Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Perfect Example of Bloat

I copied this from the Electronic cigarette talk page section of the same name as the section being discussed became part of this new page. AlbinoFerret 02:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Environmental impact section, Relates to one source saying there is a gap in our knowledge. This doesn't need to be in the article, it's practically crystal ball. As yet we don't know the effects of e-cigarettes on the environment we also don't know their impact on souffles and space dust. A source saying "We don't know anything" doesn't mean the article needs a new section. Someone with a different position from me on e-cigs should turn up with some shears and trim this into a reasonable article. If I did it I'm sure some MED folks would claim bias towards e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is way to much speculation and we dont need embellishments and small sections on speculative information. The article is already swimming in speculative information with the same speculation being repeated. How many times do you need to repeat something in different locations? Environmental impact sounds like its talking about hazardous waste. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There was another claim from that same literary review, it was placed in Toxicology when it was clear from the source that it was talking about environmental impact of how its made. Its really not a health effect topic. I wasnt sure where to put it, so I put it in that environmental area until its discussed. This appears to be a fringe area, with very little weight.AlbinoFerret 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that at some point it will be an area with enough information to deserve a section. E-cigs involve the manufacture of additional lithium batteries, disposable wicks and coils, production of the juice etc. However there's really been very little study of it so far. SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

More than likely there will be down the road. This literary review didnt come to any conclusions other than the more study is needed. Someone might do it down the road, but it could be years. Its just way to premature, speculative, and has little weight at this point. AlbinoFerret 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Today, QuackGuru, thinking that it was only a problem because of only a few sentence filled up the section with claims from that one study and made it viable. The problem isnt that it only has a few sentences, the problem is weight WP:WEIGHT and pure speculation WP:CBALL with no other studies talking about it. The reason other speculation is allowed is because there is more than one review on the topic, so it has weight of some degree.

• The current version of the environmental impact section cites this source:

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

The source is presumed to be useful because it was published by experts in the field. I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bluerasberry. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PS Says it's wrong to base an entire article on primary sources. An awful lot of this article is direct from primary sources. We have no idea of the impact of this paper, or if the comment that the current status of environmental effects is largely unknown will amount to anything. This article needs to focus more on meta-analyses and collective reviews and get away from posting every statement from every interest group and every piece of speculation in every published paper is my point. One scientific paper speculating that there may be an environmental impact especially when couching that speculation in the distinct lack of evidence in either direction is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article, let alone a section. SPACKlick (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

One journal article is a tiny minority, it shouldnt be included at all. Perhaps a one line that says something like "A review by Cheng raised concerns about environmental impact from e-cigaretts" But a but a whole section places it in a position of prominence and gives way to much coverage for a single article on the subject. Find 4 or 5 and maybe it can be expanded. This isnt silencing a reliable source, this is giving it the appropriate weight when compared to all the other points of view with larger number of reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT specifically addresses this.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.

There isnt even a opposite viewpoint to make a controversy that needs to be addressed. Adding all that from one source is just premature. We have had this same discussion on McNeil, it didnt have the weight, neither does this one. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Stating "A review by Cheng" is a clear violation. A WP:MEDRS compliant review should be given its WP:DUE weight. This is not a paper or a primary source. It is a recent review from experts which makes it the mainstream view. This is about quality. There are a number of WP:SECONDARY sources covering this subject but we are reaching a higher standard by using a review. I can expand the section by also using the minority view of secondary sources if editors wish. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be against WP:MEDRS. We should not lower the standards just to put in material that isnt just speculation, but highly speculative. If you want to use WP:DUE instead of WP:WEIGHT fine, they both lead to the same section of the page. Its due weight is little to none as shown in WP:DUE. The reason the provided sentence used the name of the review is its the only review to have this info, its a lone wolf. Its not a WP:ASSERT violation because the whole thing is just opinion, which you are adding as facts, thats a WP:OR problem. AlbinoFerret

Must have missed the "one" fact in the whole paragraph "Some brands have also began recycling services for their e-cigarette batteries". All the rest is "limited" "may" "unclear" and "unknown", those are opinions. AlbinoFerret 06:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TRIV I have hidden the section, its a list of things from one source, and almost all opinion, if you want to move the fact, enjoy. AlbinoFerret 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TRIV does not apply. I continue to agree with Bluerasberry: I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ASSERT still applies in this case even if you remove it from my comment. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That was inadvertent, I copied it, I must have cut on accident. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this also inadvertent? If it was an edit conflict it would not of happened.

Was this also inadvertent? You removed part of my comment. WP:TRIV is irrelevant to this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought questions on this to the WP:NPOVN. Here is a link AlbinoFerret 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting statements from the same review

There are two claims right other by each other from the same review.

