Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Content fork?

+See "Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced.[4]" That content failed verification. It is not a falsehood masquerading as a fact?

Unsourced content and failed verification was restored after the article was redirected. No content was merged. That would be inappropriate to merge unsourced or failed verification content. The main article has content about a variety of different devices, including pod mods. I hope other editors will help remove the unsourced and failed verification content. E-cigs including pod mods produce aerosol rather than smoke. Is it appropriate more than half the article contains unsourced content? See current discussion. Also see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

minthreadsleft = 4. Minimum threads left

minthreadsleft = 4

Minimum threads left = 4

This is the default setting at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Example 2: Incremental archives.

It encourages discussion. Auto archiving avoids problems with arguments about premature closing of discussions. -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See Content fork? above. That is an important discussion. Too many threads is not helpful, especially when they are resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a relatively busy talk page with many archives. You deleted a thread that was started only a few days ago. Please let the bot auto archive threads. It usually has a delay before archiving new threads.

4 threads left is not too many discussions. And you should not be the one deciding when a discussion is finished. Let a bot do it, and there is no argument about prematurely closing discussions.

And __TOC__ and {{skip to TOC}} helps with people finding threads of interest fast on busy talk pages such as this one.

See also: Help:Archiving a talk page: "Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up lowercase sigmabot III or ClueBot III on a talk page other than your user talk page."

minthreadsleft = 4. This was the setting before I arrived here. Please keep it at that. And please do not manually archive threads. It avoids arguments.

Changed algo parameter to 14 days. It was set to 31 days. That is too long for a busy talk page with a lot of archives. Thread archiving delay is now 14 days.

I added this below the archive links banner: {{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=14}}

-- Timeshifter (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Include info about E-Cigarettes and Seizures, remove inappropriate references

To resolve a dispute I am seeking consensus/ideas about including a sentence reguarding seizures and their link to vaping products in the intro -- in a close location to the vaping related lung outbreak. There have been over 100 reported cases of these instances, which may be linked to the e-cigarettes high nicotine content. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/some-e-cigarette-users-are-having-seizures-most-reports-involving-youth-and-young-adults

Also would like to remove the sentence "The risk of early death is anticipated to be similar to that of smokeless tobacco." from the intro or change it to emphasize the fact that it is likely additional hazards will be discovered. In 2019, it is not possible to anticipate the chronic side effects of vaping, just as the long term effects of smoking were not fully revealed until after many decades of research. And with the rise of both THC and Nicotine only vaping related lung illnesses, it is no longer up to date to compare vaping to products like chewing tobacco because vaping is shown to more substantially impact the lungs and arteries.

Also, a similar sentence in the lead "The risk from serious adverse events was reported in 2016 to be low." should come out of the intro because again it does not account for the most recent incidents. More importantly though, this sentence is a total misrepresentation of the original source, which was about "Corneoscleral Laceration and Ocular Burns Caused by Electronic Cigarette Explosions". The concluding paragraph of this study says "ECs pose a number of health safety risks beyond nicotine content and gateway drug concerns."

The only thing even along the lines of this sentence is embedded in the paragraph "Protective eyewear and even mouthguards may be advisable during EC use, although strict compliance is unlikely. Although the number of serious adverse events is small compared with the number of EC users worldwide, the consequences may be devastating to those involved in an EC-related blast. Because the FDA collects only voluntary reports,2 adverse events may be underreported. Further study is warranted to investigate the explosion hazard presented by these devices."

Lastly, at some point I think it would be appropriate to expand on the fact that some experts now think vaping may be more addicting than burned cigarettes. This is due to the fact that nicotine content has increased almost 3X in the leading brands (in unregulated markets like US) and e-cigarettes are capable of delivering nicotine to the brain faster than paper cigarettes. SCBY (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

See "Seizures or convulsions are known potential side effects of nicotine toxicity and have been reported in the scientific literature in relation to intentional or accidental swallowing of e-liquid.[97]" Content about seizures belongs in the Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes subarticle.

The content in the lede is a summary of the body. Rather than delete it should be replaced with similar content like this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I added more content about the seizures to the appropriate article.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I still think it isn't right to keep info on many recently discovered adverse effects out of the main article while keeping the two dated studies finding little harm so prominently. The more adverse effects that come up, the more the balance of the article and its tone from the beginning should change. But adding the info about seizures to sub-article is a step in the right direction. I see it is up to 127 cases being reported in popular press but CDC website only shows those 30 something cases. SCBY (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The seizures are not "recently discovered adverse effects". See "Major adverse events reported to the FDA in 2013 included hospitalizations for pneumonia, congestive heart failure, seizure, rapid heart rate, and burns.[23] However no direct relationship has been proven between these effects and events and e-cigarette use, and some of them may be due to existing health problems.[23]"

The reported seizures from the FDA will continue as long as people are vaping. The lede is a general summary of the subarticles. The specific details go in the subarticles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OkSCBY (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This source is tagged with the public domain notice inside the citation. You can copy the content word for word and expand the subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Added a sentence to the body.[2] Agree not enough coverage / evidence for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a WP:SYNC violation. I updated 'Safety' per WP:SYNC. The lede is already pretty long. 'Safety' is a summary of three subarticles: Safety of electronic cigarettes, Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes, and Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:QuackGuru. I am happy with "Serious adverse events related to e-cigarettes were hypotension, seizure, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, disorientation, and congestive heart failure but it was unclear the degree to which they were the result of e-cigarettes." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

List of vaping bans in the United States

There is content about the sales ban in Massachusetts in the subarticle.[3]. This article is the not the best place to add the sales ban in Massachusetts.[4] List of vaping bans in the United States is the best place to add the bans.

The NY 90-day flavor ban also does not belong in this article.[5] I'm sure there are more bans and the List of vaping bans in the United States subarticle can cover those. QuackGuru (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We mention that they are banned in a number of countries. Listing that they are banned in some states would also be fine in the body IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There are several bans being discussed or proposed in various states. These are only temporary bans. There is tough talk about a US on most flavors. It is still too early to add a proposed ban on flavors in the US to this article. It is too detailed to discuss different state bans here. City bans is also too detailed. The subarticles go into detail about the regulations and bans. This section is meant to be a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Pod mod discussion

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod QuackGuru (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This article seems out of date now; relying on old sources. Change to past tense or revise

This article has content presented as present circumstances, but supported by old sources. It requires serious re-writing now. A first step would be to change the present tense claims to past tense. When the only source to support a "present condition," is from 2014, the statement at least should be changed to past tense. For example, if the article says,

"There is no strong evidence of harm from vaping" supported by a 2014 source, that statement should be changed to "As of 2014, it was claimed that there was no strong evidence of harm from vaping." It is also a formal fallacy to make such a statement as "there is no evidence," since no source could know that, as no writer ever searched everybody's basement or visited all the nations of the world.

After temporarily changing all the present tense claims to dated past tense claims ("as of 2015 there was"), then the entire article requires revision based on 2019-2020 sources. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

This article should not contradict itself.

A 2019 source supports this statement: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[38]" The material which precedes that statement seems to contradict that statement. And note that this statement in past tenses supported by 2019 source, is preceded by contrary claims presented using the present tense, though their source may be 2014 or 2015. Many articles on Wikipedia seem to err by using a present tense where the content will soon become obsolete since the situation in at a given time may change in the future, making the present tense claim false. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

US cancer death rate sees largest-ever single-year drop

I am just getting things started. Others with more time will have to dig up the WP:MEDRS sources.

US cancer death rate sees largest-ever single-year drop, report says. By Audrey McNamara, Jan 8, 2020. CBS News. Article quote with emphasis and info added:

new report from the American Cancer Society. ... "This steady progress is largely due to reductions in smoking [tobacco with hundreds of additives, many proven to cause cancer] and subsequent declines in lung cancer mortality, which have accelerated in recent years," reads the report. ... The American Cancer Society has said e-cigarettes are "likely to be significantly less harmful for adults than smoking regular cigarettes,"

-- Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Request redirects for deletion

• Marketing for e-cigarettes
• Marketing of e-cigarettes
• Marketing of e-cigs
• Marketing of electronic cigarettes

These redirects are duplication or similar to other redirects. No readers is going to first type "marketing of/for" to search for an e-cig article. I don't know how to bundle the redirects and nominate them together. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Violation of consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_December_30

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak&action=history

Article was deleted against the Deletion review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC report about cause of lung illness

CDC just released this report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6902e2.htm?s_cid=mm6902e2_w

I don't have time right now, but its content should be added to the article about the lung illness. Among the main facts is that the vast majority of those with lung illness consumed THC cartridges from informal sources, 82% and 78% respectively. KristofferR (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That does not verify the change. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How so? What do you dispute? KristofferR (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a SYN violation to come to a conclusion not found in the source. See in the subarticle. "80% reported THC use, 35% reported exclusive THC use, about 54% reported using nicotine-containing products, and 13% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products.[5]" QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The disputed line doesn't contain the word THC. However, I agree that the word "black-market" could theoretically be problematic, since it is not totally synonymous with informal sources. So I removed it. I don't think there's a dispute over the line now. KristofferR (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The CDC has not stated what caused the outbreak yet. The CDC has also stated people vaping only nicotine got sick. Those were not all adulterated products. This edit also failed verification. We are going to have to wait for the investigation to be concluded. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Per "we're not talking about approved additives". There are approved additives User:KristofferR? Care to provide a source... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more precice, I meant licit. Please continue this discussion in the new section below. KristofferR (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

UNC study. More ingredients meant greater toxicity

Here is some info that might be included somehow in the Wikipedia article. Others with more time than me might check this out, and its deeper sources.

• Some e-cigarette ingredients are surprisingly more toxic than others. By University of North Carolina Health Care. March 27, 2018. From the article (emphasis added):

A new study by UNC School of Medicine ... The scientists tested a proof-of-concept sample of 148 e-liquids and also performed a standard gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis of the ingredients. They found that these ingredients varied tremendously across the e-liquid products tested, and on the whole, more ingredients meant greater toxicity. The greatest toxicity effects came from two flavor compounds, vanillin and cinnamaldehyde, which have been widely used in e-liquids.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a 2018 study. No reviews cited it yet that I could find. I added a lot of content to the subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes section heading

(unindent). I didn't see all the subarticles. I saw some of the subarticle links found at the beginning of subheadings. It is hard to see the full spread of health-related subarticles unless one remembers the navbox at the bottom of the main page. It is in the external links section. I think it should be in its own section: "See also".

-- Timeshifter (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes are placed in the external links sections. This is a new navbox. It was just added to the e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You will need to propose a new section called "See also. Navigation box" than...

Traditionally these have just gone at the bottom. I do not think they need a seperate section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. And I am not sure the WP:MOS is ironclad for all its style rules. -- Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS says there are exceptions. -- Timeshifter (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You will need to get consensus somewhere. I do not support this being adding across the board to Wikipedia articles and I do not support it being added here. I do not see a reason for an exception. Additionally for medical articles we try not to add "see also" sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I gave you a reason, and you did not address it before your revert war. And this is an exception. You are allowed to think independently according to WP:MOS: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

And on the other hand this is a perfect example of why in this case you should follow the WP:MOS and allow a see also section. Rules should not override common sense. -- Timeshifter (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a test edit to an unrelated article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope it stays. :) -- Timeshifter (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For a new related article I created a 'Navigation box' section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"Navigation box" or "Navigation boxes" (as in your previous example) is clearer than no section heading at all. "External links" section heading is for external links, not the navigation boxes that follow the external links. Since navigation boxes consist of internal links. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

For another new article I added a 'Navigation box' section QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Great! -- Timeshifter (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Navbox at top. Would act as a 2nd table of contents for e-cigarettes

{{Electronic cigarettes}}. I think it would serve a much more useful purpose if it were added to the top of the article rather than to the bottom.

I am not saying this idea of putting navboxes at the top of an article is always a good idea. Some navboxes only cover sideways-related articles, not directly related articles.

For example; {{Cigarettes}} should not go to the top of this article. It should go on the bottom of the article, if it goes on this article at all. -- Timeshifter (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote: "More pages on the same topic ("Further information ...")"

-- Timeshifter (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A hatnote and a navbox both take up one line. I prefer a horizontal navbox to a sidebar navbox. Because sidebars can mess up the page formatting, floating, and alignment, especially on mobile phones. Mobile view is so narrow. Whereas a standard horizontal navbox just pushes everything down when it is open.

The e-cigarette topic has basically become a book with many chapters. A book table of contents goes at the beginning, not at the end. -- Timeshifter (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar navbox would work too

Wikipedia:Navigation template: "The two main types of navigation template are navboxes and sidebars."

See also: Wikipedia:Article series. -- Timeshifter (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I added an example of a sidebar navigation template: Template:Operation Condor. The pages it is transcluded on can be found here. -- Timeshifter (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Do you have an opinion about this? Also, I suggest you redirect your user page to your talk page rather than leave your user page as a red link. (Later note: See User talk:QuackGuru‎). -- Timeshifter (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The color could be changed to be more noticeable like the flow chart. QuackGuru (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Color? I don't know what you are referring to. Are you talking about the sidebar navbox idea? -- Timeshifter (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The current color looks similar to periwinkle[6]. If the color was changed it would be much more noticeable. QuackGuru (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: OK, that's true. But what about the idea of using a sidebar navbox instead of the bottom-of-the-page navbox? -- Timeshifter (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two images in the lede. It would clutter the lede to add a sidebar. QuackGuru (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The top image is historical and could be moved to the history section, and/or to an appropriate sub-article. That would leave room for a sidebar navbox above or below the other image. The sidebar navbox is far more important at the top than the historical image. -- Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would not move the images. I would change the color of the current navbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of your work is going to waste. Many people are not seeing the subarticles. Navboxes at the bottom of pages are usually links to related topics, not subtopics. Most people, even longtime editors such as myself, will not think otherwise. Even if there is a different color navbox.

Look at the Operation Condor navbox to the right. Those are subtopics in subarticles. It is, in effect, an extended table of contents. By convention those go near the top of web pages.

That navbox is in the first section right after the table of contents. So we could do the same here. -- Timeshifter (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of work is being blocked or is being undone. I am gearing up for AN/I or arbcom for next week. I prefer a color change rather than the current mundane color. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I, or somebody else, could create a sidebar navbox with a different background color. But first we need some agreement on it, and its placement. There is room in the section right after the table of contents. There is no essential image in the way. There is a small image that can be put after the navbox. See image to the right. -- Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Template history You could ask the editor who created the original e-cg template if they can create a sidebar. I would first need to see the sidebar before deciding if it would work. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(unindent). I left a note on their talk page: User talk:Ambrosiawater. -- Timeshifter (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{style}} is the sidebar navbox at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. -- Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the Michael Bloomberg page sidebar navbox. {{Michael Bloomberg series}} The header box at the top with the small image makes it clear what it is. See navbox to the right. The Bernie Sanders sidebar navbox also has an image header box. See: {{Bernie Sanders series}} -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC for nicotine pouch article

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Proposal QuackGuru (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

New sources

New sources were recently added to the article.[7] User:Sunline09, can you put all the new source here on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I noticed Electronic cigarette#Frequency did not follow WP:SYNC. Since all the previous versions did not follow SYNC I copied the content from the lede of the subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m unfamiliar with this violation, can you better explain what this means? Sunline09 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

See other sections such as Electronic cigarette#Construction. It is a copy of the lede of the subarticle.

See WP:SYNC: "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section."

