is neither. There's no POV or neutrality issue in it. It's Common vs Technical. SPACKlick (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the general reader could care less is the "technical" term is used and would be shaking his head at calling it mist. AlbinoFerret 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Local consensus versus broad consensus Wikipedia wide.

Is this discussion pointless? Can local consensus intentionally use incorrect terminology against a broader consensus? It is odd anyone would want to use incorrect wording when we know what the correct wording is. On another page, there is precedent on Wikipedia to use the word cannabis rather than the commonly known name marijuana for the cannabis (drug) page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, "No". Long answer, the incorrect terminology is only incorrect according to you, according to the vast majority of sources, the vast majority of readers and a majority of editors this is the correct term. It's not a vapour in the sense a physicist would mean it but it is a vapour in the commone paralance. Google define: Vapour and the first result is;

noun
noun: vapour; plural noun: vapours; noun: vapor; plural noun: vapors; plural noun: the vapours
   1. a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid. "dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour"

Cannabis is a very common name for marijuana and I'd suspect the consensus reflected that. You are in a minority and the majority here have good grounds for their consensus. Accept it and move on to improving the article SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas."

Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157. According to the best available evidence aerosol is the correct terminology in accordance with WP:MEDRS. I will continue to expand the article. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, QG, Aerosol is the technical term for the colloidal suspension the emissions form, none of us has denied that. The suspension, however, is commonly known and is known in most of the reference literature and is correctly known as a vapour. This is how words work. What they're used to mean, they mean. Give it up already. Also notice I said improve, not expand the article. It needs careful pruning/rewording for readability and coherency more than expansion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I just pointed out above the MEDRS source said "but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’"[40] We know it is commonly known as vapor but you haven't provided a MEDRS source that says e-cigarette is correctly known as a vapor. There is a difference. You previously said "the lede is accurate".[41] and the lede does say the term vapor is common but inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You can point to that one MEDRS source all you like. The article should be written in common parlance not technical language except where such language would introduce error. The article should, in the lede, point out that the emissions are technically, by the definitions used by physiscits, an aerosol formed when a vapour condenses. However throughout the article the common term should be used. Almost every source in the article refers to it either exclusively or in majority as vapour. Just because you've got a closed minded idea of what the words should mean and what sort of article this should be doesn't make you anywhere close to right here QG. SPACKlick (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed "Short answer, "No". Long answer, the incorrect terminology is only incorrect according to you, according to the vast majority of sources, the vast majority of readers and a majority of editors this is the correct term." But you are mistaken and Wikipedia is not a vote. User:Yobol articulated that "Cheng 2014 clearly states that the emission is an aerosol, not a vapor. As vapor appears to be the incorrect term, no matter how commonly it is used, we should be using the scientifically correct term (noting that the common term is vapor, and that it is incorrect). "[42] The correct term is better and we should not use the incorrect term just because it is common.[43] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just one MEDRS source; there multiple sources saying the same thing: the accurate term is aerosol. And this is not merely a technical distinction: the ultrafine particles in the aerosol create health risks that would not be posed if the emissions were merely vapor. The argument that common parlance should be used has been been made in the past; but the argument that WP should use correct terms seems at least as compelling, particularly when the incorrect term is misleading. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry it is merely a technical distinction. In the common usage vapour is any visible collection of a substance floating in the air (it's slightly more restrictive than that but not a lot), whether that substance is in a gaseous or droplet form. This is definitionally a vapour on the common usage. It's worth noting that "ultrafine particles" are not part of an aerosol which is made of droplets. any particles would be contaminants to the intended aerosol and I also would love you to show any MEDRS that shows that there is any health risk of e-cig emissions as an aerosol that wouldn't be present if it was inhaled as a vapour, ignoring the additional health risks due to the temperature of the vapour if you like. There is nothing misleading or incorrect about vapour. The state of affairs is that "E-cigarettes vaporise e-liquid which condenses into an aerosol commonly known as vapour" When discussing composition of emissions the word Aerosol will likely be more appropriate at times. but when discussing the emissions in general the sensible term is the one most readers will understand and recognise and most reliable sources use to refer to it which is vapour. All this being said I'm not so anti-aerosol If we're talking preference out of 100 the Vapour/Aerosol/Mist is 55/45/0 SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"any health risk of e-cig emissions as an aerosol that wouldn't be present if it was inhaled as a vapour"; sure AHA Scientific Statement: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease Cloudjpk (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your link is to an article about traffic emissions - solid particulates - so it's irrelevant to this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my link is to the AHA scientific statement. Neither traffic nor solid is even mentioned. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry what part of that do you believe shows that the physical vapour wouldn't have the same health effects as the physical aerosol? It shows that particles in the airways are bad and that combinations of particles and physical vapors are bad. But it doesn't compare the 2. SPACKlick (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the particles are the only risk! But as to the question, is there any health risk of the PM itself, the answer is yes, and particle size is critical. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We must surely call it what it is; an aerosol (or informally a mist) we cannot call it a vapour because it is not one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is the sum of ~~inaccurate~~ all human knowledge. Accuracy is the most compelling argument thus far. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."[44] -- User:Jimbo Wales. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, the idea that we can base what we write on what most people think or how most people speak is a most insidious and damaging trend for WP. Taking the attitude, 'vapour, schmapour, gas, aerosol, plasma, it's all the same to most people' is not how WP was intended to be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin:, the disagreement is about what the correct word for what it is, is. This is basically the same argument which periodically comes up with the culinary definition of vegetable. While many culinary vegetables are technically fruits they are accurately referred to as vegetables under that definition. While this emission is physically an aerosol (having condensed from a physical vapour) the common term for matter of that form is a vapour as seen by the fact that it's referred to as vapour in most MEDRS, the vast majority of RS and by most people here. So while I'd agree that at some point in the article we should discuss in detail its composition as suspended droplets forming a vapour, when merely referring to it we should use the term that conveys accurate information best, which is vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The fruit/vegetable analogy is not a particularly good one, fruit are vegetable so, although 'fruit' may be a more precise term, 'vegetable' is not actually incorrect. Also there is a much longer history of that usage. Electronic cigarettes are a new invention and we have the chance to get the terminology right.