I did update the subsarticle and I made a change to the Frequency section per SYNC. Before content is added to the lede of the subarticle it is usually added to the body first. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Reintroduction of deleted line

Request reintroduction of this line, deleted by QuackGuru. Genetics4good (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

By my reading, QuackGuru's edit summary reason ("not a summary of the body") was incorrect. I restored this to the intro, but modified it to fit in better and have more context. This might be a detail that needs to be pushed into the body to keep the lede length down, but I haven't read enough of the article to opine on that. -- Beland (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not in the body this article. You wrote "this variation is in fact mentioned in the body in the Construction section" [8] This article is not the Construction article. This change is also not a summary of this article and it is unsourced. A similar change to Safety fails verification and it is not a summary of content in Safety. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Other names

For medications we often have 100s or 1,000 of brand names. For drugs we often have 100s of lay terms.

We often have sections under "Society and culture" were we cover this. Putting them in a hatnote here is not the best formatting as it makes things harder to edit and somewhat hides them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The edit introduced new content to the first sentence. "An electronic cigarette, also known as e-cigarette among other names," failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to include the name that the FDA and other U.S. entities have adopted- Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in an effort to assist readers and researchers, but it has been repeatedly reverted. I do not consider it a 'lay term'. I have also (for 8 years) restrained myself from being an editor on these pages because I am an e-cigarette user and Harm Reduction advocate. Over these 8 years I have also read and collected over 1900 papers, articles on all aspects of the subject mainly for my own health decisions. I chose to trust in the WikiPedia community's purported and theoretical pillar of Neutrality, but this page, it's constant editing (some justified as vandalism, others clearly to set a tone to the subject), and my recent experience leaves me with no confidence in WikiPedia, and have turned from an advocate of it as trustworthy, to just another web info source that requires close and time consuming scrutiny. This, after criticizing others on the web for bashing it rather than helping to correct it by properly and in good faith contributing. It's likely that this statement is a "violation" of some sort of WikiPedia rule, and it will get deleted but I needed to make it clear that this page was the final straw for me with WikiPedia.Jd4x4 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to say

that the medical community in different countries takes a different view of e-cigarettes. Here in the UK the strategy is to get people off tobacco by any route possible. Quitting with conventional NRT is preferred, but for those who can't or won't, converting to e-cigs is viewed as preferable to continuing with tobacco. But I think that in other countries, the medics tend to take a more skeptical view. Is that an accurate and fair thing to put in the article?—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Only if you can find sources saying so. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• [9], but it doesn't say so explicitly; the point is, imo, implicit in the first few paragraphs.—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There have been articles published that do state that exact point, I will try to find them and check that they are "approved" sources for citingJd4x4 (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

While this mainly addresses the differences between UK and US policies, perhaps something from here S Marshall? (https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/rcp-advice-vaping-following-reported-cases-deaths-and-lung-disease-us)

• Thanks. I think that the point is implicit rather than explicit in that source too. I can't find one sentence that says it unambiguously. There's also this which gives us in the UK, e-cigarettes are widely supported as a reduced risk nicotine alternative for smokers, and has [sic] received support from a number of agencies (page 2, column 1, paragraph 2) but doesn't explicitly contrast that with the rest of the world, and this which gives us Recently, authoritative UK groups, including Public Health England (PHE), the Royal College of Physicians, the Smoking in Pregnancy Challenge Group, and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT) who provide training for all SSS staff, have stated that they believe benefits from e-cigarettes are likely to be far greater than harms, including in pregnancy and then, after several intervening pages, gives us In the U.S., surveys of health professionals caring for pregnant women have indicated that many appear to have concerns about the use of e-cigarettes; obstetricians and gynecologists were uncertain about how to advise on e-cigarettes due to lack of guidance, and of US family physicians who provided obstetric care, most respondents thought that e-cigarettes are unsafe to use during pregnancy but again that's comparing UK vs US and I'm sticking together sentences from different parts of the document to get there.—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Overly Verbose

I think this is the most verbose and hard-to-read article I've ever read on Wikipedia. This doesn't look at all like some definitive article, rather a case where every damn person who wanted to was able to add something. Sanpitch (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The tag is bogus. It is a summary of a complex topic. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The cigarette page is 485 kB, with 9 kB references, while the electronic cigarette page is 1090 kB with 42 kB of references; the article size seems unreasonable. I think that the article should be broken up or otherwise condensed, including shortening the lede and condensing the references. Even so, I've removed the tag from the article, which I guess was an overreaction on my part.Sanpitch (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sanpitch: I agree with your assessment, and put up the {{too long}}, specifically for its recommendation to condense. The problem is not that the topic is very complicated and takes a long time to explain, it's that the writing is choppy and overly verbose. There are too many details presented in the lede, making it more of a mini-article than a quick summary. The body has some sentences that aren't really needed, like "The scientific community in US and Europe are primarily concerned with their possible effect on public health", and lots of sentences that repeat what other sentences have already said. I think this is probably due to some overly slavish referencing, where every source gets its own sentence rather than overlapping sentiments from multiple sources being combined into a single more general sentence. (This issue affect several articles and has been raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru.) There's not much to be done but plow through the article and fix these problems one by one. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've made an attempt at reorganizing this article at User:Jd4x4/Jd4x4 Electronic Cigarette Reorganization Proposal and it still has a horribly long way to go i.m.o., but I think it will allow for easier editing of the contentious parts. What should be my next step before replacing the current version here? rfc, submit it from my sandbox, or just replace it by cut & paste?Jd4x4 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC "are confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak". Somehow it is controversial to quote CDC verbatim

CDC has multiple times stated very clearly that Vitamin E acetate adulteration has been linked to the EVALI outbreak.

"Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states. Vitamin E acetate has not been found in the lung fluid of people that do not have EVALI." https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html

"Thanks for joining the call today. As the year draws to a close based on extensive investigations by state and local public health authorities, CDC scientists, our partners at FDA, and expert clinicians, we are able to make more definitive conclusions about the outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury or EVALI. Some of the support for these conclusions comes from CDC-authored articles being released today in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as two articles in today’s early release of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. As of December 17, 2019, a total of 2,506 patients have been hospitalized for EVALI including reports from all 50 states. Sadly, there have been 54 deaths from 27 states. But based on the data being released today, we can make more definitive statements about the trajectory of the epidemic.

[...]

Second, we are confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. In a second report in the New England Journal of Medicine, CDC scientists found Vitamin E acetate in lung fluid washings, what we call bronchioloalveolar lavage samples in 48 of 51 samples of patients with EVALI but not in a variety of comparison patient groups. The patients with EVALI came from 16 different states, suggesting this was not a single local supplier of tainted products. These expanded patient clinical specimen results are consistent with previous work including identification by FDA and others of Vitamin E acetate in THC-containing products collected from patients with EVALI, as well as Minnesota’s recent report that Vitamin E acetate was in seized THC products from 2019 but not in any samples from 2018.

Given all of these findings, including today’s study, we can conclude that what I call the explosive outbreak of cases of EVALI can be attributed to exposure to THC-containing vaping products that also contained Vitamin E acetate." https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/t1220_telebriefing_update_lung_injury.html

Some here also disagree that Vitamin E acetate is an adulterant, but not the CDC: "It’s pretty clear when you look at Vitamin E acetate, it’s a goopy, viscous liquid that’s pretty similar in the liquid viscousness to THC oil. So if you were kind of trying to extend your THC oil, it would be a pretty good way to do it. So how word of mouth or social media helped — contributed to this phenomenon, I don’t think right now anyone believes it was a single dealer or single producer that added Vitamin E acetate to THC oil. I think there is a sense that this was a distributed adulterated supply."

--- Are any of you still disputing that the CDC has been quoted correctly above? KristofferR (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html This is the latest source from the CDC. The CDC has not come to a conclusion yet. It usually takes a year or longer to come to a conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That's inaccurate, please read the text above. "Some of the support for these conclusions[...]"

Anyway, it's irrelevant. The terminology is "linked", not "concluded", the two words mean totally different things. As quoted above, CDC "are confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak".KristofferR (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is too much detail for this article for now. After CDC has come to a conclusion then this can be revisited. QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the CDC are "are [already] confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak" and it is vital context. I removed a completely outdated statistic to shorten the lede.KristofferR (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not outdated until a newer source is found. When the CDC has concluded their investigation or has provided new information then we can resist this. This edit can be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop talking about "conclusion", it is a completely irrelevant term. "Linked" is the term in question, and CDC has confirmed the linkage. The edit can not be reverted. KristofferR (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the CDC has not come to a conclusion then we should not try to come to a conclusion. This edit can be reverted by anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what "link" means? It means a connection between two things. Link does not mean exclusive conclusive causation, despite you saying it.KristofferR (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there plenty of evidence that tocopherol acetate is harmless to vape? E.g., [10]. Isn't there evidence here that the vitamin E oil is being used to dilute as-yet unidentified substances and sold as cannabis extract? It seems like a pretty bad idea to even use the word "linked" for this situation without further context for a substance that is known to be harmless for aerosol administration when there is no question that it's being used for its color and consistency with some other unknown psychoactive compounds likely to blame. The CDC has never actually said vitamin E is harmful if inhaled, have they? EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources

This is based on a primary suorce "In a study comparing the birth weight of babies born to mothers who smoked, vaped, or did neither it was found that the birthweight of infants born to EC (e-cigarette) users is similar to that of non‐smokers, and significantly greater than cigarette smokers.."

We should be using secondary sources per MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree in principle, but what I have noticed happening here over the years is that those who remove primary sources only add the MEDRS sources that agree with their POV. For example, people reading page 16 of this MEDRS source will be left with vastly different impressions than those reading this article, which is heavily weighted in favor of older, smaller, inconclusive studies which are zealously guarded along with inconclusive language. How long is this going to go on? EllenCT (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes the FDA and UK government have taken different positions. Both are suitable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I won't take this up on the live page or here until some form of sanity prevails with this article, but I suggest using the addition I made under the Pregnancy section at User:Jd4x4/Jd4x4/sandbox:ECigReorg#Pregnancy. This sites a review article that I would hope meets MEDRS criteria! (pasted below):

As of 2018, the health effects of Electronic Cigarette Use in Pregnancy for mother or fetus remain unknown. In it's summary review<ref>{{Cite book| isbn = 978-0-309-46834-3| last = NASEM - IOM| title = Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes| accessdate = 2018-03-06| date = 2018-01-23| url = https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes}}</ref> the U.S. National Institute of Medicine concluded that "Although the extensive research on tobacco and limited evidence on nicotine in isolation gives some focus to the questions regarding the potential effects of e-cigarettes, the need for direct evaluation is clear.", (''Conclusion 13-1'') "There is no available evidence whether or not e-cigarettes affect pregnancy outcomes.", and (''Conclusion 13-2'') "There is insufficient evidence whether or not maternal e-cigarette use affects fetal development."<ref>https://www.nap.edu/read/24952/chapter/18#468</ref>Jd4x4 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've subsequently used the above in my organization/readability change edits. fwiw. Jd4x4 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Needs Major Organizational Rework, IMO

This article could sorely benefit from major existing section reorganization, beginning with putting the TOC immediately after paragraph 1, and moving what are currently paras 2, 3 and 4 into the relevant current TOC sections, adding sections as appropriate. I would certainly volunteer to do that, but I don't have much experience with Wiki Markup. Is the visual editor an option for this page?Jd4x4 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• This article is horribly written. It's made of snippets from reliable sources cut out of context, then roughly grouped by topic. It desperately lacks structure and totally fails to proceed from premise to thesis to conclusion. The prose is narcoleptically boring and our target reader, an uninformed but curious person, is very unlikely to get past the first few turgid paragraphs. Fixing it is going to be laborious. But we do need the lead (i.e. the section above the TOC) to contain a summary of the medical literature about the health effects, as this is a likely reason why a reader might come here. So I don't agree that we can reduce the lead to what's currently paragraph 1. I do agree that the lead is much too long at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that the health effects necessarily need to be in the intro/overview/desc para (1st, imo) rather than putting it as the 1st heading topic, and using the TOC? It would go a long way to cleaning up the look and highlight the health effects, I think.Jd4x4 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, maybe leave the construction bits as 2nd (+ whatever) paras, then start Health as 1st section?Jd4x4 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Predictably, Wikipedia has a guideline about this. It's in the Manual of Style, at MOS:INTRO. Personally, I've often been infuriated by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, because of the number of times I've clashed with editors who've reached a "consensus" of half a dozen American teenagers on an obscure MOS subpage that I don't have watchlisted, and now feel entitled to screw up every article in the encyclopaedia because of it. But I think the rule about beginning articles with four paragraphs that summarize every major theme in the article is well-thought-out, and it's based on this decent, widely-advertised discussion that led to a proper consensus after reasoned debate.

How to clean up this article is a substantial challenge. The best strategy I've got is to go through it sentence by sentence, removing the redundant, simplifying the convoluted and clarifying the incoherent or unintelligible. When I've done that I'm hoping that I'll be able to make out what the article actually says on each of its various themes. Then hopefully I can unify it into one consistent referencing format and evaluate how heavily it leans on each of its sources. (I have the vague impression that it's overly reliant on a small number of increasingly outdated sources such as Grana 2014 but I can't quantify that at the moment). Suggestions for better strategies would be very welcome.—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm currently doing a major(!) re-organization of this page in my sandbox. It is a work in progress:User:Jd4x4/Jd4x4 Electronic Cigarette Reorganization Proposal. Because of the lack of proper structure/categorization there are numerous repeated & conflicting sentences, citations, and paragraphs. I am trying to keep all contributions so far, but will clearly have to exchange some things, with a preference towards removing outdated info. Any constructive feedback is appreciated!Jd4x4 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at your rearranging and I am not seeing an improvement in the lead. An overview is missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why the paragraphs before the TOC box are not a concise overview of of the subject, and then expanded upon in detail in the following sections. Explain what you think needs adding?Jd4x4 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The rearranging broke a bunch of references and duplicated a bunch of content. Restoring to the prior stable version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

By doing so, you've just added back all the duplication that I painstakingly removed.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with restoring the "stable" version is that the stable version is almost universally agreed by uninvolved editors and administrators to be crap. I wish you hadn't deleted the bit where we discourage non-smokers from vaping. I also think it's a great pity that you've almost entirely restored QuackGuru's convoluted, repetitive and tortuous phrasing. Why would you do that?—S Marshall T/C 01:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Reorganization, structure- I just "did it"

• I followed the advice to Be Bold. Edit wars and controversy were not being helped by the redundancy and confusion in much of this article. There is still redundancy, and everyone may not like my "sections", but that can be changed easy enough with edits, and I think organization of some sort makes this article better going forward. Jd4x4 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• The lead does need to discuss risks and health effects, no question about that. We're writing for a general audience and a likely reader is a young person who's considering taking a puff. However, I do strongly endorse the removal of the previous section in the lead on the grounds that it was unreadable. We should write a new paragraph on the health effects, starting from scratch. I will do this shortly if nobody else does.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Over to you, lol. If I were going to tackle it, I'd also key in on the youth-brain development (in nicotine-containing products) that I think exists already in the article, and the NASEM bits on exacerbation of asthma (which they concluded may be the opposite with adults, where improvement possible). Also that it's illegal in the U.S. and U.K. Under 21 now in the U.S., not sure about U.K. We should also bear in mind that our readers may also be combusted tobacco users that are weighing the benefits of using them to quit.Jd4x4 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a nice web readable version of the NASEM which has a great TOC and a section on Youth. I wish the UK NHS & RCP had that, but I haven't found it if they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd4x4 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've roughed in a draft. Please do edit ruthlessly, but I'm keen to keep the sequence of ideas there: (1) If you're a non-smoker, don't try vaping; (2) If you're a smoker, try to quit using proper, regulated smoking cessation products; and (3) If you're a smoker who can't or won't quit that way, then e-cigs might be for you. The fact that the previous version of the article didn't articulate these things was one of my biggest criticisms of it.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll have a look (I haven't yet) but I'm inclined to add to point (2) that having failed cessation with all of the methods you listed, vaping is unarguably safer than combusted tobacco. (as per PHE, RCP, and even ACS (https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21455) until the EVALI outbreak.) Jd4x4 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• In my view, vaping's very likely to be safer than smoking tobacco, but the matter is hardly unarguable. The long term health effects of vaping are simply unknown (and won't be known for quite a while), because so many vapers have a history of smoking tobacco that it'll be hard to disentangle the effects of vaping from the effects of smoking. I say that vaping's probably safer because (a) I'm British and therefore all the doctors I know are willing to advocate vaping as a quitting aid; and (b) because I think smoking tobacco is so harmful to so many aspects of health that almost any alternative is likely to be preferable.