Vapour is incorrect and misleading (I do not know how significant the difference is in this case; it could turn out to be critical). As has already pointed out, the lead says, "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor[2]". The term vapour seems to originate from product marketing, I presume because it sounds more attractive to consumers than other words, and this word then seems to have been adopted by medical sources. The word 'aerosol' is not exactly unknown to most people and I think it is generally understood to be some kind of misty thing, so there will be no loss of comprehention for the average reader if we used the correct word.

What then is the reason to use 'vapor'? Is it because marketing sources use this word, to attract new users new to the product? Is it just because many medical sources use this word, probably because of its promotional usage? Neither of these seem justification for continuing to use inaccurate and misleading terminology in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though e-cigs are a new invention, the public referring to aerosols as vapour is not. Most suspensions in air are referred to as vapour. Heck, most people refer to the visible condensed water aerosol above their kettle as water vapour or steam and that's an aerosol. The common usage has always been that these visible suspensions are a vapour. For this reason I disagree that vapour is either incorrect or misleading. It is a less technical terminology and that is why the article should make clear (I would suggest in the lead and in the section on composition of the emissions) that the vapour is a condensed aerosol.

The lede is incorrect to say "Aerosol(mist)" because almost nobody refers to the emissions as mist and most people use mist for fine wet sprays based on water. Mist is neither technically nor colloquially accurate. I also dispute that vapour originates from product marketing, vapour originates from the labeling people give to the emissions and other emissions of the type. If people are going to continue making that claim they should back it up with some sourcing.

Most vapours, so referred, are technically aerosols. Most aerosols, so referred, are pressurised releases of liquid which never give the impression of condensing. Vapour is what most, subject naive, English speakers would call the emissions and so it most accurately conveys what they are. It's the word that people use to label this type of thing and this specific token of the type. To use a different word in the name of "accuracy" would make the article convey less accurate information to the general reader and that is the reason for using the term vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that to the vast majority of non-scientific readers aerosol is a spray that comes out of a can, and they would be quite puzzled (or - worse - misled) by its use in this context. In any case, the "aerosol/mist commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapour" still seems to me the best compromise between rigorous accuracy and comprehensibility. Whether or not it was originally a marketing term it's clearly more than that now. Language changes, some words have more than one meaning, and it would be quite persuasive to simply argue that vapour is what this particular aerosol is called.

BTW it would be interesting to know when "vapour" was first used - the original Ruyan patent does use both aerosol and vapour, as I recall. Barnabypage (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

the "aerosol/mist commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapour" still seems to me the best compromise I disagree with this and once this RFC has been closed that sentence needs looking at. I personally feel an aerosol, which is commonly referred to as vapor. conveys all the reader needs to know. However this RFC Isn't about that sentence it's about the body of the article.

Steam

I can understand that most people call the condensed vapour over their kettles 'steam' and that that is tecnically incorrect, but 'vapour' is a much less commonly used word and, in my opinion, does not have a generally understood non-tecnical meaning. Of course people who are interested may (having missed the disclaimer in the lead) try to find out exactly what a vapour is and we had better hope that they do not use Wikipedia or any other authoritative source to find out because, if they do so, they will be mislead.

Luckily we have a term that is technically well defined and probably understood by the general public just as well as the word 'vapour' and that word is 'aerosol'. If people think that what you breathe from an EC is like what comes out of an aerosol can they will not be far wrong, only the droplet size may be wrong. On the other hand, if they understand, or look up vapour they willfind the wrong thing. If they do not understand either word, or do not care, then we can call it whatever we like but WP is surely aimed at those who at least wish to be informed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but vapour is pretty common usage. Search Vapour in google images and you find almost exclusively pictures of water vapour condensed into an aerosol. Look Vapour up in a dictionary and the definition "A substance diffused or suspended in the air" is of the visible aerosol. The most common use of Vapour I can think of is Vapour Trails as the alternate name for Contrails Which are vapour condensed into an aerosol (or solid suspension where it's cold enough for ice). The OED defines water vapour as "In popular language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air in the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of gaseous water and air. [...] In modern scientific and technical language, applied only to water in the form of an invisible gas."

On the other hand to the common public an Aerosol is almost exclusive a substance dispensed from a container by propellant under pressure. Similar to vapour google images is telling, mostly the spray cans and a couple on cloud formation talking about actual aerosol. Simple English Wikipedia article "When they say aerosol most people mean an aerosol spray can or the spray it makes.". Aerosol is misleading for the majority of readers. Vapour is not.

TO use aerosol for this, outside of a specifically scientific and technical setting is Jargon. I mean really, when most of the sources and most of the people and most of the dictionaries agree on a word for a thing in the real world, what reason could there be to use a different word?SPACKlick (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand we have vapor and aerosol. These articles are both quite clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think either of us is going to convince the other and we have both stated our views. My real concern is the way that popular 'information' is slowly becoming fact through WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we're unlikely to convince eachother but I disagree that this is about popular information, it's merely about common language. Either way, It would be good to leave this RFC to an outside closer at this point.

Moved back from archive.AlbinoFerret 11:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump to prevent archiving before closure. It's currently sitting at Number 9 on the Requests for closure board. RFC has been open 37 days at this point, request for closure has been open for 26 days. I think it is unlikely it'll get closed before christmas. SPACKlick (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

OR accusations

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The material was reciently added and is either consensus to remove them, or no consensus that they remain per WP:NOCONSENSUS. AlbinoFerret 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording to be removed is in the E-juice subsection and says "With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution.[78]" AlbinoFerret 03:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How many brands of e-liquid have weight loss or erectile dysfunction drugs added? Most? A lot? Or almost none?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost none. See www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide verification for your claim according to the source per WP:V. Where does the source verify the claim "some"? QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The way the article is phrased now implies "many". This is not true, so the wording needs to reflect the fact that most liquids do not contain any drugs except nicotine. Right now it's misleading.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of a different word that is sourced? Since you did not provide verification for your claim "some" then it was WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I clarified it is "With different types of devices,..." according to V. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement should probably not be in the article at all, as per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require "multiple" exceptional sources and the burden of proof for that lies with the editor(s) seeking to insert the claim into the article. Furthermore it certainly should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice (see WP:ASSERT).Levelledout (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Digging in the sources of Grana to find some mudd, QuackGuru? This is ONE ELIQUID casereport... Not multiple as "with differnt types of devices".--Merlin 1971 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the full report but the abstract gives no clue as to how many - if any - the drug was found in. Is "various" sourced? I have never seen any liquid advertised as containing medicinal drugs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even happy with mentioning that e-cigs can be modified to administer cannabis, to be honest. Firstly to the best of my knowledge they can't; secondly, as purpose-built cannabis atomisers can be easily bought, why would anyone bother? Smacks of POV-pushing really.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not right to continue to oppose text from a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is wrong. E-cigs cannot be modified to vape cannabis. For hash you need a dry herb vaporizer. For cannabis oil you need a special oil vaporizer. Both of these are freely and legally available, so not only is it not possible to modify an e-cig for that purpose, it's also pointless and a complete non-issue.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The OR was restored. The part some failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure... You have restored YOUR quality edit... ;) Btw: it was ONE company (E-Cig Technology) which sold ELiquid with tadalifil in 2010. ONE in 2010 - They have been formally warned by the FDA and, as far as i know, something similar never happend again. Your wording "some cases" means "more than one" - this is untrue!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording "some cases" is unsourced IMO. Please provide verification for the word "some cases" according to the review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This has no place in the article as it is WP:UNDUE weight and close to the 5 year mark we are supposed to be using per WP:MEDRS. So far there is no consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 23:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Cervellin, Gianfranco; Borghi, Loris; Mattiuzzi, Camilla; Meschi, Tiziana; Favaloro, Emmanuel; Lippi, Giuseppe (2014). "E-Cigarettes and Cardiovascular Risk: Beyond Science and Mysticism". Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis. 40 (01): 060–065. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1363468. ISSN 0094-6176. PMID 24343348.

The source is from 2014 and there is no consensus to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is citing something that happened in 2010. It should not stay as there is no consensus to add it. If by some crazy chance someone agrees it should line after it should read "The review cited the study "Analysis of electronic cigarette cartages, refill solutions, and smoke for nicotine and nicotine related impurities" that found one manufacturer, CIXI, manufactured the cartridges." AlbinoFerret 23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That proposal is OR and also unnecessary in-text attribution. You should not be conducting your own personal analysis of the review. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, I am attributing the findings to the study they appeared in, it is not original research. But it doesnt matter, the edit needs to be removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS AlbinoFerret 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It could even be broken up "The review cited the study "Analysis of electronic cigarette cartages, refill solutions, and smoke for nicotine and nicotine related impurities". That study found one manufacturer, CIXI, manufactured the cartridges." AlbinoFerret 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We are citing the review not a study. Only sourced text from the review is verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The study is also verifiable, and becomes usable because of your use of the review. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Were are not using a study that is not MEDRS. We can only use the MEDRS source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The study is MEDRS, and it has been given weight by its use in the review. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Removal There is no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS for keeping this edit ~~diff~~diffin the section below line 177, that was recently added before the protection. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove Clearly another case of WP:IDHT, where QuackGuru is advancing his POV and WP:FRINGE theories. The consensus here is clear: this statement is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. Mihaister (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Support removal No consensus for the WP:REDFLAG changesLevelledout (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. We are using different reviews for different claims. We are not using a study to verify any claim. The study is cited by the review but the review does not explicitly mention the study itself. Therefore, the proposal above was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove This is a rather clear example of a cherry-pick, that ignores reality and the balance of sources. It really shouldn't be necessary to have this poll, but unfortunately QG is not cooperative or seeking consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove Clear POV-pushing, by trying to make out that this is anything more than a one-off. No consensus to keep it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment No specific proposal has been made to delete any specific text because the diff shows me making a minor change. The diff provided above by AlbinoFerret does not show any text was added. So editors want to delete something without specifying what they want to delete. The comment above was "There is no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS for keeping this editdiff that was recently added before the protection." This editdiff does not show any text was added. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want specifics its this edit diff below line 177 with the wording

"With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution.<ref name=Cervellin2013/>

Is that specific enough? The language is easily found and the discussion above is clear what is being discussed. AlbinoFerret