  Personally I'm an ex-nicotine addict; I smoked tobacco for thirty years and then quit using conventional NRT. This was before I'd ever heard of vaping. If I'd known about e-cigs at that time, I might very well never have quit.

  I understand why so many nicotine addicts are evangelical about vaping. I think it's important that this article reflects the medical sources' caution about how safe vaping is or isn't.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, as well as your viewpoint. And, agree about being cautious to maintain the medical facts, but we shouldn't always equate nicotine with vaping, imo. I considered how & where I might find a citation for the part I removed- "Nicotine is (extremely?) dangerous", but thought that dangerous was to vague and best removed. It also made no distinction about nicotine vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes. So I focused on the youth uptake bits, and nic vs. no-nic probably best left "short & sweet" in the part about never starting.

If we just limit the topic to those two sub-topics (nicotine use (by aerosol ingestion i.e. vaping) and vaping without nicotine) for a moment, we can then see that they are unique and multi-faceted (and controversial as well) among themselves. To fully understand the implications they have when finally combined without discussing each first just causes more confusion and debate. In short, muddies the waters, imo. Also the actual percentage of nicotine vapers vs. non-nicotine vapers is not documented well at all, with the most research being with youth, and that by itself is contentious. Lastly as NASEM notes, current understanding of many aspects of nicotine itself is only best understood from it's historical administration methods and not as well when we are talking about extracted nicotine (or salt versions) without the other alkaloids normally present, and certainly not well when it comes to ingestion by aerosol "vapor devices".

By the way, I'm an ex-smoker (47 year) who tried to quit & failed for about 20 of those years, was able to quit within 1/2 hour of my 1st e-cig 8 years ago (consider that cessation speed- this is why "we" appear "evangelical", imo), and am a current "addict" who at this point still uses nicotine. My viewpoint is that I'm a strong advocate of current combusted tobacco cessation first, then everything after is, well, better imo. :-)

I think this article desperately needs both of our viewpoints in addition to youth & medical contributors! Jd4x4 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I forgot the "unarguable" part- Can a MEDRS secondary source be cited for Lung Cancer from vaping as it can for Smoking? I'm not sure a MEDRS can yet be found for vaping and heart disease. So for me I consider not carcinogenic unarguable, at least today and conversationally. If PHE and the NHS are MEDRS citable, then they (and PHS Scotland) are "on the record" as "safer". Jd4x4 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The revised lead was better

The introduction in this recent revision is so much better and easy to read than the current and previous very difficult to read version, I want to know what precisely it's detractors feel is inferior about it? EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it would be very helpful if Doc James would kindly answer this question.

  I do think that revert was problematic. Looking at Doc James' logged edits for that evening, we can see how many articles this user maintains, how fast he edits, and how little time he spent looking at the article before deciding to revert. He took a little less than eight minutes over it, during which time he was actively editing the article. Now, I'm willing to stipulate that Dr Heilman is an extremely fluent reader, but I do not think it's plausible that in that tiny amount of time, he was able to thoughtfully and critically evaluate each of the 42 (forty-two) revisions he removed with that revert. In other words, I see this as good evidence that Doc James is reverting revisions he doesn't understand.

  This is a problem behaviour that's been ongoing for at least five years and has gone all the way up to Arbcom. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles in 2015, I specifically discussed this issue of misdiagnosing good faith edits as advocacy, bad faith, or vandalism. I'm disappointed that we're back here again. In that case, Arbcom reminded another editor, CFCF, to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting, and I would like to ask Doc James to reflect on their advice.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that EllenCT and S Marshall for the revisions you made in the lead without causing bloat. When I reordered it I tried to retain everything in the previous versions that were not duplicated elsewhere in the entire text, and tried to categorize the rest without deleting. I too felt that it read and presented better if the lead remained concise but there were other points that were felt to be needed in the summary, one of note was the emphasis on youth cautions. Having said that, I would also like to hear Doc James comment on the need for more paragraphs rather than a synopsis of topics expanded upon later in the article. I hope that the comments I made on his talk page prior to my reorg re:undo's weren't upsetting but I didn't think the edit stats for this article looked much like consensus in action. Jd4x4 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at this text[11] you will quickly notice a bunch of misformatted text in the "popularity section"

Next you will notice a bunch of text that occurs twice such as "The prevalence of vaping among adolescents is increasing worldwide" "There appears to be an increase of one-time e-cigarette use among young people worldwide" "Most e-cigarette users among youth have never smoked" "Many youth who use e-cigarettes also smoke traditional cigarettes" "Vaping seems to be a gateway to using traditional cigarettes in adolescents.[50] Youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to go on to use traditional cigarettes" "The evidence suggests that young people who vape are also at greater risk for subsequent long-term tobacco use" "E-cigarettes are expanding the nicotine market by attracting low-risk youth who would be unlikely to initiate nicotine use with traditional cigarettes" "Adolescents were more likely to initiate vaping through flavored e-cigarettes" "There are varied reasons for e-cigarette use" "Many users vape because they believe it is healthier than smoking for themselves or bystanders" "Usually, only a small proportion of users are concerned about the potential adverse health effects"

The references supporting the text in the lead were removed as we are left with this an unreferenced "The health effects of electronic cigarettes are unknown, but they are widely believed to be less harmful than smoking tobacco."

Yes I realize that those who promote e-cigs want to just concentrate on the risk in smokers, but their is population risks and the concerns around e-cigs potentially causes non smokers to become smokers. If e-cigs create smokers they will result in harm not benefit at the population level. This is most of the uncertainty with respect to health benefits.

Yes reflecting on what happened is required S Marshall. These edits were not an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I agree about the formatting and missing reference, but those are easy fixes. What intrigues me is the gateway to smoking hypothesis. I could only find one MEDRS source:

"While trying electronic cigarettes may causally increase smoking among some youth, the aggregate effect at the population level appears to be negligible given the reduction in smoking initiation during the period of vaping’s ascendance." Levy, David T.; Warner, Kenneth E.; Cummings, K. Michael; Hammond, David; Kuo, Charlene; Fong, Geoffrey T.; Thrasher, James F.; Goniewicz, Maciej Lukasz; Borland, Ron (1 November 2019). "Examining the relationship of vaping to smoking initiation among US youth and young adults: a reality check". Tobacco Control. 28 (6): 629–635. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054446. ISSN 0964-4563. Retrieved 23 February 2020. (Review.)

There are also a variety of non-MEDRS sources, such as, "little evidence that renormalisation of youth smoking was occurring during a period of rapid growth and limited regulation of e-cigarettes from 2011 to 2015."[12] and "Data from the NYTS do not support claims of a new epidemic of nicotine addiction stemming from use of e-cigarettes, nor concerns that declines in youth tobacco addiction stand to be reversed after years of progress. Among current e-cigarette users who had never tried tobacco products, responses consistently pointed to minimal dependence."[13]

So where do your suspicions on this come from? EllenCT (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC states they have the potential to benefit some and harm others.[14]

And "Young people who use e-cigarettes may be more likely to smoke cigarettes in the future."[15]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: the only one of the sources on the CDC web pages which supports the corresponding second statement you quoted is chapter 22 of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes book, and that second statement is exactly the assertion that the MEDRS source I cited above debunks, restating it as the first sentence of its abstract, and concluding with the quantitative description of the extent as "negligible."

The 2011-6 data from page 530 of that NAP book shows that the number of kids who smoked in the past 30 days halved over that period, and while vaping took off from 2011-5, it fell in 2016. So who cares if you can prove conclusively that some of the kids who tried vaping also tried smoking later on, if the total number of them smoking fell by half? As [16] points out, the number of kids currently smoking fell even further through 2018. And I just checked the NYTS raw files and see that the drop was even more dramatic from 2018 (5.2% on Q10, smoked in past 30 days) to 2019 (3.7%). Saying that vaping "may" increase the likelihood of subsequent smoking is meaningless when it happens much less often than not, and when the overall rate of smoking is going down while the rate of vaping is going up.

Anyway, I'd like to know if you really think we should add that second quote when we have a MEDRS source specifically debunking it and it's clear why it's deceptive. I have no objection to the first of the two statements you wrote in your previous reply above.

I'm also curious whether you agree that casting vaping in negative light here in this article represents a real harm to smokers inhaling carcinogenic smoke who might otherwise decide to try vaping. Lung cancer is an absolutely grueling death that we have a chance to help people avoid, in huge, many hundreds of thousands numbers annually by making responsible editorial choices. The prudent abundance of caution was reasonable years ago, but now it's just cruel. EllenCT (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The CDC is a high quality perfectly suitable source. The goal is to provide a neutral overview.

We clearly say "but e-cigarettes are likely safer than tobacco products". The concern is re-normalizing cigarettes and around increasing the number of future people that may smoke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Not

@Doc James: what policy or guideline suggests that a government source is okay when there is a review specifically debunking the claim you want to include from it? Even if the statement you quoted had not been debunked by a MEDRS source specifically evaluating it, why would hypothetical future increases ever take precedence over stating what the reliable sources say about the recent plummeting prevalence of smoking while vaping increased? EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That policy's WP:MEDDATE section says, "editors should try to find ... newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." In this case, a systematic review examined the single specific statement you want to include and found it technically accurate but quantitatively "negligible." EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm underwhelmed with the sentence: "Those who want to promote e-cigs". Even after QuackGuru's ban I'm still prevented from editing the article because I'm presumed to be an advocate, shill or bad actor. That's completely unacceptable, Doc James, and I invite you to retract it.

  I shall restore the contested revision, which enjoys widespread support here, and says in plain English "non-smokers should not try vaping", and I will add a little more to reflect Doc James's concerns. It's right that the article shouldn't evangelize for vaping but I insist on being allowed to make it readable.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You can try a RfC.

You are still duplicating large amounts of text in the body. Not sure how that makes it readable

Plus why write this in all caps "Legislative, Scientific, and Medical Positions"

Your revert is problematic in that it did not deal with all the issues, or even the ones I specifically raised.

I was referring to "those who promote e-cigs" not you.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources being removed

Including the US Surgeon General from 2016 [17]

"Research has found that youth who use a tobacco product, such as e-cigarettes, are more likely to go on to use other tobacco products like cigarettes"

The WHO from 2014 [18]

"Although ENDS present a range of potential benefits to smokers, there is an extensive and often heated debate about whether ENDS will prove to have a positive or negative impact on population health and particularly tobacco control. Areas of legitimate concern include avoiding nicotine initiation among non-smokers and particularly youth while maximizing potential benefits for smokers... the possibility that children (and generally non-smokers) will initiate nicotine use with ENDS at a rate greater than expected if ENDS did not exist"

In WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE says, "editors should try to find ... newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." EllenCT (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine in 2018 [19]

"For youth and young adults, there is substantial evidence that e-cigarette use increases the risk of ever using combustible tobacco cigarettes."

We should look to see what their updated positions are sure but replacing these better sources with primary ones is not an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that NASEM/IOM has an updated position. The original charge to them was by the FDA in order to help with regulatory policies going forward. I'll try to see if they were charged at that time or later to provide an update as was the charge to NHS/PHE in the UK, but I don't think so.Jd4x4 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Surgeon general still includes these concerns "Some studies show that non-smoking youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to try conventional cigarettes in the future than non-smoking youth who do not use e-cigarettes."[20] And in 2018 "Besides increasing the possibility of addiction and long-term harm to brain development and respiratory health, e-cigarette use may also lead to the use of regular cigarettes that can do even more damage to the body."[21]

Basically many very well respected organizations still have concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WHO in 2020 says "Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence in some settings that never-smoker minors who use ENDS at least double their chance of starting to smoke conventional tobacco cigarettes later in life."[22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

While we are talking about secondary sources, why the removal of Public Health Scotland in the references to characterization/quantification of harm vs. smoking in the lead?Jd4x4 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Guess. "E-cigarettes definitely less harmful than smoking". healthscotland.scot. Public Health Scotland. Retrieved 2 February 2020. EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Guess? It's called out on their site as their revised, updated policy, so it's the official PH policy of the country.. Jd4x4 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS sources added

I included these two sources and their summaries updating older sources:

Glasser, Allison M.; Collins, Lauren; Pearson, Jennifer L.; Abudayyeh, Haneen; Niaura, Raymond S.; Abrams, David B.; Villanti, Andrea C. (1 February 2017). "Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 52 (2): e33–e66. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.036. ISSN 0749-3797. Retrieved 24 February 2020.

“ Conclusions

Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping.

”

Farsalinos, Konstantinos (1 January 2018). "Electronic cigarettes: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new health hazard?". Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease. 12: 1753465817744960. doi:10.1177/1753465817744960. ISSN 1753-4666. Retrieved 24 February 2020.

“ Conclusions

E-cigarettes are one of the most controversial issues in public health today. There is little doubt that they are less harmful than smoking, but there is disagreement on the level of risk reduction. However, there is agreement that they are not absolutely harmless. Epidemiological evidence of long-term health effects is unavailable for now, and it will take years to generate final conclusions about the clinical effects of switching from tobacco to e-cigarette use. However, it is reasonable to communicate to smokers the relative risks of smoking and e-cigarette use based on current knowledge, keeping in mind that the ideal pathway is to quit without using any alternative products. While population studies suggest that smokers can successfully quit smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have failed to show substantial effects. This is, at least in part, due to both methodological problems in studies and the complexity and dynamic evolution of the e-cigarette market, as well as the time-consuming research methods. While there is clear evidence that e-cigarettes are not attracting adult never-smokers, there is considerable experimentation among adolescents, including never-smokers. Recent evidence shows a trend for reduction of experimentation among youth while regular use appears to be largely confined to smokers, and smoking prevalence is continuously declining....

”

EllenCT (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT- It would have been better (imo) to have combined the 1st cite in a sentence along with the MEDRS secondary source "95% safer" a little bit below (or moved that up) and divorced it from the benefits & risks part of the sentence. just sayin'. Also, your second cite is a primary MEDRS cite (I think) and is likely to get deleted. WP:USINGPRIMARY just sayin' again. Jd4x4 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit it to make it the way you think is best. Pubmed says they are both secondary reviews: PMID 27914771 and PMID 29214890. EllenCT (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that the Farsalinos paper was listed as a review. Thanks., and never mind :-) Jd4x4 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary source / Original research

West, Robert; Brown, Jamie; Jarvis, Martin (7 October 2019). "Epidemic of youth nicotine addiction? What does the National Youth Tobacco Survey reveal about high school e-cigarette use in the USA? (Preprint)". Qeios. doi:10.32388/745076.3. ISSN 2632-3834. Retrieved 24 February 2020.