The wording has been changed and that text was not added this month. That was added a while ago but all of a sudden you want it deleted it? QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That wording was placed 4 days before the protection, with no discussion on its addition in an unstable page. Shall I provide a link to previous discussions on the topic of removal of two week old material by Zad that you originally removed and agreed with its repeated removal? AlbinoFerret 02:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment AlbinoFerret is changing his comment to a different link after editors comments. It appears editors are supporting deleting sourced text without knowing exactly what was the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above clearly sets forth what wording was at issue. AlbinoFerret 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? Have you never given a wrong link? And he did it with strike-out in the preferred way according to WP:REDACT. I'm rather curious as to what you are trying to say here... it should have been obvious to you that it was the wrong diff in the first place. --Kim D. Petersen 02:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You claim "This is a rather clear example of a cherry-pick, that ignores reality and the balance of sources." Right? So if we balance the text with other sources we can keep it then. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Let's have a look at how much WP:WEIGHT this source actually has. Then let's look to see if the idea that e-cigs are being used to administer these drugs is widely mentioned in literature or if it's just your WP:FRINGE view based on what a single manufacturer did four years ago.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The text is sourced to a 2014 review. There are different types of e-cigs according to the review. E-cigs are also used as medical devices too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The review is extremely poor quality; the authors appear to think e-cigs are a form of smokeless tobacco. Where are e-cigs licensed as medical devices? Source please.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The review is high quality. Where are e-cigs licensed as medical devices? "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product [28,29]."[45] QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the review is very visibly poor. Smokeless tobacco products? They don't even contain tobacco. Where are e-cigs licensed for delivering erectile dysfunction or weight loss drugs?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't seen you defend the WP:WEIGHT here, despite it being the most expressed concern. Your whole argument seems to be "it is verifiable", but verifiability is not the end-all-be-all of wikipedia, it is only the first tier for information. The second tier is to present verifiable information according to the prevalence in reliable sources, and that is the concern that you should address. --Kim D. Petersen 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are not used just for vaping. There are different types of e-cigs that are used for other purposes such as to delivery drugs. This is non-controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Name a type of e-cig that's used to deliver drugs, because it's not really non-controversial at all. I'm not aware of ANY e-cig licensed as a (non-nicotine) drug delivery system. Are you?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Once more you are not addressing WP:WEIGHT. Please do. --Kim D. Petersen 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I already did. "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product [28,29]"[46]

When some countries use it was a medical device that is not a minority view. E-cigs used as vaping is only one use. There are other uses that can explained in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem, because only "several" countries do so, thats more than one but not many. So again you have a weight issue. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not take the bait and confuse issues - this section is about the weight loss/erectile dysfunction drugs. --Kim D. Petersen 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That doesn't address what this section is about. How about addressing the WP:WEIGHT issues regarding the weight loss or erectile dysfunction drugs - instead of something entirely different? --Kim D. Petersen 04:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The same source says "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."[47] Being used as a “drug delivery devices” in several countries is not a minority view at all. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Again you are not addressing the WP:WEIGHT concern that this section is about. Please stick to talking about the weight loss or erectile dysfunction drug issue. --Kim D. Petersen 04:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are being as drug delivery devices which may contain ingredients such as erectile dysfunction in several countries. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all. Can you find a source for this claim?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained the same source said "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."[48] QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The drug in question being nicotine. There is no country that licenses e-cigs for delivering cock enhancers or weight loss drugs, and you know that perfectly well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Once more: Please address the WP:WEIGHT of this issue. --Kim D. Petersen 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. QuackGuru, you want to include a very minor issue in the e-liquid section. Why do you think it's important enough to be added to such a small, sparse section? Give a reason please, not just "I have a reference".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to address the WP:WEIGHT issue or not? Why do you think it's worth mentioning that a couple of brands added drugs to the liquid, when 99.9% of brands do not do this?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a couple brands, but one brand as the study the review used shows. AlbinoFerret 15:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove The article should be primarily concerning itself with e-cigarettes as a product category, not with clearly anomalous flaws of a tiny minority of products. Creepy-crawlies are found in supermarket salad bags from time to time but I doubt that editors over at the salad article bother with such incidents. Barnabypage (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Support removal - QG needs to stop POV pushing and listen to other editors. -A1candidate (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus needs to be assessed before this is ready for the PER phase. Please reactivate once the discussion has been assessed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Either way this is removed by the current discussion. There is either consensus it be removed. The opposite of no consensus because of one or two comments would have it removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS as it was added reciently before the protections, and there is clearly no consensus to have it remain. AlbinoFerret 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Society and culture.

I would like to add the following to Society and Culture:

In the United-States, the vaping community and small businesses fears that the proposed regulations by the FDA (2014) concerning electronic cigarette products will impede innovation ref and will only benefit the tobacco giants and the pharmaceutical industry by creating a financial burden that specialized, independent companies will not be able to afford, driving them out of business. ref.

TheNorlo (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That URL comes up 404, can you check for the right one? AlbinoFerret 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why it doesn't work... there it isTheNorlo (talk)

Looks like a nice sourced addition, it might be better in the economics section. AlbinoFerret 15:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include that text it must be balanced with this text:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.^[1]"^[1]

^ ^a ^b Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

Uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing on Electronic cigarette have deemed this source reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Quack, you don't get to say what "must" happen. Secondly we have quite enough from Grana/Glantz already. It's not a very good paper and its use in this article has gone beyond excessive; it's ridiculous. I will not support citing it yet again without a very good reason, and this is not one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They are on completely different things, and notability is not something the RS board decides. Secondly, this is about regulation and has no place on this page. Legal stateus on this page iis a summery, its already big enough. AlbinoFerret 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeeaaahhhhh...... I don't really see how it balances anything. We were talking about the perception that the vaping community has about the proposed FDA regulation, I don't understand your point. TheNorlo (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't have a point; he's just POV pushing again.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. First of all, there is no "have deemed this source reliable for the claim" consensus at the WP:RS board, and secondly almost no "Uninvolved editors" commented there, thirdly reliability doesn't mean that it passes WP:WEIGHT, or that it must be used. --Kim D. Petersen 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support The text is supported and TheNorlo's wording is good. I think Economics may be a batter place for it, but it should be in the article regardless of location. Additional wording QG suggests should be brought up in a separate section to gauge consensus. AlbinoFerret 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support This is a definite issue that's getting a lot of attention. Quack's suggestion is unrelated and should be considered separately, if at all; it's not well sourced.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support with reservations I agree with Quack to some extent here. The problem is that both the Grana source and the Vice source are pure opinion, no science involved, no objective truth and thus not a good idea to include such a partisan opinion without appropriate balance. However Quack's proposal does not provide balance against Vice's assertion, it discusses a slightly different issue. A better sentence to use would be from [Saitta]: "Obviously, these products need to be adequately regulated, primarily to protect users." Thus I would support something like