This source is not pubmed indexed. Is a preprint. And is a primary source.

Hallingberg, Britt; Maynard, Olivia M.; Bauld, Linda; Brown, Rachel; Gray, Linsay; Lowthian, Emily; MacKintosh, Anne-Marie; Moore, Laurence; Munafo, Marcus R.; Moore, Graham (1 March 2020). "Have e-cigarettes renormalised or displaced youth smoking? Results of a segmented regression analysis of repeated cross sectional survey data in England, Scotland and Wales". Tobacco Control. 29 (2): 207–216. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054584. ISSN 0964-4563. Retrieved 24 February 2020.

Another primary source. It is pubmed indexed and published in a good journal. We should really be going with reviews though.

"Historical NYTS Data and Documentation | CDC". www.cdc.gov. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 December 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2020.

Appears the person who added this is doing their own original research after looking at US data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The simplicity of looking at the percentages for the answers to Q10 comprising smoking more or fewer than 30 days ago is within WP:CK. EllenCT (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"CDC Fast Facts". www.cdc.gov. - is primary or secondary? Their data but compiled, checked, and verified by (them? specialist authors?).Jd4x4 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaping associated lung disease

Not sure why this was removed "In 2019 an outbreak of severe vaping lung illness in the US was linked to e-liquid containing vitamin E acetate."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: because it was localized geographically and chronologically, and is no longer occuring. The idea that tocopherol acetate could be dangerous when the police intercepting the products stated outright that it was being used to cut unknown adulterants to pass off as THC vape oil was absurd enough to begin with, but the fact that the literature is replete with studies of its therapeutic uses e.g. [23][24][25] just makes the idea that vitamin E was to blame stupid. But look at the history of this talk page, how many times did you defend QuackGuru's wording that it was "strongly linked" when the CDC didn't even go that far? EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah User:EllenCT the CDC states "Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak."[26]

Of course agree that this outbreak has almost ended. But does exemplifies the concerns around additives to e liquids. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed that source of the word "strongly." I am still looking for the CDC's source that, "previous research suggests when vitamin E acetate is inhaled, it may interfere with normal lung functioning," and have been for months. Any idea where that comes from? EllenCT (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the text "previous research suggests when vitamin E acetate is inhaled..." is needed. Were do you see me supporting it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone wants it in the article, I was just asking if you've ever seen a source supporting it. EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"However, previous research suggests that when vitamin E acetate is inhaled, it may interfere with normal lung functioning."[27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, do you know which previous research the CDC is referring to? This NEJM article from three days ago just speculates about phosphatidylcholines in liquid crystal phase and decomposition to ketene, but doesn't cite any such previous research. But it does state, "Cutting THC oil with vitamin E acetate has been reported to be common in the illicit market. The FDA reports that most case-associated THC product fluids contain vitamin E acetate, at an average concentration of 50% by weight, ranging from 23 to 88%. By contrast, the FDA detected no vitamin E acetate in 197 case-associated nicotine products analyzed to date." If it's not even in 197 of the associated products, that doesn't seem very strong of a link to me. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seems clear that there are at least 2 differing opinions on including EVALI in the lead. I think it's difficult to support not including it when there have been 2,800 cases and 68 deaths, regardless of it being confined to the US or if the numbers do not increase. I'm inclined to restore the single, short sentence that User:EllenCT removed in the latest edit and add "In the US" and a simple citation for the continually updated status on the topic at: "Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with the Use of E-Cigarette, or Vaping, Products". CDC.gov. Retrieved 27 February 2020.. Jd4x4 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jd4x4: why the introduction, though? It affected less than 0.01% of e-cig users, and is no longer an ongoing issue. Our Chipotle Mexican Grill article includes a dozen food poisoning incidents, none of which are deemed important enough for the introduction. How long do you think it should stay in there? EllenCT (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, because as localized as it was and a relatively small overall number of users, it had (has still?) a worldwide effect on perception of e-cig safety. As witnessed by PHE feeling the need to put a public statement about it on their web site. Jd4x4 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Safety

Apparantly, safety risks can be improved by use of newer e-cigarettes which allow to control the temperature of the glow wire. The hotter the glow wire, the more aldehydes are formed (so keeping it only just hot enough to allow vaporising the liquid is best). Also, avoiding (certain) flavorings would also reduce health risks.

References

The safety section does not mention any of this. Genetics4good (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah not unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Youth "concerns" in lead

So now the intro has a new paragraph about kids:

There are strong concerns about youth use of E-cigarettes due to the potential lack of awareness of nicotine's addictiveness, the physiological differences between youth and adults, and the ease of adulteration of e-liquids with other substances. see: #Youth, #Addiction and dependence, and #Gateway theory

That's not compliant with the manual of style, violates WP:CRYSTAL, and has no sources whatsoever. This is just the same kind of ridiculous alarmism which has always plagued messaging about youth substance use and abuse. The fact is that kids are smoking a quarter as much as they were before vapes were easily available. The only evidence about the "potential" harm speculations are the fact that most kids who take nicotine are now doing it in a way that harms them 0.5% as much. We need to stop reaching for euphemism and alarmism. EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So I'm not sure where you live, or if you are aware of the massive amounts of State and federal legislation proposed and being passed in the U.S. on not only flavor "attractiveness to youth" but also around the "alarmism" over youth vaping, but I can assure you that you don't need a "crystal ball" to be aware of it. The proposed wording was meant to take the (otherwise obvious) statement about concern for youth use and hopefully direct it to more appropriate sections rather than fill the lead space with long winded and citation filled with proofs of what I thought were socially obvious & citable from many sources. If we want to classify the entire article as medical and only stating medical facts then there's just no hope for Wikipedia as a NPOV reference, imo. I had put (and solicited for) comments here under the RfC for readability above in the hope that the talk page wouldn't get quite as schizophrenic as the main article, but...Jd4x4 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I added cites for the statement of concern, can we cover the 3 concerns mentioned in the topic areas or would you rather we cite each one in the lead? Jd4x4 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that everyone is panicking when the actual rate of teen smoking has been plummeting is the reason we should be more responsible. There aren't any sources saying how much more likely people are to smoke after they try vaping, because it's entirely speculative. Yes people are panicking, but that's not a suitable fact to summarize in the intro. If there was a MEDRS source which quantified the issue, that would be fine, but there can't be, because it's (1) entirely speculative, and (2) contrary to the plain WP:CK evidence from the prevalence rates. EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. In the US there is also hysteria that we are damaging young brains at an alarming rate, and the youth topic has been characterized as "epidemic" by our Surgeon General. For that reason I thought something about youth in the lead was desired by other editors. My sole intent has always been to keep the lead a short summary and the rest confined to sections.Jd4x4 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition of "epidemic" is a widespread occurrence of disease. Vaping is the widespread occurrence of what the MEDRS sources call an effective nicotine replacement therapy with 0.5% the harm. EllenCT (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You may not realize it but you are "preaching to the choir" here. Do you want to delete it or should I? And check what I wrote here just now under the RfC Readability heading.Jd4x4 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As a statement about opinion/controversy, references to strong concerns about youth use should be qualified by restricting to US (or N America?) where this is indeed, rightly or wrongly, a big issue, and was even before Juul. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. In the current version (on hold until resolution of RfC above) I had attempted to mitigate the concern by removing the bold, and offering the the 3 broad areas that I think there is global concern for with respect to youth. Even if they are not being actively debated, or other jurisdictions do not see it as an "issue", I think it's reasonable that there would be thought given to them. Much of what is now or has been in the lead section is very wordy and long imo, and I think is best described/discussed either in existing sections or in other articles. Jd4x4 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerns are also from the WHO. Reasonable as just "concerns" do not think strong is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Article readability

There is a clear consensus for position statements #1, #2, and #4. No editors have supported position statement #3.

Editors agree that article version #1 should be restored. Based on the discussion in the RfC (including in the collapsed tangent), editors believe there are still more improvements that should be made to the lead and article. More discussions and RfCs are encouraged if there are disagreements about any changes.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (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.

---

Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.

Position statement #1: This article's readability is poor.
Position statement #2: The lead requires improvement to comply with Wikipedia:Summary style.
Position statement #3: Article version #1 is unacceptably pro-electronic cigarette, advocates that readers should take up electronic cigarettes, or evangelises for e-cigarettes in any way.
Position statement #4: Article version #1 is preferable to article version #2.

Thanks for participating!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Participants' views

• Support positions 1, 2 and 4. Oppose position 3.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• As for positions 1 and 2, my issues are almost entirely with the third paragraph of the introduction, which needs to be completely rewritten to be consistent with the preponderance of recent MEDRS sources and drop the outdated uncertainty and now-concluded fake THC adulteration scare; and the fourth paragraph which needs to explain that youth smoking has plummeted and continues to plummet with the rise of vaping. I could care less whether position 3 is true or not as long as we give smokers responsible information about the fact that vaping has been enormously successful for reducing smoke inhalation, harm reduction, and smoking cessation. I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4. EllenCT (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• The article has become more of a mess in the last few days. Large sections of it contains the EXACT same text multiple time. And this duplication has been edit warred back into place. Why I am still not sure. It is unclear what version #1 and version #2 are in this RfC as the diffs link to a single edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Duplication specifics? Or, "edit warred" by whom? As I mention below there were/are still many duplicates. Jd4x4 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to make sense of this objection because on my screen, the diff for "article version 1" is not the same as the diff for "article version 2". They are separate edits by separate editors made at separate time stamps. Doc James's confusion here probably arises from the fact that position statement 3 and position statement 4 both mention "article version 1" using the same diff. I would ask Doc James please kindly to slow down and read attentively. If your entire objection to the contested edit is duplication further down, then it would make sense to cancel the RFC, make the contested edit, and then fix the duplication. If you do have other objections, please list them now.—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on what section(s) are thought to be unacceptably pro-e-cigarette. Can you specify? The Lead or other sections? The article was at the height of non-readability and replete with duplicated as well as conflicting statements prior to my "massive" reorg on 21 Feb. At that time I mentioned here that while I removed some of the duplicated bits, many still remained as well as some conflicting sentences scattered throughout the article. That revision was intended to shorten the Lead to a key item summary and to focus and contain edits on the multiple areas (as subheadings) of discussion and controversy, which also seemed to have the most duplication. I changed very little of the previous text/sentences otherwise. Jd4x4 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

More to your question (prior to clarification), I prefer a shorter, more concise lead with possibly a link to other sections if there are more important subjects that are felt to need being in the lead, but need a lot of explanation.Jd4x4 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is.

@Doc James:- ref your recent re-order of the lead paras, as a technical person my thinking was that a description of the vapor production (and it's own cautions) was a logical follow to the general item description, followed then by motivation to use, risk-benefits, youth concerns, and finally brief history & popularity. I find it interesting that you think risks-benefits and then vapor is more logical even though most of the risk-benefits are in fact due to the vapor. ? Comment if you like. Jd4x4 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Tangent, not related to this RfC

I have made a change in the Lead that may be a solution to keep the lead short while ensuring important topics are called out there. Would like to hear other's comments. Perhaps there is a better way to tag a section link in the lead that would make it more noticeable? Jd4x4 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Since the above edit, I also think it would help to put a similar short link to a new section under Health named Benefits and Risks, where they can be edited better but still maintain the lead's conciseness. Comments? Jd4x4 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) At this point in time, we have 4 different versions of the lead. Version 1 Version 2 Draft Version 1, lead_only w some changes Jd4x4 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC) And the current Version, which I had hoped to be a blend of the two not so much in content as in shortness and readability. But I'm not happy with the current version myself for readability. So if we are just talking about the lead, which versions are most acceptable for going forward, and what additions or deletions are desirable in that version? I would vote for version 1 but would like to see the topic of relative safety with current smokers made plain, since after all that was the intent of the inventor (use for cessation), and even PHE is concerned that the current US panic over EVALI and the "youth epidemic" has reduced e-cig use and adoption by current smokers in the UK. I also like the nicotine para in Version 1, and the lack of inclusion of the history (last para) in Version 1 over Version 2 and the current. Jd4x4 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Since the above comment, I currently like Draft version 1, followed by Version 1. Jd4x4 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Since I'm seeing 3 votes for Version 1 (albeit with possibly some minor changes going forward) and none for Version 2 (only the comment that Version 2 left the article with duplicates elsewhere) I'm going to restore Version 1 so we can move forward and correct duplicates and otherwise clean up other sections. Speak up now, please if you have objections. Jd4x4 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Please do not. Doc James has asked for an RFC and therefore we need to await RFC closure before we know what the consensus version is. It would be helpful if we stopped editing the lead entirely during the course of the RFC.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Not a problem. I'm not so well versed in the (needed) bureaucracy here, just have a desire for NPOV/truth and a feel for readability. I added my draft of the undo plus a bit to my number list above. Sorry if I've muddied the waters. Is the RfC discussion here (this section) or in another location? I'm confused because I thought you "called" for it since your's is the 1st comment under this section of Talk and I see few comments. Jd4x4 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (amended on) Jd4x4 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC) It's a bit impenetrable, I know, but Doc James is defending a longstanding revision ("the stable version" of the article, in the jargon). I have tried to improve the readability and he's reverted: we're stuck. I have pushed and he used the phrase "you can try RFC". That means that I'm not allowed to restore my preferred version without a consensus by way of RFC. I therefore began the RFC, believing as I do that my version, admittedly imperfect, is miles better than the stable version on readability grounds. We'll now wait out the 30 day duration of the RFC. Uninvolved editors will give their view -- typically experienced, longstanding Wikipedians who've signed up to participate in RFCs and will be summoned automatically by a script. Then I will post at WP:ANRFC requesting a close from a previously uninvolved, experienced Wikipedian. There may be a delay until one shows up, because RFC closes are complex (see examples at User:S Marshall/RfC close log) and this topic area is fraught and subject to discretionary sanctions.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 30 days! <yikes>. Begs the question (and I bet there are stats, maybe even MEDRS, lol) of how many will give up, take up, etc. who knows what in 30 days. I get it (to some degree), but I wonder if something like this could/would only apply to the sections in question. I've tried to take a crash-course in policy & procedures and had more reservations about MEDRS for an article, but seeing things like this What is biomedical information?, this What is not biomedical information?, and this in a talk page discussion Wikipedia talk: Bicycles gives me more knowledge that not everything in an article needs MEDRS and hope going forward at least. Very sentence & statement oriented it appears. I guess I'll just keep taking the tablets as an old ex-mil Brit friend used to say. Jd4x4 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 30 days is nothing: the article has been in this unreadable state, and totally un-improvable, for at least 5 years. I'd asked Arbcom to restore some order, and they did try to help, but I found their sanctions weren't as effective as I'd hoped and I still wasn't allowed to edit the article because of hyperaggressive reverting. If they always find a pretext to revert every edit, you can never go forwards. So five years ago, I threw my hands up in the air, gave up trying to deal with QuackGuru and Jytdog, and I was spending my volunteering time doing something else. Most new editors who tried to make the article readable during those five years will have been permanently driven off Wikipedia. Now that Jytdog's permanently site-banned and QuackGuru is on the naughty step for three months, there's a brief window of opportunity to edit in a saner and less testosterone-fuelled environment: and hence the timing of my return. I have modest expectations: all I want is to make a lead that's aimed less at degree-qualified professionals who're fluent readers and are accustomed to referring to academic studies, and more aimed at at a curious but uninformed teenager who's considering taking a puff. If I can do that and get it stable before QuackGuru's return, I'll be a happy man.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC) I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the "stable" version was painful to read. With that in mind I can't in good conscience wait 30 days with it being semi readable. I hope the changes I'm making will not only clean it up but produce an acceptable compromise between the 3 active people I've seen so far who have posted in Talk. What I want to see is a readable, NPOV yet factual article, with a concise summary lead. I know that much more work needs to be done in the body, but Doc James is incorrect if he believes that there were no duplicates in the article in the "stable" version. It was/is horribly repetitive and contained actual duplicate wording & sentences. It is also my intent to clean those up as well but I'm trying my best to navigate the markup and jargon in addition to the existing article layout, what there is of it. Jd4x4 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The technical stuff IMO can go later. The health effects have been the second paragraph for a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Are not the majority of health effects the center of the "technical" aspects of vapor production? And are not these health effects mostly debatable (no long term studies to weight acute vs. chronic, and overall benefit to Public Health) and localized to certain countries? Jd4x4 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also (likely in part my fault) unfortunately this is now overlapping with Talk:Electronic_cigarette#NPOV?. Jd4x4 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: The RfC closer will decide whether there's consensus for version #1 or version #2 (or neither). If the answer's not neither, then I think it's quite likely that whichever version has consensus will be restored, so editing the lead while the RfC is in progress is unproductive.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but in my case a) I'm retired so I don't consider my edits unproductive, but rather the current lead as possibly being an alternative in case the decision is neither. b) I think the fact that for the most part, the lead has remained reasonably stable since the edit prior to the 23 Feb RfC, considering the article gets 1,787 avg. daily page views is indicative of a preference for a shorter and less wordy lead, as well as for it being a reasonably NPOV. Jd4x4 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support positions 1 and 2. The article is much too long and difficult to read and follow. It'd take me time to figure out what, if anything, could be broken out but I think it needs it. I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through and I've tried for days, but I commend the effort!!! Yrwefilledwithbugs (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2020 (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.

Sorry it is completely UNCLEAR what article version 1 and article version 2 refers to...

This dif shows the moving of a "/" does this mean we support the fixing of that broken ref? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=942223230&oldid=942223054&diffmode=source

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• So, the sequence here is:- First, I make a series of changes to the lead, at the end of which the article looks like this. Second, you revert the changes, and you suggest I try a RfC. Third, on the same day, I begin the RfC you asked for. Cunard has now closed it with consensus for the changes I suggest. I must admit to feeling a certain amount of weary resignation when I see that you have unilaterally rewritten the lead. Would you mind awfully if we restored the consensus text, please, and then discussed your proposed improvements?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What you showed was the fixing of a pipe link. It was entirely unclear what we were discussion.

That "Non-smokers should not try vaping with or without nicotine" made it in implies that no one else understood what we were discussing either. We do not give advice like that in Wikipedia's voice. It must be attributed. C recommends...

I do not imagine that what we have now is either #1 or #2. We still have this heading "Electronic_cigarette#Regulatory,_Scientific,_and_Medical_Positions" which no one appears to interested in fixing...

Both versions suck. Neither version has all the issues I pointed out fixed. Yah lots of us are getting weary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Doc, I've just checked the article history and I've seen the extent to which you've rewritten the lead in the past few hours. That's a problem. We've just had a 41-day RFC that you suggested I hold. You've said that you thought I was holding a full RFC about a pipe link but nobody else thought that. Literally everyone else who participated understood the RFC and agreed with my proposed revision. You now appear to have substantially obliterated it. How is that OK? And how do I get authority to edit the article that extensively?—S Marshall T/C 03:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I edited the article with this edit summary: "Reinstated the lead that was agreed upon in the RfC that I closed since subsequent changes to the lead have been disputed as having 'substantially obliterated' the agreed upon lead. Further improvements can and should be made to the lead but should be discussed if there are disagreements." Cunard (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Order of ideas in the lead

The historical RfC does not overrule the one that was closed a few days ago.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is impossible to determine what that RfC means. I have asked for a review here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_RfC_close_by_User:Cunard Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence usually contains one or two alternative names. Thus

"An electronic cigarette, also known as e-cigarette among other names, is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. "

Is preferred per my understanding over

"An electronic cigarette is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarette among other names,"...

Thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• We might be able to avoid squabbling about that by asking whether we need that list of alternative names in the lead at all. House doesn't begin by saying "A house, also known as a dwelling, domicile, pad, pied-a-terre, hut, gaff, or hovel, is a building that functions as a home." Car doesn't begin by saying "A car, also known as an automobile, motor, ride, wagon, limousine, buggy, jalopy, or roadster, is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transportation." Table (furniture) doesn't begin by saying "A table, also known as a desk, counter, bureau, bar, or stand, is a freestanding structure that provides a stable surface for eating or work." Smoking pipe doesn't begin by saying "A pipe, also known as a hookah, meerschaum, chibouk, qalyan, or bong, is a device for inhaling the smoke of a burning substance." I'd prefer if this list of alternative names went in the body text and was removed from the lead entirely. Second best would be moving it to later in the lead. I certainly do not wish to open the article with a compound sentence that has a long subordinate clause after the third word.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure and I would not support more than 1 or 2 alternative names max. No one is supporting a mass of names in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

How about: "An electronic cigarette, also known as an e-cig, is a device that simulates the feeling of tobacco smoking"?—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure I would be happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The amount of alternative names reflect the amount of names that have been used for this device by researchers since it's market introduction, and as such should be included somewhere (imo) for those doing archival research. Without referring to the 2000 articles in my own library, I believe that using the smaller number of names that have become common in the last 4-5 years in the lead would be appropriate. Jd4x4 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Wording

We do not write text like "Non-smokers should not try vaping with or without nicotine." in the voice of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Couldn't you have raised this during the 41 days the RfC was open? It's tiring to have to relitigate it now. This article is likely to be read by curious teenagers who're considering taking a puff, and who may well have heard from their friends that vaping is safe. That's why the lead needs to be more readable, and it's also why we need to say in crystal clear language that vaping leads to nicotine addiction and nicotine addiction is bad. We need to say that in the lead which is the part of the article that they will read.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC showed the fixing of a pipe link. Sure I support fixing the pipe link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I know I keep banging on about readability, and I think it might help if I quantify what I mean. As of right now, the text in the lead of this article has a Flesch-Kincaid readability index of somewhere between 38 and 42. The exact score will vary depending on the exact revision and which online calculator you use, but the point is that it's demonstrably, measurably, inaccessible for someone below college degree level of education. And that's in the lead. The rest of the article literally has a lower Flesch-Kincaid than a lawyers' textbook.

  I'm trying to make a lead for WP:JOHNNY. How may I communicate that Johnny shouldn't try vaping?—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yah I am happy with readability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:S Marshall All I was requesting was attribution of the statement in question. Here is a source "WHO does not recommend the use of any form of nicotine for those who have never smoked or for children and pregnant women, and our report on e-cigarettes is consistent with this position."

So sentence could be "The World Health Organization does not recommend non smokers try e cigarettes." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Or even "It is not recommended that non-smokers try vaping." With the ref attached. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

I would like to suggest an addition to the following sentence: "The atomizer is a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution called e-liquid.[4]"

I would suggest adding: "Certain types of atomizers can be rebuilt, these are called RBAs (ReBuildable Atomizers)." With this link as a reference: https://vapingcheap.com/rba-rda-guide-rebuildable-atomizers/ ElPesero (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. commercial vaping sites are not considered reliable Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?

As I (barely) understand it (and the jargon), isn't an NPOV tag without a talk page topic on it a WP:DRIVEBY? Or, was the tag in reference to or caused by the Readability issue, and/or specifically my attempts to clean up the Lead? If not, it's confusing the readability topic resolution and I don't see the specific problems. I have refrained from editing the lead until readability is resolved so if the current version lead POV acceptable please remove the tag, or list the specifics please. Jd4x4 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of specific problems which are discussed above. Including the removal of concerns by WHO, the CDC, and the Surgeon General of the United States. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was under the impression specific problems should be cited in the entry that's made in the Talk page entry for the tag made at the same time the article or section was tagged.

Given your lack of specificity, I'll try to interpret your specific issues here from your recent edits. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. You believe that Youth risks due to Gateway theory were not adequately cited and were out of place (or not sufficient, i.e. underweighted) in the lead paragraph covering youth concerns, and were more appropriate in the general risk-benefit paragraph of the lead.
2. You believe that the lead paragraph covering basic vapor production, composition, and nicotine was given undue weight by preceding the general risk-benefit paragraph. This even though it is the vapor components which give rise to all of the risks and benefits of the entire subject, with the exception of battery failures.

If the above is accurate, I would propose the following:

Merge the general risk-benefit and youth paragraphs (making it imo harder to read) and ordering the lead paragraphs:

• Intro and names, etc.
• Vapor production, composition, and nicotine
• Motivation
• Risks-benefits with youth concerns merged with it (edited by Jd4x4 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC))

• or Risk-benefits with youth addition moved to and followed by Youth concerns paragraph (because youth are the smallest percentage-wise of the entire potential population affected)

• History, Usage stats

• Please respond @Doc James:, because as near as I can tell it was you who tagged the article POV, and I believe that the passage of time without consensus is not a friend of "Do No Harm" to a global and disparate audience, and that "Do No Harm" is also a fine line which has 2 sides that one can fall toward. Jd4x4 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of low quality sources are being added such as https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/ and https://www.parentsagainstvaping.org

The massive amount of duplication of content still has not been fixed by the person who cause it.

As it stands the article is better.

I disagree with your proposed rearranging.

And we have a paragraphs still ending in a "," and punctuation in the middle of references. We have inappropriate caps. This article could actually use a bunch of tags Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• None of what you said has enlightened anyone to your reasons for the NPOV tag, unless you're implying that you could have justified more tag bombing but thought that NPOV was sufficient. And, where exactly is it required that those who made the grammatical errors fix their own mistakes? I've spent an inordinate amount of time just trying to make the lead readable as opposed to how I found it, and you are certainly not helpful with that. I hate to imagine what objections you'd have and the convoluted corrections/opinions if and when I or anyone else tackles the rest of the article.

And as far as the ("a lot"..2?) "low grade" citations for those having concerns, you don't need to be in any particular field of specialization to have a concern, and "high quality (MEDRS?)" cites are needed only to validate or dispute those concerns. Rather than cite every person and concern theory in the lead, I felt that would be best left in the appropriate sections. Clearly you don't but I won't expect you to comment as to why. I'll try to find some MEDRS ones to add (not replace). And I'm certainly not inclined to remove the tag because most everything below the lead suffers from a US-centric bias and repeated (literally in some cases) negative bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd4x4 (talk • contribs)

• I live in a country where it's mainstream medical practice to recommend e-cigarettes for tobacco harm reduction, which isn't the case for all of us and I realise my environment biases me... but to me as someone who's never vaped and never will, this article is so negative and skeptical that it recalls to the moon landing conspiracy theories or the 9/11 truthers in its denial of what I understand to be the mainstream scientific consensus. However, I also think the article won't put off anyone from trying vaping because the average reader won't get through the first three paragraphs. Readability is a worse problem than NPOV in this instance.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, so the article reads like a whole heap of pseudo-medics telling us all how things should be, just like the tobacco and the smoking articles. I doubt most of these references, because they are made to fit the argument of the author. As a smoker that gave up with the use of a vape, after having smoked for 25 years, I can say vaping is the way to stop this. I stopped vaping 18 months ago, it did not make me want to smoke hard drugs as the article suggests. ZL3XD (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Like you, I smoked for 25 years; but I managed to quit by way of nicotine gum, about ten years ago, before vaping was an option where I live.
  I don't doubt the references; in fact I think we've got pretty much the right sources for the article. But I'm concerned that the emphasis is wrong. We give a lot of prominence to the gateway theory, and particularly to the fear that vaping might make you start smoking, when in fact there's clear evidence that its main use is as a quitting aid. We also lay heavy stress on the fear that evil e-cigarette manufacturers are deliberately targeting children with their marketing. Which is maybe a valid concern, but we only need to say it once.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Gene expression-disease

This edit was reverted because it is primary research and does not rely on a WP:MEDRS review. Cloudjpk has twice disputed and restored the revert. WP:BRD discusses why the burden of proof is on the editor wanting the statement to be included, so over to Cloudjpk for providing a strong source. Also, Cloudjpk is now warring over this content and primary sources, indicating the WP:3RR threshold. Zefr (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not primary research. It's a review. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

PMID 30744164 and PMID 27288488 are primary research studies, not WP:MEDRS reviews. Further, This is an advocacy site, and not a WP:RS source. Warning Cloudjpk for WP:DE. Zefr (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't cite any of those. Is there some reason you mention them? Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk)

This is what you reverted and restored, including all 3 unusable sources. Go ahead and revert this edit yourself - you are now edit warring and in the last step before getting blocked. Zefr (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see; my mistake. I apologize. I will fix it now. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for helping find my error. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

cigarette page lock

Is there a reason cigs and vaping are page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Constant, persistent promotional editing.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

The article states:

People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15

Change to,

there is no evidence that people who vape, especially teens, are more likely to start smoking. In fact, the number of teens who vape has now exceeded teens who smoke. In fact, three out of four teens who started smoking have carried the habit into adult hood. Based on the decrease in teen smoking, a cigarette free lifestyle will be continued on into their adulthood.

Proof is the end note itself. There is No mention in the article that vaping leads to cigarette smoking. The points I raised in the edit above, are in the article.

I submit the actual end note as proof that this is not true. Vapinglies (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm.. The source that is trying to hold that information up says almost the opposite thing, saying that cigarette use has decreased in high school. I didn't notice any info in the source that says people who vape will likely start smoking. GameTriangle (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have removed the info in the article, but not replaced it. If you can find a source already in the article, or a new one, to the info you wanted to add in replacement with the info, you are welcome to reactivate your request. Also, I noticed your username. Are you a single purpose account? It's not necessarily a bad thing, I'm just wondering.. GameTriangle (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, I'm sorry. You said the information you wanted to replace with was already in the article in some way or another? Can you show me exactly where it was in the article? GameTriangle (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. When you took that sentence out, the source is now gone. If you can send me the source again, I'll show you the information (it was the end note attached to the sentence, "People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15"

About my username. I hope to write other stuff too. I have always wanted to edit and write stuff on Wikipedia, but it wasn't till I read that article that I was motivated enough to do it. Thus the name. Vapinglies (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Vapinglies, it's here:

"E-cigarette use triples among middle and high school students in just one year". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 16 April 2015.

You can access old versions of a page by clicking the "View history" tab in desktop view, or tapping "Last edited..." at the bottom of the page in mobile view.

Also, that source is from 2015, there's likely to be more and better data now.

--Distelfinck (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. We call those "end notes" on Wikipedia citations. I kinda skipped over that part where you said it was from the end note.. GameTriangle (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusing and convoluted sentence

User:Cloudjpk, I think that last paragraph in the lead is now confusing and convoluted. We need the lead to communicate a message that's clear, even to people who didn't do well in school -- or people who're still at school -- because the encyclopaedia is for them too. This means keeping the reading age of the lead low: simple sentence structure, simpler language, no equivocation. The greater complexity belongs lower down the article.

The intended message from that paragraph is that if you aren't already addicted to nicotine, then you shouldn't touch an e-cigarette, but if you are, e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than tobacco and they can help you quit (add citation to Cochrane meta-analysis).