"One review argues that some degree of regulation is required in order to "protect users". However according to Vice, the e-cigarette community and small e-cigarette businesses are concerned that a 2014 FDA regulation proposal would stifle product innovation and result in an unfair advantage to tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical industry."Levelledout (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Vice.com is a publisher, the content is in Motherboard magazine, and its a news story that quotes sources, it is not an opinion piece of the writers. AlbinoFerret 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose with reservations I am having trouble understanding why vaping culture and those who speak for it and those who are compelled to speak against it, insist on making the Electronic Cigarette article page the place where the debated points on usage, including perceived risks, needs to be appear. I have proposed on talk page a split that would separate content regarding "information about vaping" from content that deals specifically with an electronic cigarette is. I have other concerns with how this addition is worded, but they are entirely secondary to the larger issue that these type of points need not appear on the main article page for Electronic Cigarettes. I observe that such additions only fuel an ongoing debate that is very prevalent on the talk page and that has spilled over onto the main article page in a way that shows the overall content is poorly organized. Gw40nw (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So... We agree then. I have no problem adding the text to economics instead of society and culture. Can I add the text to economics without creating a nuclear reaction that will get this article locked? Quack can find a section to introduce is Grana (again!) claims. Are we cool? Here I go... TheNorlo (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There should be balance not one-sided content. I think you should include the following too per NPOV: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.^[1]"^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

QuackGuru (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem balancing the text if you think it is biased... But seriously, I do not see how that text balances mine... They are 2 completely different things. None of them balances the other out. And on a side note... And I know that it is cited by Grana (the end all be all) but the fact that totally wicked drafted a petition and that vaper signed it is hardly a concerted effort by all of the vaping industry... But anyways. I don't oppose you writing that, but I don't see how it balances the other, completely unrelated claim. And it surely has no buisiness in the economic section. TheNorlo (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that what was added is not related to what Quack wants to add. He is trying to mix apples and oranges. There is not one big e-cigarette industry but thousands of small businesses. What you added is not about cigalikes, Quack's is, and its about a minority of the industry. If Quack wants to add something he is more than welcome to start a section discussing it to see where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 14:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Something else to remove

"They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting."

The Cochrane review found no evidence of this, and it's also contradicted by the STS data and every other survey of smoking rates, which all show the decline in smoking prevalence accelerating sharply as vaping becomes more popular. In fact the only country that currently has an increase in smoking prevalence is Singapore. Where e-cigs are banned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change - that the text "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting" be removed from the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support It was a stupid claim anyway and now there's evidence against it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote that refutes this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane says there's no evidence that e-cig use reduces the chance of quitting. Why would it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not find "reduces the chance of quitting" in the abstract. Is it in the main text? What is the exact quote or is this WP:OR? By the way they looked at ECs with nicotine against ECs without. Thus both arms contained ECs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the plain language summary: "There was no evidence that using EC at the same time as using regular cigarettes made people less likely to quit smoking."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it's more qualified than that. McRobbie says "There was no evidence that using EC at the same time as using regular cigarettes made people less likely to quit smoking" with further qualifiers in the summary. This isn't incompatible with "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting."--if there isn't good evidence that they don't promote, that still allows may. And as Doc pointed out Cochrane isn't the only one weighing in here. In general Cochrane's standards for evidence to make a recommendation are higher than other sources--While a practice guideline, for example, may say "Do X" Cochrane might still say "There isn't a sufficient amount of high-quality evidence to clearly support X", but that doesn't make the first source invalid. Zad68 05:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But there isn't any evidence that they May delay quitting, and nobody has even provided a credible reason why they would. It seems perverse that actual evidence, even if tentative, is being downplayed in support of vague "concerns" supported by no evidence whatsoever. We now have smoking cessation data from several countries that covers the period since e-cigs were introduced, and with one exception it shows quit rates unchanged or accelerating. The exception is Singapore, where e-cigs are banned. Why is an unsupported hypothetical being given more weight than the evidence? And why are the conclusions of the Cochrane review being deprecated for only using two studies, while the conclusions of Grana/Glantz are unchallengeable despite being based on no studies at all?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The moon may be made of green cheese. May is opinion, and it was placed in the article without attrib. AlbinoFerret 14:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and there is a serious issue here with opinion being elevated above evidence. Any attempt to qualify Glantz cites with "although this was based on a cross-sectional study that does not allow the conclusions drawn" would be met with howls of outrage, but it's OK to write off the Cochrane report because it only used two studies. I'll be interested to see how they respond to the AHA one, which used six.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And while we are at it. Let's remove some more Grana/Glantz nonsense.

The last sentence (or at least parts of it) of the usage section should be removed or replaced as per the new studies mentioned above. There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes, and no proven help with quitting smoking.TheNorlo (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Support While the latest reviews aren't cast iron, I don't think anyone at this point is seriously arguing that e-cigs don't help with quitting, so that needs to come out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment There is no proposal here. So oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a proposal: To remove the second half of the sentence he quotes, because it's no longer accurate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of "The last sentence (or at least parts of it) of the usage section should be removed..." does not sound like a proposal to you?TheNorlo (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is low to very low quality evidence that it helps with quitting smoking. We could change it to that. Ref says "the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’" [49] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting "very low" from? There is evidence that e-cigs help with smoking cessation, which is obvious anyway to anyone who lives in the real world. Your attempt to downplay the latest studies looks an awful lot like POV-pushing. You're quite happy to cite "reviews" based on newspaper articles, but not the Cochrane Collaboration?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me copy and paste from the abstract for you "under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’ because of imprecision due to the small number of trials" [50] You can search for this text in the abstract. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you read it again. "Very low" was for being better than NRT and smoking reduction. It does not apply to smoking cessation; that was "Low". But it's still evidence, so the article cannot continue to claim that the evidence does not exist.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me add some bolding "Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated ‘low’ or ‘very low’ because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. "Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop this. The abstract very helpfully details exactly which outcomes were graded as low or very low, and very low was not applied to smoking cessation. You are just playing semantic games now. Why? Do you want this article to conform to the facts, or to an anti-vaping POV? Because you have not shown the same opposition to far less reliable studies that have been cited here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Circulation is one of the most highly cited journals in the medical literature. It does not publish "nonsense". The fact that it is called this in the heading of the section simply shows that someone does not like the articles conclusions. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Circulation does indeed not publish nonsense, and what they're about to publish (and have already released the abstract of) says that Glantz and Grana's claim that there's no evidence for e-cigs working as a cessation tool is wrong. It's outdated. It is old news. It has been overtaken by real science. It has shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir invisible. Add that to the Cochrane review and there is no justification for keeping that claim in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply wait for the next Circulation review to be published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While McNiel was blocked from being used in the article, the editors who have read it understand the problems with Grana. Turing a blind eye to the problems while increasing quotes from Grana fill the article is a problem. Saying someone has issues because they dislike error filled articles is a problem. AlbinoFerret 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition.TheNorlo (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing Cochrane this could be changed to a characterization of the evidence as "low quality". Zad68 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with that language, it is easily misunderstood. It is better to explain why, like more data is needed, which is in the source. This jumping from one thing to another is a problem, but not one that cant be fixed. AlbinoFerret 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)"