Unfortunately your good faith quest for increased accuracy is undermining the goal of the paragraph as well as introducing concepts that don't appear in the Cochrane meta-analysis. I would ask that you please kindly consider moving this Wang-sourced business about e-cigarettes as consumer products, which isn't from Cochrane, lower down the article?—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. We should try to keep it clear and simple. However we should not make it misleading, or inaccurate, or contrary to our sources.

The distinction is not trivial. In supervised clinical trials e-cigarettes have one effect; as a consumer product they have another. To imply otherwise is inaccurate. This is what our sources say. Fortunately there is no "he said she said" conflict here. Cochrane informs on e-cigarettes as medicine. Wang informs on e-cigarettes as consumer products.

Five words to summarize all that seems reasonable in the lead. I agree that details can indeed come lower down in the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we're making progress in keeping it simple but accurate. It is a challenge given the complexity of the real-world phenomena and evaluation and weighing of evidence, effects on individuals and populations, effects sensitive to setting, etc., to boil it down to a sentence or two appropriate for a lead paragraph. However I think we're closing in on it. I like your use of "medical help" instead of "clinical settings"; I think that improves simplicity and avoids jargon. For that same reason I decided against "nonclinical" etc. and indeed any Latin polysyllables; "most use" covers it and is simpler, and still conveys the key context. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried a couple more tweaks to lower reading age of the lead. It's running around 11 on Flesch Kincaid; I was hoping to get it down to 10. Progress so far is very incremental. I ended up making only one change for shorter sentences, which Flesch Kincaid measures. We're getting dinged on passive voice and verbs of being, in my opinion fairly so; I've been looking at those constructions in the lead. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

ENDS

Hello. As scientists often use the words electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), could these be added in the introduction?

83.228.145.34 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

Aerosol vs. Vapor

Your article lists that e-cigarettes emit a VAPOR yet the article it references clearly states it emits an AEROSOL. This is a critical distinction. Vapor implies gasses only while aerosol specifically includes tiny particles. Studies clearly show that particles of lead are present in e-cigarette emissions. This is critical information that is misleading and implies that these products are safer than they actually are. The article you site is listed as the second resource in your citations. Please review and repair. This is VERY important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBairos (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's why our article says, at paragraph 2: E-cigarettes create an aerosol, often called vapor. Scientifically it's an aerosol but in the e-cigarette subcommunity it's pretty much always called vapor. Because of this, whichever term we use, we always get people who passionately insist that we change it—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sailorbo. Peer reviewers: Skyguythor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ismaray Ruiz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajameson1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

There was s further rise to 82 million in 2021. There is a typo in the above sentence in the "was s". Casterianwizard (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"simulates tobacco smoking"

This line isn't entirely accurate. Vaporizers have progressed far beyond a tobacco smoking replacement, and are better described as a nicotine aerosol delivery device.

The only similarities between tobacco smoking is the name "electronic cigarette" and the (optional) use of nicotine. In fact, the devices can be used to deliver a wide range of drug aerosols... 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"cartridge or tank"

This ignores RDAs which are neither a cartridge or a tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Note about VAPI/vitamin E acetate

This has nothing to do with electronic cigarettes, and everything to do with THC distillate vaporizers.

The info isn't relevant to this article whatsoever 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed changes to the lede, September 2022

User:Zvi Zig, I assure you that I'm aware of WP:NPOV. I invite you to reconsider your efforts to remove Wang et. al. and Hedman et. al. from the lede. These are recent meta-analyses, i.e. sources of the absolute utmost reliability. I have restored the longstanding consensus text for the time being, as would be expected in an editing dispute.—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall Firstly, these meta-analyses do not make claims in relation to cause and effect. For example, Hedman et al write

"The different results between observational studies and RCTs can be explained by several features. First, controlling for confounders is stricter in RCTs than in observational studies. Other than sex, age and socioeconomic factors, there are many other confounders that may affect the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in observational studies."

Secondly, meta-analyses of observational studies of limited quality (ie, subject to systematic bias) are considered to be a low grade evidence. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• When I re-checked the conclusions sections of both of those meta-analyses just now, I felt that they both quite unequivocally support the disputed sentence.—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbyler22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cbyler22 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I added results from more recent research studies (2021-2022). There are more symptoms and medical conditions that have been correlated with usage of e-cigarettes and I thought it worthwhile to add these relationships. Also, more recent studies show more youths using e-cigarettes than what was last added to the article. This usage among youths is continuing to accelerate in many countries but more severely in Canada and United States. The last topic that I included was an experiment done on women on the effects of dual smoking. These results were interesting and could possibly relate to a larger portion of the population who dual smoke and have trouble sleeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Because e-cigarettes are so new, they haven't been studied enough to fully understand them. What I find to be most curious is what the long term effects of e-cigarettes will be. They haven't been out long enough to have reliable studies done showing the long term effects on the human body. When research about that does come out in the future it will be interesting to see the results and I hope to see them in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Young People Should Be Updated

The statistics cited are a couple years old, I think with the rapid rise in e-cigarettes, we should find new sources and update some of the metrics. EZMedMan (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbw119 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lbw119 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Cited source contradicts claim

The fourth paragraph of the article starts with "Nicotine is harmful and highly addictive.[14][15]". The first source (Mishra et al, 2015, "Harmful effects of nicotine") supports that claim, but the second source (Royal College of Physicians, 2016, "Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction") actually argues against nicotine being significantly harmful:

Nicotine is not, however, in itself, a highly hazardous drug (see Chapters 4 and 5). It increases heart rate and blood pressure, and has a range of local irritant effects, but is not a carcinogen. ... Although the nature and extent of any long-term health hazard from inhaling nicotine remain uncertain, because there is no experience of such use other than from cigarettes, it is inherently unlikely that nicotine inhalation itself contributes significantly to the mortality or morbidity caused by smoking. The main culprit is smoke and, if nicotine could be delivered effectively and acceptably to smokers without smoke, most if not all of the harm of smoking could probably be avoided.

DecipheredStones (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• The disputed sentence says two things. (1) Nicotine is harmful, and (2) Nicotine is highly addictive. I think both contentions are supported by both sources.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User:S Marshall

• The Royal College of Physicians' report says, "if nicotine could be delivered effectively and acceptably to smokers without smoke, most 'if not all' of the harm of smoking could probably be avoided" (emphasis mine).

• See also page 125 of the same report:

As use of nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user, complete substitution of smoking with conventional NRT products is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of complete cessation in almost all areas of harm to the user

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download?token=Mu0K_ZR0

I agree with User:DecipheredStones that the statement in question contradicts the Royal College of Physicians' report.

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 05:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Are you contending that nicotine by itself isn't harmful?—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the RCP report cited above (and the FDA etc.) nicotine poses little, if any, hazard to the user. It is incorrect to blanketly state that it is harmful.

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 00:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• But what about Mishra et al 2015?—S Marshall T/C 07:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Mishra et al 2015 is published in a journal with an impact factor of 0.223. Its position that nicotine is a carcinogen and causes other deadly diseases is contradicted by the world's leading medical organizations, like the IARC the FDA and others

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• What's the proposed revised sentence?—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nicotine is addictive, but poses little, if any, hazard to the user.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 03:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that the FDA or IARC agree with what you're saying. I believe what you're doing is called original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia. The FDA simply says that the lethality of cigarettes comes mostly from other things, but it does not say that nicotine is harmless. Nicotine does indeed have multiple negative effects in the human body, even if the majority of harm from cigarettes is from other chemicals. Nicotine is still bad for you, and likely increases risk of cancer apart from other additives in tobacco. [28] [29] Ultra high doses of nicotine are associated with multi-organ toxicity and even death due to impaired respiratory muscles.[30][31] What we know is that nicotine on its own is probably less bad for you than everything else in cigarettes. But it does not mean that nicotine is "not harmful" as you assert above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I've integrated your edits with high quality MEDRS to meet somewhere in the middle. I think this is the best summary of available evidence, doesn't sugar coat it, but also doesn't say nicotine is the devil. Let me know what you think — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Second paragraph of lead

I've been aiming at an lead that would be understood by a curious high school child who is considering taking a puff. This would include children in lower attainment quartiles. The recent edits to the second paragraph have hugely raised the reading age. We've made the article more specific and accurate, but the cost in accessibility has been very high. I'm minded to move the current second paragraph right down into the body text, and restore the previous version of paragaph 2.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can also just decrease the density of the language... Lemme give it a try — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Better? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicotine "highly addictive" in context of vaping?

According to a Public Health England 2018 report

Other aspects of nicotine products may potentiate addictiveness. These include the monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors in tobacco smoke, substances added to tobacco such as sugars and polysaccharides, flavourings such as menthol or alkaline additives, as well as design characteristics. . . . In summary, nicotine addictiveness depends on a number of factors including presence of other chemicals, speed of delivery, pH, rate of absorption, the dose, and other aspects of the nicotine delivery system, environment and behaviour. Tobacco smoking with rapid delivery of nicotine to the lungs and absorption, has been demonstrated to be highly addictive, compared with the NRT patch, for example, which has much lower dependence potential and long term use. Addictiveness is related to pleasure as well as severity of withdrawal discomfort, which are hard to tease apart. The addictive potential of other nicotine products is likely to be within the two extremes set by the cigarette and NRT patch, with some products, eg snus, also being addictive. It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system (emphasis added).

Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018 (publishing.service.gov.uk) Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on e-cigarettes says

whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes . . . . Conclusion 8-2. There is moderate evidence that risk and severity of dependence are lower for e-cigarettes than combustible tobacco cigarettes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507163/

Therefore, I think that writing that nicotine is "highly addictive" in the context of vaping is not supported. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an extremely misleading misunderstanding of the evidence. There is an extensive and thorough research base supporting the fact that nicotine itself is the cause of addiction in cigarettes, and that it carries over to mediums like e-cigs. Nicotine is highly addictive, though e cigarette use as part of a SUPERVISED program may help people quit. This has nothing to do with whether or not nicotine is "highly addictive." It is. See:

National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Report on Tobacco, Nicotine, and E-Cigarettes:

The pharmacokinetic properties of nicotine, or the way it is processed by the body, contribute to its addictiveness. When cigarette smoke enters the lungs, nicotine is absorbed rapidly in the blood and delivered quickly to the brain, so that nicotine levels peak within 10 seconds of inhalation. But the acute effects of nicotine also dissipate quickly, along with the associated feelings of reward; this rapid cycle causes the smoker to continue dosing to maintain the drug's pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal symptoms.[32][33]

FDA "Nicotine Is Why Tobacco Products Are Addictive":

Nicotine is a highly addictive chemical compound present in a tobacco plant. All tobacco products contain nicotine, including cigarettes, non-combusted cigarettes (commonly referred to as “heat-not-burn tobacco products” or “heated tobacco products”), cigars, smokeless tobacco (such as dip, snuff, snus, and chewing tobacco), hookah tobacco, and most e-cigarettes... To date, no e-cigarette has been approved as a cessation device or authorized to make a modified risk claim, and more research is needed to understand the potential risks and benefits these products may offer adults who use tobacco products. [34] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You have entirely ignored the issue mentioned above. Public Health England clearly states:

It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system

Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on clearly says

whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507163/

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 18:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not in line with our most reliable sources [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [] [42] [43], and so therefore it would be WP:UNDUE to put overemphasis on it in our article text.

Sorry, but we have an overwhelming consensus of the experts, health organizations, and international and national medical bodies that nicotine is highly addictive, even in the context of electronic cigarettes. I linked sources from the WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the NIDA, the FDA, and the CDC, who all agree with this consensus.

In terms of your sources, what they say is that nicotine addictiveness may be modified by the way it is consumed. They do not say "nicotine in e-cigarettes is not addictive" which is what they would need to say to over-rule this established consensus.

Also, the sources you linked say a lot more than your quotes that appear to have been cherry-picked to support the conclusion you're making. Those sources also say: (emphasis mine)

PHE report:

"It is possible that the addictiveness of tobacco cigarettes may be enhanced by compounds in the smoke other than nicotine....As e-cigarettes have evolved, their nicotine delivery has improved. This could mean that their addiction potential has increased, but this may also make them more attractive to smokers as a replacement for smoking. It is not yet clear how addictive e-cigarettes are, or could be, relative to tobacco cigarettes."

NASEM report:

"cigarettes contain liquids (referred to as e-liquids) that are aerosolized upon operation of the device. E-liquids typically contain nicotine (although some users prefer zero-nicotine solutions), flavorings, and humectants. Nicotine is a well-understood compound with known central and peripheral nervous system effects. It causes dependence and addiction" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Major scientific reviews by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and UK government are highly authoritative. They are certainly not WP:UNDUE! Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read WP:MEDASSESS. What you have provided is two "narrative review" or "expert opinion" pieces. Both of which don't even wholly agree with your point, as evident in the quotes I provided. But then we have clinical practice guidelines which say that nicotine in e-cigarettes is addictive. In MEDRS situations, we go with the preponderance of what our best available sources say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MEDORG:

"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

None of the alternate statements you provided from NASEM or PHE contradict their position that nicotine's "highly addictive" status in conventional cigarettes cannot be automatically translated to e-cigarettes. It may be shown in the future that certain e-cigarettes are as addictive as cigarettes. But as of now, that is not the case, and NASEM has concluded (in a systematic review) that There is moderate evidence that risk and severity of dependence are lower for e-cigarettes than combustible tobacco cigarettes.. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"lower for e-cigarettes than combustible tobacco cigarettes" does not contradict that nicotine in e-cigarettes is still highly addictive. Indeed, we have systematic reviews and meta-analyses which say the opposite, that electronic cigarettes outside of a medical therapeutic relationship actually either decrease or do not help with rates of quitting, and those who do "quit" with e-cigarettes outside of medical therapy are often just trading one for the other : [44] [45][46]

And then we have clinical practice recommendations (not "public guides" or "service announcements") which state unequivocally that nicotine in e-cigarettes is still highly addictive, even if less than tobacco. These reports and guidelines are from the NIH, AAP, CDC, Surgeon General's office, etc. [47] [48] [49]

So overall, sorry, but no. It is clear at this point that consensus here on this talk page is against you, as shown above. if you are interested in getting the changes you seek, based on conflicting evidence, most of which is from higher quality sources and contradicts your position, you should consider starting an RFC or going to a noticeboard to plead your case (in a neutral fashion). Because otherwise, you will be editing against consensus. See also: WP:1AM

It is at this point that it is clear to me that conversing further with you about this is unlikely to be productive. So have a great day, a nice life, etc. But I will not be responding. You may feel free to have the last word. Let me know if you find better evidence that consensus has changed, or if you end up starting an RFC, and I will gladly participate showing the evidence above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of the NASEM quote was to show that (a) nicotine's "highly addictive" status in conventional cigarettes should not automatically be translated to e-cigarettes and (b) as of now it has not been shown to be as addictive as conventional cigarettes (rather the opposite). Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 07:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zvi Zig I think you're on the wrong track here as plenty of sources can confirm the statement. Best to look for other ways to improve the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia must reflect WP:NPOV. If major governmental scientific review on e-cigarettes concludes, "It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive'' and that "It is not yet clear how addictive EC are, or could be, relative to tobacco cigarettes" then stating otherwise violates WP:NPOV.

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink provided nine sources that support the statement as is. You have provided one that disputes it. You have not yet addressed why you believe your one statement outweighs the overwhelming consensus among global medical organizations. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The 9 sources include only one scientific review which does not say that e-cigarettes are highly addictive. Another included source says: "e-cigarettes may be as, or less addictive, than nicotine gums, which themselves are not very addictive." Another included citation is primary research that also does not address the question. Another citation is a Powerpoint presentation. The rest are webpages.