"et me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition." Mischaracterizing my position is not helpful, nor is your statement that the opinion of other editors should be "disregarded". Finally, entitling sectons with contentioous language does not help reach a consensus. Please review WP:CON. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant. TheNorlo (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Formerly 98 and Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviews from 2014

Stating that two 2014 reviews are obsolute is not appropriate [51]. Thus reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

They're "obsolute" (sic). Their central claim, that no evidence exists, is demonstrably wrong. Stop this. You do not WP:OWN this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because a new article has been published does not mean all previous articles are wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It does if the previous articles say there's no evidence and the new article provides it. Anyway take it to ANI.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here Fergus removed two 2014 review articles [52] calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation [53][54] calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete [55]

In this edit [56] they added "However this is contradicted by the Cochrane Collaboration, whose 2014 review found no evidence that electronic cigarette use is delaying or preventing smoking cessation" Which part of the ref states this?

The review did not state "no major health issues associated with electronic cigarette use". They found "low to very low" quality evidence of no major health issues

This is also not exactly correct "No serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use are known;"

So yes issues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review found no serious adverse effects. Nobody else has ever found any serious adverse effects either. As for the statements I removed, they are obsolete. They say there is no evidence. As you yourself conceded above, there is evidence. SO on what basis can you justify keeping those claims in the article?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A new review that finds "low to very low" quality evidence of an effect is just that. It does not exclude every other review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no living coelacanths. Oh look, yes there are. the statement that there are no living coelacanths is now false. So is the statement that there is no evidence e-cigs work for smoking cessation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With poor quality data reviews can come to different conclusions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean like Grana/Glantz, citing newspaper articles and their own work?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What was removed from the article was "The data is inconclusive on using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear." The edit summary said "Removing obsolete information". That's simply not correct. No data and low quality data both result in the same kinds of conclusions, that the data doesn't exist to make strong recommendations. Reviews from 2014 summarizing the state of the evidence are not "obsolete". Zad68 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about making recommendations. I am saying that to claim no evidence exists is now wrong. That is an incredibly simple point of logic. Is that evidence, albeit tentative? Yes it is! Therefore any statement that says there is no evidence is not and cannot be correct.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Drummond quote has issues link AlbinoFerret 05:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing. Already.

The ink is barely dry on the Cochrane report but already some editors are trying to remove it from the article. Please stop pushing your POV. We have a high quality secondary source that disproves these claims. Do not revert again without discussion.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Slow down a bit, we need to take care of one thing at a time. There is no hurry, we need to get it right. AlbinoFerret 03:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that he's refusing to allow any obsolete claims to be removed, while downplaying the Cochrane review as much as possible. It's blatantly POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We may not be able to remove some previously sourced statements. What we need to focus on imho is getting the new stuff in the article first. AlbinoFerret 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane is a great source. We just need to make sure we do not misinterpret it. It is also not the only source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If one source says there is no evidence, then a later source provides evidence, then the earlier source becomes wrong. Is that simple enough?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but we cant just jump in and make massive changes off the bat. Lets focus on one thing at a time. The talk page is all over the place tonight. AlbinoFerret 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is "low to very low". Some would describe that as inconclusive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the source. For cessation it is "low", meaning further research is needed. "Very low" relates only to comparison with patches and reduction. It is not applied to efficacy for cessation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording you are choosing "low" is easily misunderstood by a general reader. It would be better to describe why it is considered that, which is also in the source as an example, "more data is needed". AlbinoFerret 04:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes for cessation there is low quality evidence or tentative evidence that they help with stopping smoking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your adding of wording still under discussion is not helpful. AlbinoFerret 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The removal of what are still up-to-date, WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources is also not helpful. Zad68 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I havent removed anything that was not discussed. But one of the things that were removed is OR link AlbinoFerret 05:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Toxins

Just submitting these to the talk page for editors to use as they see fit (I'm not going to get involved in this article). If the source isn't deemed appropriate, there's a clickable list of citations (many of them MEDRS) at the end (titled Sources and References) of each: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/09/17/e-cigarette-second-hand-smoke-effect.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}, articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/28/e-cigarette-poisoning.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but those dont appear to be WP:MEDRS sources. We need secondary sources. Most of whats on that page is old news and is on a daughter page. AlbinoFerret 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the citations to the articles, not the articles themselves. The first article has 17 clickable citations from NEJM (several from Sept 2014), Lancet, and other studies; the second has 28 clickable citations from 2010 to March 2014. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We need reviews for this article, not studies. The article is based on secondary sources, not primary. AlbinoFerret 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever

Note. I didn't create this section and the content my comment is in reply to was deleted. Zad68 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My goodness everyone needs to please STOP opening up the SAME discussion in so many different places on this Talk page! And these talking points aren't detailed enough to act on. Zad68 05:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can agree on that Zad, 100% this page needs to slow down and take care of one thing at a time. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure... let's keep talking over each other everywhere on this page.... Deleted. TheNorlo (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but we need to focus in on one section and thing at a time. Its just to much and nothing gets accomplished. AlbinoFerret

Edits removed by consensus replaced

A massive edit was reverted by consensus link. They were removed by an admin diff. Without any discussion QuackGuru has started to add the edits again. diff. I have removed them again diff leaving citation maintenance alone. Each edit needs to be brought up and discussed before adding them. AlbinoFerret 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Grana

I have been burned many times in attempting to broker compromises here, but will try one more time.

The "Pro E-Cig" camp has repeatedly and over many weeks expressed frustration with the extensive use of the anti-E-Cig review from Grana in this article (23 times by my count). Given Wikipedia's emphasis on editing by consensus, the existence of many other high quality reviews (many of which adopt a more nuanced position), and given the importance of getting this article back on a track of cooperative editing, should we acknowledge the concerns of this group and cut back the use of Grana by 1/3 to 1/2? Twenty three is a LOT of citations. In return the "Pro" group could perhaps acknowledge that the new Cochrane and AHA reviews are something less than a rousing endorsement of electronic cigs as a quitting tool.

Overall, the literature seems to point to the conclusions that these are probably less dangerous than regular cigarettes, and that they probably help a very small number of people to quit or reduce smoking, but that there are some concerns about whether they have negative effects such as reducing the cigarette stigma that has played such a major role in smoking reduction. It seems to me that we could all back off a little bit from pushing for a description of these as "scary and dangerous" or a "panacea for the scourge of tobacco addiction". In fact, its all a little fuzzy right now and the truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. It would be nice to tone down the stridency of the debate. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The opinion that they're a panacea for the scourge of tobacco addiction is one that's being stated by a lot of scientists and tobacco control experts. However I agree that so far the literature hasn't caught up with that. I am happy with making it clear that the Cochrane evidence is tentative if Grana cites are reduced by at least half and a lot less prominence is given to "concerns" that conflict with the evidence, such as the claim that e-cigs will renormalize smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What has frustrated attempts at compromise in the past is the inability to agree on specific details, so I suspect this will be tough and it may help to do this stepwise. Can we agree that a reduction by 1/3 to 1/2 on Grana would be a useful first step, and that the new references should be presented in a nuanced way? I think that would be an improvement to the article from your side of the issue as well as mine, and we can continue to negotiate other changes after that first step is implemented. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with that. Probably a useful first step is to decide exactly which of Grana/Glantz's claims are most deserving of oblivion. Just to get the ball rolling I nominate "They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting." This is based on a cross-sectional study, which as several people (including the main source of Glantz's funding) have pointed out, cannot support the claim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. May I suggest that we hold off on suggesting specific edits until we have some more comments from people on the general proposal? I'm concerned that delving into specifics before we get general agreement will derail this into arguments about details. Let's see if we can get broad agreement first. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. For the record I support the proposal, as long as acknowledging the tentative nature of the Cochrane review doesn't add up to making it appear insignificant.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2x(edit conflict) I basically agree with the sentiment of this (Formerly's) post with some minor modifications of the final paragraph. I am much more Pro e-cig than you formerly but I think we're both more pro-accurate information on the page than devoted to our causes so I'm hopeful this can produce some form of consensus. Where I'd disagree on the final paragraph is

"Probably" -> "Almost certainly" less dangerous than cigarettes
"probably" help a "very small number of people" to quit or reduce smoking -> "appear" to help "Some people"
The passage starting there are some concerns I would like to make it clear on these that there is as yet no evidentiary support for those concerns.

I fully agree we need to back off on the stridency of the debate, however there are editors, on both sides, making that difficult right now. For this reason I would support indefinite protection while consensus is sorted and hopefully over time the evidence will become more overwhelming, one way or the other, among the scientific community.

The real issue is that Generalising will just lead to fights when it comes to problems. I think we need to focus on sections and say "is this repetetive?" "Is information missing?" "Is any review or source given too much/little weight?" Grana will stand or fall on its own merits at that point.SPACKlick (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I was against the protection this time. After some thought I agree that indefinite protection until consensus is archived that it be lifted may be the best thing that ever happened to this article. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a lot of blatant nonsense in the article, such as this:

"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways it is not intended to be used, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown."

It looks reasonable at face value, but a look at the source raises serious questions about the competence of the researcher. They give two examples of "using in ways it's not intended to be used", which are dripping directly onto the coil and stacking batteries. To drip you need a dripping atomizer. Guess, from the name, how that's intended to be used. Similarly, to stack batteries you need a mod designed to take stacked batteries. Again this is not "using e-cigarettes in ways it is not intended to be used", it's using it exactly as it's intended to be used. It looks like any source, however flimsy, is being crammed into the article just as long as it makes e-cigs look scary.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Some idle browsing suggests that teen use of e-cigs is almost entirely confined to eGo-style batteries and clearomisers. Given that I can tell you exactly the extent to which teens are dripping and stacking batteries: Not at all, because it's impossible with those devices. This is a clear case of a researcher who doesn't understand e-cigs at all seeing what (adult) enthusiasts do with high end gear and assuming it can also be done with a $15 eGo.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, but think it is best if we try to focus for now on finding areas of agreement. If we can agree on the general concept above, we can discuss specifics later. But if we start getting into specifics from the get-go, I'm afraid it will simply serve to emphasize differences and emotion, and we will not get to a compromise. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just meant it as an example of the sort of dubious research that's been stuffed in. I agree that we should get agreement on striking a better balance, then go after specifics.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph 2

I find some issues with the language that I'd like to request an edit on. Asking for consensus first. Current Version The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[7][8] One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data is inconclusive.[8] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[11] The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[10]

Edited Version The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[7][8] One review found some evidence of benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies.[9] Another considered the data inconclusive.[8] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[11] The evidence suggests that products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.[10]

Any thoughts? SPACKlick (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[10]" is a statement taken from the abstract of Drummond. Inside of the review and the abstract the wording leads me to believe that the Harm reduction is not based on substitution as is commonly used, but on the harm that is eliminated by quitting. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can this YouTube video be used as a source for non medical claims?