Other reviews I am aware of (and there are likely more) state similar conclusions to PHE and NASEM:

1. UK Royal College of Physicians' review: "the addiction potential of currently available e-cigarettes is therefore likely to be low"
2. Glasser et al. systematic review "These studies suggest that the current class of ENDS products may have significantly lower ability to induce dependence than cigarettes but are capable of inducing some level of satisfaction and dependence, especially when using second-generation ."
3. The Balfour et al. narrative review (jointly authored by 17 past presidents of The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco) states: "Jackson et al. recently reported that the e-cigarette‒driven increase in nicotine product use among high-school students is not associated with an increase in population-level dependence. Among tobacco-naïve youths, in addition to low vaping prevalence (9.1% in the past 30 days in 2020) and frequency (2.3% vaping ≥ 20 days in the past 30 days), small percentages exhibited signs of nicotine dependence."

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 04:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you've already got the correct aap link: [50], the other is a mispaste I'll fix. But the one you linked says:

Specific to youth, nicotine addiction and dependence leading to lifelong tobacco use is a major concern when considering e-cigarette use...Nicotine addiction is an adaption to nicotine exposure over time, and thus the high concentrations of nicotine in e-cigarettes are of major concern. Studies of e-cigarette use have revealed that, depending on duration of use and user puffing topography, serum levels of nicotine can be as high with e-cigarette use as with use of a conventional cigarette. In 1 study, the urinary cotinine concentrations (a biomarker for nicotine exposure) among adolescents using JUUL was even higher than the urinary cotinine concentrations of those who smoked conventional cigarettes

If you cannot see how that source supports the phrase "nicotine is highly addictive" then I cannot help you. I hope you find what you're looking for on Wikipedia.

We also have this AAP Policy statement on e-cigarettes (2020): [51]

Nicotine is highly addictive and hasnegative effects on brain development from the prenatal period into adolescence.

And the American Cancer Society:

Many e-cigarettes sold in the U.S. contain far more nicotine than e-cigarettes sold elsewhere, which increases the risk of addiction and harm to the developing brains of youth and young adults.

And the American Association for Cancer Research and American Society of Clinical Oncology:

Some ENDS products can result in rapid delivery of a similar amount of nicotine as modern American cigarettes, which contribute to high addiction potentials...As stated above, flavors are a key driver of youth initiation of ENDS, with the pharmacology of nicotine leading to addiction and continued, repetitive use

And the NHMRC (Australia):

Never smokers

There is high certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use can result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). Findings from cross-sectional studies indicate that nicotine-containing e-cigarette dependence may be associated with earlier age of initiation, daily use and later generation/more powerful devices.

Current smokers

There is low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). There is also low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may have lower abuse liability[4] than tobacco cigarettes but may have a higher abuse liability than nicotine-replacement therapies

And the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand:

The addictive power of nicotine, particularly in the developing adolescent brain, and its adverse effects should not be underestimated

And a position statement from the Forum of International Respiratory Societies:

The appeal to users and primary concern for health advocates is nicotine, which is highly addictive

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite the part that contradicts the PHE? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 05:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on you, the person who seeks to make changes on the article, not on me. WP:BURDEN.

I do keep finding these sources, though:

A position statement from the American Academy of Otolaryngology (2021);

Many adolescents do not understand that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine and do not understand how addictive they are, often much more than traditional cigarettes... E-cigarettes containing high levels of nicotine are highly addictive for nicotine naïve teens.

A position statement from the National Safety Council (2019):

ENDS contain nicotine, a highly addictive drug

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

1. The policy statements cited above are not on the WP:MEDRS level of NASEM or UK government scientific reports.
2. The majority of your sources above do not say that e-cigarettes are "highly addictive". Only the 2014 Forum of International Respiratory Societies statement clearly calls nicotine in the context of e-cigarettes "highly addictive".

They are certainly not sufficient to make NASEM, PHE etc. WP:UNDUE. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 06:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories

In the categories, can someone replace "Nicotine products with harm-reduction claims" and "Heated tobacco products" with "Category:Non-tobacco nicotine products"?

Thanks. Lordal Planquette (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC).

 Done. I see that one of those categories was CfD'd to a redirect, and the other does not involve nicotine e-liquid. So makes sense to me — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

AHA

@Zvi Zig, please follow WP:BRD and discuss this before reverting. Do not edit war to keep your preferred version of the text. The AHA is an established health authority, and it has this opinion as described in its policy statement. The fact that it disagrees with other sources is the point. We are showing that there is controversy, as we describe several sentences before. We also describe where the controversy comes from (animal studies) in plain language. What is the issue? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The AHA review does not conclude with this concern. They mention this concern at a preliminary point in the review, where biological plausibility is addressed. Subsequently, the review presents clinical and epidemiological human evidence which does not support atherosclerosis or heart attacks being caused by nicotine.

This AHA review is similar to all other reviews co-authored by Benowitz (the US expert on nicotine) on the cardiovascular effects nicotine. At the outset, a range of concerns relating biological plausibility of harm are presented. Subsequently, more reassuring human clinical and epidemiological evidence is inferred from from NRT and snus. These concerns are not presented in the conclusion, but rather in the preliminary stage, and should be viewed as such.

It is impossible for nicotine to cause hypertension and atherosclerosis when NRT and snus do not cause these effects. I think it is wrong to interpret the AHA review as such.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

it is impossible for nicotine to cause hypertension and atherosclerosis when NRT and snus do not cause these effects.

I seem to remember you spent several comments above explaining why it was inappropriate to use one mode of tobacco consumption (or derivative thereof) to prove or suggest anything about another (smoked tobacco for nicotine). Why is that acceptable now? And do you have a source to support the conclusion that nicotine does not cause transient hypertension? Because I agree with you, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about nicotine delivered in a different form based on research on tobacco products like SNUS or highly regulated specifically dosed nicotine products like NRT.

I would add that the position you take on Bhatnagar 2014 (which was authored by quite a few more people than just Benowitz) is not compatible with the interpretation that the Surgeon General has on that same review, which it summarizes as:

American Heart Association (AHA) (Bhatnagar et al. 2014): There are no reports of e-cigarette safety in patients with known cardiovascular disease...For patients with existing cardiovascular disease and stroke, or at risk of a cardiovascular disease event, intensive cessation counseling should be offered as soon as possible.

Why do you think your personal interpretation is so different from that of the Surgeon General's office? On wikipedia, we use authoritative sources to help us determine how to interpret other sources, and which sources to pay attention to, which parts to emphasize, and which parts to de-emphasize. We don't use our own personal interpretations, which are considered original research.

I’m happy to remove the heart attack part given that it’s more poorly sourced. But we actually have 5 or 6 reviews which support the idea of transient hypertension, tachycardia, and atherosclerosis. Happy to cite those, as well as the Surgeon General's report, or another AHA source instead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

1. The NASEM and PHE reviews note that MAO inhibitors in tobacco smoke likely increase nicotine's addictiveness. Furthermore, differences in nicotine delivery can affect the level of addiction. Snus, however, produces a robust nicotine delivery similar to cigarettes, and is not associated with any increase in atherosclerotic plaque (2017 review).
2. Nicotine certainly causes a transient increase in blood pressure. However, this is not known to be harmful. Many healthy activities transiently increase blood pressure, including drinking coffee, exercise and calculating arithmetic.
3. I agree with the Surgeon General's report. The AHA does indicate concern about EC use in patients with cardiovascular disease. This does not support the statement in question.

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 16:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

How about "The American Heart Association and others have raised concerns about the impact of nicotine on cardiovascular health, especially in those with preexisting cardiovascular problems." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the conclusion, the concerns raised in relation to cardiovascular health in relation to nicotine are limited to those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. I think that this is something worth mentioning, but not in the lede, which already reflects possible risk. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 04:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Can we please not devote the third paragraph of the lead to this he-said-she-said. It is helpful to the kind of person who understands the value and importance of Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians, as well as those US authorities. It does not help a curious high school child who is considering taking a puff.

What that high school child needs to know is: (1) that if you don't smoke, taking up vaping isn't the greatest idea in the world; (2) if you're already addicted to tobacco, then you should seek a medical professional's assistance to quit with NRT; and (3) that electronic cigarettes are one of the forms of NRT that might help you. I feel strongly that this should be the message from the third paragraph. The he-said-she-said belongs much further down the article in the body text.

When we do get far enough down to talk about the authorities, the reason we should trust PHE and the RCP is because we know where their funding is coming from. The US attitude, to vaccines as well as quitting smoking (and abortion and climate change and many other medical and scientific things) is so resoundingly denialist that I suspect some big tobacco funding in their science. I would propose that the most reliable source for this paragraph is the Cochrane library here and we should follow it closely.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree that entire paragraph belongs in the body if it’s going to keep multiple viewpoints. But I disagree that PHE is more trustworthy than the surgeon general, CDC, and NIH. Who also are entirely government funded. There’s an extensive history of the English health authorities being more lax about tobacco than US health authorities. When I asked my friends in the CDC about it, they literally laughed and said “That’s just the British.” But you don’t have to trust me, there’s also an extensive history in the sources of how this divide has developed (see below). I’m overall not saying we shouldn’t include the PHE stuff, we absolutely should, it’s due and relevant. But I am saying that to only include UK health authorities on this would be a massive disservice to our readers, and run afoul of NPOV, which would tell us in this situation to include multiple countries, including the UK, Australia, US, and international agencies like the EU and WHO. And hence, to include all of those and be compliant with NPOV, we would want to move it to the body.

Differences between US and UK on smoking and e-cigarettes
Reminder that I am not saying we should not include UK health authorities, but just that NPOV would dictate we also include other countries' health authorities as well.
Smoking in the United Kingdom Hunt, Katie (17 September 2019). "The US and UK see vaping very differently. Here's why". CNN. Retrieved 15 November 2022. Christopoulou, Rebekka; Lillard, Dean R. (February 2015). "Is smoking behavior culturally determined? Evidence from British immigrants". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 110: 78–90. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.014. ISSN 0167-2681. PMC 4298856. PMID 25620826. Zhang, Sarah. "The US: E-Cigs Very Bad! The UK: E-Cigs OK! All of Us: Huh?". Wired. Retrieved 15 November 2022. King, Ian (15 November 2019). "Sky Views: Vaping further proof that the US and Europe are worlds apart". Sky News. Retrieved 15 November 2022. Funk, Laura (1 November 2018). "Experiences of an American in London – Vaping and smoking culture". C3 Collaborating for Health. Retrieved 15 November 2022. MCGRADY, MICHAEL (27 November 2019). "How the British Approach to Vaping Puts the US to Shame". Filter. Retrieved 15 November 2022. Risk And Reason: Australia, England, And The US E-Cigarette Crisis Of 2019, Health Affairs (Project Hope), 22 April 2020, doi:10.1377/forefront.20200407.144029

---

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about the Cochrane study I linked? As I said, my position is that a recent Cochrane meta-analysis is the pinnacle of medically reliable sources, but I would wonder whether an American holds it in quite the same esteem that I do.—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I definitely hold Cochrane in extremely high esteem as a source, and that review is of very high quality, especially as a MEDRS. I generally hold Cochrane papers up as the best available systematic reviews. But I think WP:MEDASSESS tells us to hold clinical practice guidelines at the same or higher level. I think my position is that we should go mainly off of that Cochrane meta-analysis and fill in whatever we need from these various clinical practice guidelines to show any disagreements, diversities of opinion, etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh good, that's a relief.

I would deny that the UK authorities are more permissive towards tobacco. I think it's true that more Brits smoke than Americans, as a proportion of the adult population; but those Americans who do smoke, smoke more cigarettes per day. I think that's because we Brits have clearer and stronger restrictions on tobacco marketing and sale, and tobacco products are priced higher here. I think that Americans suffer more adverse health effects from smoking than Brits do. I think that in public health policy of addictive substances, there's excellent evidence in favour of the harm reduction strategy we follow here.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would deny that the UK authorities are more permissive towards tobacco
Oh I 100% agree. I think it's actually the opposite. More Brits smoke, and I would guess (only somewhat naively) that public health officers see these numbers and are more concerned with getting people off cigarettes so they don't trend more towards the US in deleterious outcomes and these same people, as a result, are more okay with any option that might get people to stop smoking. The other factor is, of course, that the UK has not had any cases of EVALI to date. And perhaps the third thing is that there haven't been renewed guidelines from PHE or RPC since 2015/2016 which have been as comprehensive and addressed these questions so directly. Whereas these other agencies have published more recent guidance that has been affected by EVALI (first case in late 2018 [52]) and other studies which supported some harms from vaping specific to additives and stabilizers common in US brand e-liquids.

There's also much more regulation in the UK market: [53]. You have an official register of all the ingredients of e-liquids, published by the MHRA, with maximum nicotine levels, etc. since 2015/2016 [54] A thing the US did not even come close to until 2019 [55] and still does not have for many products and ingredients, as these things work their way through our courts and some e-liquid suppliers and advocates vehemently deny that they are legally regulated [56]. There still is no maximum amount of nicotine in e-liquids in the US, and no banned substances [57], other than "non-menthol flavorings" and only then in "closed-system devices" [58] which is only ~51% of the market anyway [59]. It's really not fair to compare the two and decide "these UK agencies have it right" when much of the harm is delivered by these additives. To do so would be to make the article overly UK-centric.

While I agree there's evidence in favor of harm reduction, it would be absurd to state in the article that the harm reduction approach is the correct one, given how much disagreement we have among public health officials in different countries, including those outside the US such as the European Respiratory Society, and the NHMRC of Australia.

I don't want the article to be US-centric, either. I just don't think we should look at these harm reduction recommendations and think "this looks like the consensus" when we have lots of experts vehemently disagreeing, enough that they publish updated guidance that says "we were wrong if we ever said that was the right call" (e.g. American Cancer Society in 2019 [60]) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that the Vaping-associated pulmonary injury article fails to make clear that the disease is geographically specific to the US. (OK, there have been a couple of cases here.)

I also think it's justified to say in Electronic cigarette that the precautionary advice against vaping is quite localized. I know there are some counterexamples, but I do feel a duty to explain that a good proportion of the opposition to e-cigarettes originates from red-state America.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, the position of the WHO, European health agencies, New Zealand, and Australia (opposed to Harm Reduction without better quality evidence) makes this localized emphatic support from the UK, while everyone else is pretty tepid and waiting for more data.

I get how you might be concerned that the WHO is often very US-centric. But why would Australia, New Zealand, and the EU agree? These are not places that typically pride themselves on copying America. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, this has made progress. I think we've agreed that where other sources contradict Cochrane, we should follow Cochrane, unless there's a clinical practice guideline to take into account.

It's important that we've agreed this, because the second half of this article is largely authored by User:QuackGuru ("QG"), who is no longer allowed to edit this article because it's within the scope of one of his various topic bans. (I've managed to start revising the earlier parts of it since he got topic-banned, but it's slow going.) I would say that QG is an anti-e-cig hawk who doubts all science that doesn't come from America.

I would therefore hope to channel your expertise and zeal towards the second half of the article?—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to help bring it towards NPOV, but I must also say that real-world obligations mean I will be extremely slow at such a task :).

I think there are some ways in which it is too pro-e-cig and anti-e-cig at the same time, if that makes sense? Too many places where contradictory or dually outdated viewpoints are presented, and the correct move is to use one or several close to neutral sources to draw the controversy from a neutral viewpoint (which the Cochrane Collab is quite good at, but not perfect at). For example, there are clear biases against e-cigs in the Surgeon General's report (their MO, for sure) and pro-e-cig in the PHE report (likely a cultural thing, as described above). But we should be able to draw the most neutral statements from other sources to use instead of quoting contradicting sources all the time. Such as "more evidence is needed" "preliminary evidence suggests that X" etc. That is scientific language and caveat at its finest, and likely to be very prevalent in this article. Consensus via compromise. The only places where we should be presenting dueling viewpoints like this is where we are describing what the medical societies think. That's where this kind of dueling language belongs, probably not anywhere else. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zvi Zig you cannot use one agency's opinion to modify what another agency has said [61]: The evidence is sufficient for the RCP and PHE, who I would suggest are not less reliable than whichever US authority that is. Each health agency gets to say their peace, and we attribute those claims to that agency. We should never water down the attributed claims of one agency based on the claims of another, as this would violate WP:V. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that I've done so. Can you please be more clear? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You edited one agency's statement and referenced another agency's statement as justification. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Substances found in EC vapor that are not present in cigarette smoke

The article states that EC vapor contains "some harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke". However, the source [62] refers to "substances", not "harmful substances" not present in tobacco smoke.

Below is the full paragraph in the source (AJPH review):

Among potentially toxic substances common to both products, cigarette smoke generally contains substantially larger quantities than e-cigarette aerosol.^42–44 However, e-cigarette aerosol contains some substances not found in cigarette smoke.⁴⁵

The substances present in tobacco smoke are described as "potentially toxic", but those exclusive to e-cigarettes are not. Indeed, the reference[63] for the last sentence above relates to phenolic compounds detected at nanogram levels (ppb). It also states that its authors did not evaluate whether their presence will lead adverse consequences.

Phenolic compounds and flame retardants are certainly concerning at high levels, but it would be misleading to say that e-cigarettes contain "harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke" based on ppb levels not known to cause harm. As Paracelsus states

All things are poison, and nothing is a poison; The dosage alone makes a thing not a poison.

More generally, PHE writes of chemicals exclusive to e-cigarettes, "the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk"[64]. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• The qualifiers are important. Of the chemicals present in e-cigs and not in tobacco cigs, PHE doesn't think any of the main ones are associated with serious risk.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Which qualifier(s) are you referring to, PHE's use of the word "serious"?
  2. PHE's allowing for certain substances to be "associated with a non-serious risk" can reflect scientific caution in relation to long-term effects. This does not establish them as "harmful". Can you identify a single harmful substance absent in tobacco smoke that is present in e-cigarettes at a level that is known to cause harm?

  Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 19:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry. "Qualifiers" is an editors' term of art for adjectives and adverbs -- in this case adjectives. It means the words I put in italics.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I feel "harmful substances" is an absolutely fair summary of the content in question. I prefer the more stable version. Watering things like this down to make the substances in question seem safer is precisely not what we should be doing! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  So please provide a source showing that harmful substances absent from tobacco smoke are generally present in e-cigarette vapor (at levels known to cause harm). Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  we never say they're present at the levels required to harm. We say the substances themselves are harmful. The evidence is not really there yet either way as to whether or not those substances will cause harm to humans in the amount present in e-cigarette vapor, as we already go on to say further on in the paragraph. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think "potentially harmful" is too watered-down? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  No I think that's probably appropriate based on the sources. Would definitely agree with that phrasing. @S Marshall @Zvi Zigwould you be okay with "potentially harmful" ? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Potentially harmful" may be appropriate for chemicals present quantities estimated reasonably be harmful at their detected quantities.

  Otherwise, stating that "e-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxins at much lower quantities than cigarette smoke, but also contains some substances not found in cigarette smoke" sufficiently conveys that these substances are not established to be risk free. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree, I think that is an extremely vague sentence which tells me nothing about the substances not found in cigarette smoke. I want a reader to know that some of these substances are potentially harmful, or that they are possibly harmful. Because not enough data exist to exclude harm, and data does exist which suggest such substances could be harmful in e-cigarettes (e.g. EVALI, the ACS report, the Surgeon general's report, or a myriad of other studies showing that some substances carry potential harm) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  All products contain harmful chemicals, if we ignore quantity. It would be misleading to say that a product "contains harmful chemicals" when they are not known to be present at levels known (or likely) to cause harm.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes but not all products have evidence of possible harm (e.g. EVALI) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

My problem with "potentially harmful" in the lead is that it raises the reading age quite a lot. "Potentially" is one of those words that comes naturally to people like yourselves -- i.e. those in the upper reading attainment deciles. (I expect the median Wikipedian has at least a college degree.) It's an appropriate word to use in the body text, but I want to keep the lead super-accessible because it's so likely that high school children will turn to this article when deciding whether to take a puff. I think we're aiming at a Flesch reading ease score of 70+.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"possibly"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Potentially harmful substances" --> "Substances that could be harmful" is the highest-readability periphrasis that occurs to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note EVALI has nothing to do with nicotine vaping. It is clearly linked to vitamin E acetate in adulterated THC oil (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433). Vitamin E acetate has never been detected in nicotine e-liquid. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 07:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the CDC never ruled out (and continues to suspect the role of) substances in nicotine e-vapor. There were several cases in people who had never used THC products. It says as much in the EVALI article. What you're engaging in is called original research, which is not allowed in article space in wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. The CDC stopped actively monitoring EVALI after "identification of the primary cause of EVALI"[65]. The 2022 UK government review on e-cigarettes says, "it is now clear that EVALI was not caused by nicotine vaping"[66].
  2. The NEJM study cited above reports on both confirmed and probable EVALI cases. 100% of the confirmed EVALI subjects had vitamin E acetate in BAL fluids. Among probable EVALI cases, only 3 out of 26 were negative to vitamin E acetate. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 07:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• A few paragraphs down in the body text, we say: Over 80 harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde and metallic nanoparticles have been found in e-liquids. Do we still think that's accurate?—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like a secondary peer-reviewed source to my eyes, so yes I think that's still accurate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  OK. So we should replace "substances that could be harmful" with "harmful substances" again?

I'm a bit concerned with that and other QG-found sources, where he locates a good source, cherry-picks the most clearly anti-e-cig statement out of the abstract or first paragraph, puts that one statement into the article, and moves on. It's one of the behaviours that contributed to his tban.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @S Marshall because according to other reviews, these chemicals are present at levels far below permissible levels according to occupational safety limits.

The page singles out "formaldehyde and metallic nanoparticles" as harmful, while PHE 2018 argues that formaldehyde was detected "far below" a safety threshold, and that "the levels of metals identified in EC aerosol do not give rise to any significant safety concerns".[67] Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 06:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. So there certainly are harmful substances in e-cigarette aerosol which aren't found in tobacco smoke, but they're at trace levels that shouldn't amount to a health concern. I think both the lead and body text should say this.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it is misleading to blanketly refer to a trace substance as harmful, without reference to the quantity. Otherwise, all products contain toxic substances. If context about dose is added, that is reasonable.

Also note, formaldehyde and metals are also found in tobacco smoke (usually at greater quantities)[68]. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 17:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by StellaJiang333 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Gateway Theory section has major NPOV issues.

The NPOV problem with the “Gateway Theory” section is that it puts out statements that while technically true leave out important context that could lead the reader to wrongly conclude that vaping as ones first method of tobacco consumption leads to higher rates of smoking of traditional cigarettes which so far as I know has yet to be casually proven. First sections first sentence is problematic as the “gateway hypothesis” is controversial and not yet ben definitively proven in the way advocates of the concept claim so far as I know and while the first sentence implies this by using the word hypothesis, it might be better for some readers if we were clearer on this post. We should find some way to state that the scientific/medical community has not yet reach a conclusion on the validity of the gateway hypothesis in part or as a whole, without going to much into depth on the controversy here (readers can read the Gateway hypothesis article if they want more details on the debate. As for the second sentence, the statement “Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go onto also smoke traditional cigarettes.”, while indeed backed up by several reliable sources, is by itself potentially misleading. The problem here is that the statement leads to many questions which this section does not answer and thus certain readers not familiar with the controversial over the gateway hypothesis might draw firmer conclusions regarding causation regarding vaping leading to smoking of cigarette then the evidence supports. We sate state, at least roughly or within a range how many is “many” in this instance. Since we don’t known how many of these would have smoke traditional cigarettes anyways had e-cigarettes not been invented, we should be clear if the cited studies don't properly take that into account or can't for whatever reasons. As we don’t know if there are other factors that lead manny of the e-cigarette users in question in these cited studies to move to traditional cigarette smoking that would make the fact that they started out as vapors is purely coincidental, we should be clear on that. Now, i'll admit that I have not examined the all the cited studies depth so if they do indeed prove causation rather the simple correlation then we can mention that where applicable but I have not heard of such causal effect being proven with regard to the supposed gateway drug hypothesis of any "drug" (including tobacco/nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, cannabis, etc.) so I'll bet this is still merely at best hypothetical as are all previous gateway drug claims. What this all means if we need to rephrase and add to the statements first two statements in the section to clarify that some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates posit a gateway drug theory claim regarding vaping and later traditional tobacco smoking but that such claims are not yet proven in any causal way. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. I think I agree with a lot of what you write here, but I am unable to delve too deeply because it is formatted poorly. Please summarize succinctly the specific changes you are interested in making, and how other users can or cannot help you make them... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with a lot of what Notcharliechaplin writes. Our friend QuackGuru, who wrote most of this article, was very concerned about electronic cigarette users becoming addicted to nicotine and starting to smoke tobacco, and he wrote an awful lot about it. I definitely feel there's scope to reduce the prominence of this section. It needs to be shorter, clearer and more neutral than is currently the case.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Galagora (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of unsupported content

I'm going to remove the content that was added by WikiEd student Cbyler22 in the following two edits: [69] [70], because I believe it misrepresents the cited sources.

Firstly, the Pisinger source (which, incidentally, is not peer-reviewed) exclusively focuses on the health effects of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and therefore doesn't support our article's claims about the health effects of e-cigarettes in general. So for example, our article says [the study found] a positive correlation between the usage of e-cigarettes and medical conditions such as myocardial infarctions, coronary artery disease and strokes, where the source only says DUs [dual-users] had higher odds of myocardial infarction and stroke than CCU [conventional cigarette users] and warns that there may be many factors contributing to the correlation. Additionally, the statement in the article about chemicals used in electronic cigarettes that are ... known to be toxic to humans is not supported by anything in the source; I can only assume it to be based on a misreading of the section about toxins found in the bodily fluids of smokers.

The second source, Balfour et al., is cited in support of some very firm statements on the health risks of vaping, which are at odds with the cautious approach taken by the source. For example, our article says the vapors in e-cigarettes can cause damage to the neurons in developing brains, but the source is careful not to draw any definite conclusions on this point: Animal model studies have found that nicotine can affect maturation of brain parts associated with executive function and decision-making ... [However], the validity of extrapolation to humans is speculative. Whether impaired brain development with behavioral consequences occurs in young nicotine consumers is difficult to determine... etc.

I think my removal of this content will be non-controversial, but feel free to revert and discuss here if need be. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I would support these reversions, and agree the statements are not truly supported by the referenced text. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Health effects of electronic cigarettes into Electronic cigarette#Health effects

poor quality of child article and wide overlap with parent article fgnievinski (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• I would prefer that we just delete the child article. I don't see a whole lot of valuable content for a merge.—S Marshall T/C 07:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• I would prefer that we keep this article. There is a tremendous amount of coverage of the health effects of electronic cigarettes that could be aptly covered in this article. For that reason, I oppose a merger. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

UK regulation

The article implies that vapes are only available on prescription in the UK, and none have been approved. This isn't the case as vaping is all over the high street. This needs work. Secretlondon (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

I would like this to be added to the section about the marketing of electronic cigarettes this is a great survey. While electronic cigarettes have been marketed as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, surveys have shown that 90% of nicotine users state that they started abusing nicotine before the age of 18(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Highlighting the risk that e-cigarettes and their relationship to marketing can pose to young people. As nicotine use during adolescence can lead to long-term addiction, making it difficult to quit throughout adulthood. Mental health issues and other risky behaviors are often linked to nicotine use in adolescents, underscoring the need for comprehensive support and intervention for vulnerable youth. With 70% of teens reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising such as posters of Juul and other disposable vape companies in gas stations(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Concerns have been raised about the impact of marketing on youth and the glorification of the use of these products, emphasizing the need for tighter regulation and control over the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes to protect public health. https://www.ahajournals.org/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1161%2FCIR.0000000000000669 Kloran74 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please rewrite in accordance with the WP:MOS, paying particular attention to the standards for grammar and syntax. Many of the sentences you have written are grammatically incorrect or confusing. Remember that easier to read = better! :) Running your text through a proofreading program might also help if you're struggling with that. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

efficacy for smoking cessation in observational studies

The page cites meta-analyses finding no evidence for EC aiding smoking cessation in observational studies, Hedman et al. explicitly stating the quality of included studies are "consistently low".

However, Vilanti et al have refrained from a meta-analyses for studies diverse in their quality. Instead, they graded studies based on their quality, and found that "Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction."

How do we determine the impact of e‐cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation or reduction? Review and recommendations for answering the research question with scientific rigor - Villanti - 2018 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

How do we reflect these findings in the page? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think that we're turning the lead into a fudgy mess again and I'm not thrilled about it. The whole fourth paragraph is terrible, and in particular, For people trying to quit smoking without medical help, e-cigarettes have not been found to raise quit rates,[24] but the quality of evidence on this was graded "consistently low"[25] is a ghastly sentence. We need to keep this article accessible for teenagers, including teenagers of lower reading attainment. That's a key purpose of writing an encyclopaedia.

If you can write "quitting smoking", don't write "discontinuing tobacco smoking".

If you're able to cite a randomised controlled trial, you don't have to begin your sentence with "In randomised controlled trials". The lead should be intelligible to people who don't have a scientific background and won't be able to make sense of that. The readers who do have that background will be checking the citations anyway.

If there's high quality evidence that vaping helps smokers quit even when they aren't getting medical advice, then that's brilliant and lets us simplify the article a great deal. We should cite the study that says so.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Good points - agreed.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

update to "Heath effects" section: secondhand vape is more dangerous than secondhand smoke

the American Heart Association put out an article talking about the negative health effects of secondhand vaping https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/05/31/in-secondhand-vape-scientists-smell-risk

the article says that secondhand vape is even more dangerous than secondhand smoke on account of the heavy metals in e-cig aerosol particles.

vapes should also not be described as a "safe alternative" to cigarettes because they actually contain more nicotine than traditional cigarettes

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416371/juul-delivers-substantially-more-nicotine-previous-generation-e-cigs-and

Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

These are primary source studies, the 2nd one specifically about JUUL. We should not use either until WP:MEDRS sources appear. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Determinist statement

In the second paragraph of the "Young adult and teen use" section it states that young people who do not smoke vape… this comes across as a generalisation of All young people. It simply is not true and maybe should be amended JcwDenno (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed it now reads "Many young people who would not smoke are vaping" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Change "am" to "an" in the first paragraph 203.221.193.234 (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Merge the second and third sentences of the second paragraph using “although” 78.175.54.104 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• We're trying to write those first four paragraphs in very short, clear sentences because we want to make sure the lead is easy for teens to understand. This article's audience includes young people in lower attainment quartiles who are considering taking a puff.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)