I want to know if we can use this YouTube video as a source for the (non medical) construction section of this article. The video in question is an interview with doctor Farsalinos, who's work has been cited in review articles and is currently cited in the present article multiple times already and is definitely WP:RS. In the video, he talks about multiple aspects of vaping, including technical aspects of the hardware used by every day vapers that could be used to source the aforementioned section that desperately need RS.TheNorlo (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the video may be hard to bring in. But doctor Farsalinos has a website that may be brought in under the fact he is an expert, perhaps we can find the same info there. AlbinoFerret 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, why not? It's nothing to do with MEDRS, and Farsalinos is an eminent researcher - possibly the leading researcher on e-cigs. If you still disagree, perhaps you could say something more constructive than just "Ah, no."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I did but it appears it was lost in the edit conflicts. Videos are not good references. Youtube is not known as a reliable publisher.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah right; my apologies. I agree that the video isn't a suitable source. I assumed you were referring to AF's suggestion about Dr F's website. It might help if you explained your objections rather than just issuing flat refusals. It's hard to discuss when we don't know what you're saying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's too bad, What is being said in there is a goldmine of info coming from an actual ecig specialist when it comes to the device itself. His webpage is of no use for ecig tech, it treats exclusively of researches.TheNorlo (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. It's unfortunate that it's so hard to find RS for technical information. That would probably be of a lot more interest to readers than all the he said/she said health wibble.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this may be a question for the RS notice board since it is not about a medical topic. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the lack of RS on this topic, I would argue that this is better than nothing. We are talking about a well known specialist on the subject talking within his field of expertise. I say it again, I do not want to use this source for medical or scientific claims. I want to use it for describing the product itself (high powered devices that are absent of this article although very popular at the moment, materials employed in the fabrication of atomizers, airflow effects and wicking setups inside atomizers and so on). I would be willing to reference the time at which cited claims has been made in the video TheNorlo (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have taken this to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I am not holding my breath waiting for an answer. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And of course, as better srouce become available... This one can be removed.TheNorlo (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Another considered the data is inconclusive" should be "Another considered the data inconclusive" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other more pressing matters to discuss. This should be tabled for awhile. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also both are correct, so it's six and two threes which one we use. It's just a matter of personal preference.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, both are not correct, Data is plural and the sentence is in the past tense so the "is" would be "was" anyway. I've requested the edit because it can be done in seconds unless there is any real objection to improving the grammar without hurting the content. Requesting an edit costs us nothing. SPACKlick (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was being nitpicky (which I will, because why not?) it would be "the data were inconclusive." I'd support that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was being a stylistic nitpicker I'd suggest "the data to be inconclusive" However I have no preference between the three, replacing

"Another considered the data is inconclusive"

with

"Another considered the data inconclusive"

"Another considered the data were inconclusive"

"Another considered the data to be inconclusive"

Let's just get it changed. SPACKlick (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done I went with the last one. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[Grana2014-1] Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Cheng2014-2] Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

[Grana2014-3] Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

[Grana2014-4] Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Caponnetto2012-5] Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.

[Fallon2014-6] Fallon, Claire (November 19, 2014). "'Vape' Is Oxford Dictionaries' Word Of The Year". The Huffington Post.

[Weaver2014-7] Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.

[Chang2014-8] Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995274. PMID 24732165.

[Lauterstein2014-9] Lauterstein, Dana; Hoshino, Risa; Gordon, Terry; Watkins, Beverly-Xaviera; Weitzman, Michael; Zelikoff, Judith (2014). "The Changing Face of Tobacco Use Among United States Youth". Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 7 (1): 29–43. doi:10.2174/1874473707666141015220110. ISSN 1874-4737. PMID 25323124.

[Grana2014-10] Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

[Grana2014-11] Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

Oxford word of the year.

Dubious claims

Per RFC above remove all references to Mist and change most to Vapor

Proposed compromise

Comments on proposed compromise

Discussion

Drummond in the Harm reduction section

Yobol has brought a question being discussed here to WP:RS/N

Proposed new "Controversy" section

Massive edits before protection

Note

More discussion focusing on article content and improvements

Topic

Interesting new FDA-funded paper

Proposed removal of out of date WHO report

New NHS Survey

Request to add image

Low EC risk compared to smoking

The the lower relative risks of e-cigarettes is not really an uncertainty

Remove false/subjective suggestions that lowEC risk is based on "limited" evidence

Proposed change to Atomizer section

Proposed change

Connector types

Why is this page still locked.

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

Wikipedia Guidelines

Answers

A. Should we use Mist?

B. Should we use the word the medical source uses when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

C. Should we use the term that any sources use when writing sentences based on that source in the article?

D.Should we use Vapor, Mist, or Aerosol exclusively? (please mention your choice first when answering)

E. Should we allow wikilinking of one of these terms to a different page when one already exists on the word used?

F. If there is no consensus on a specific term in question D. Should the sentence in the source that the claim is based on decide the word used in the specific claim in the article?

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

Consensus in the past?

Steam

OR accusations

Proposed addition to Society and culture.

Something else to remove

And while we are at it. Let's remove some more Grana/Glantz nonsense.

Reviews from 2014

POV pushing. Already.

Toxins

Whatever

Edits removed by consensus replaced

Grana

Lede Paragraph 2

Can this YouTube video be used as a source for non medical claims?

Grammar