Metal particles in the fluid and aerosol were found from an e-cigarette study, however the study did not evaluate the relevance of the levels identified.[12] A 2014 review found that theses levels was 10-50 times less that that allowed in medicines that are inhaled.[12]

Hajek does identify the relevance of the amount of metals, on page 3 saying they are 10-50 times less than allowed in inhaled medicines. I also question the wording of the first claim, on page 3 of Hajek it says the study it was looking at in the review did not evaluate the metals, as it is written it looks like the review did not. AlbinoFerret 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move aerosol-vs-vapor clarification from 'Ultrafine particles' to 'Mist' section

Most of the first paragraph under 'Ultrafine particles' explains the difference between an aerosol and a vapor, which is a bit out-of-place in a section for discussion of [ultrafine] particles. I think it would be better fitting under the 'Mist' section, though I'm unsure exactly where to place it in order to avoid interrupting the flow of the paragraph. 139.216.67.84 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Electronic cigarette talk page, the page that this page was taken out of, for reasons why mist/vapor/aerosol are a problem right now.AlbinoFerret 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

139.216.67.84, you are right. I will think of a better placement for the section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issue

QuackGuru inserted a claim in the article

"Many of the observed negative effects from e-cigarette use concerning the nervous system and the sensory system are probably related to nicotine overdose or withdrawal."

It is an almost exact copy of the journal article.

"Many of the noted ‘negative’symptoms involved the neurological and sensory systems,likely due to nicotine overdose or withdrawal."

This needs to be paraphrased as the one is easily seen in the other. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not a copyright issue as it is not a close copy of the original. It is at worst plagiarism, but I think it is paraphrased enough to even avoid that charge, see WP:LIMITED, especially when dealing with a single short sentence. Feel free, if you feel it necessary to paraphrase further, though. Yobol (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a derivative work as written, that is a copyright issue. I would prefer the person who added it paraphrase, but if not done soon I will do it. AlbinoFerret 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You pasted the entire sentence from the source without the text being in quotes or in-text attribution. That is a copyright violation on the talk page. The text in the body is in accordance with WP:LIMITED.[1] Any rephrasing must not be original research. I can't think of another way to rewrite it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I added quotation marks to the line above. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You only added the quotation marks without proper attribution using a link to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Its in quotation marks. The quotation marks were enough, and since you gave a link, its taken care of. But its still a derivative work on the page, why dont you fix it since you added it? AlbinoFerret 03:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Overly detailed and difficult to read lede

The lede is supposed to be the easiest to read section of the page. Its supposed to be a concise. WP:LEAD. The lede reads like a medical journal article. We need to make it less complex and as easy to read as possible. Right now it is 3 mammoth paragraphs. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lede should be 3 or four paragraphs. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not addressing the issue I pointed out. The lede is three times the lede in the E-cigarette, it reads like a journal article. Per WP:lead its supposed to be the easiest section of the article. Its supposed to be a easy to read summery of the page, its not. AlbinoFerret 04:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Article (minus lede) is 2,800 words. The lede is 550. We should be able to summarise the article in well under a fifth of the words. I may have a go this evening if I get time. SPACKlick (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How much is enough.

I was just wondering how many studies will there need to be before we can stop saying that there is not enough studies on ecig to know anything about them. The source supporting the claim in the opening of the article is more than a year old and since then more research have been made available.... I'm not saying that I know for a fact that we have enough study to stop saying that but I was nonetheless wondering.TheNorlo (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

most likely it will stay that way regardless of the number of studies until the FDA itself makes a definitive statement.71.1.243.176 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Was the RFC Recommendations Ignored? "Vapor" is WRONG

There was a lengthy RFC on this and yet someone has altered the text once again to the incorrect claim that these devices disperse a vapor. The correct term is aerosol which I had thought was the winning commentary on the last RFC go-around.

Someone with a dog in the race continues to want to use the technically and scientifically incorrect term, almost certainly because he or she is vested in the industry which sells or markets these devices.

Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and the proper utilization of terms is important (or not) to various degrees. If you don't know (or don't care) what a vapor is as opposed to an aerosol, you should be asking other editors before you alter words, or you should comply with the findings of the RFCs which editors open, discuss, and assume to have been resolved.

This seemingly-endless alteration cycle is not important in the context of the extant article since it's likely anyone doing research understands the difference, yet anyone who reads the article and is not an editor is going to note the fact that the term being applied -- vapor -- is wrong. That looks bad for Wikipedia which the editors insisting on making the mistake should consider stop doing. Damotclese (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF and try not to attribute shady motives to those who disagree with you. I am not aligned with the industry at all but believe Vapor is the most common term and most easily understood by general readers, we are not writing for scientists, researchers, or health professionals. The RFC is not closed, hopefully will be soon as a request for closing has been made. Until then, please wait as we all are. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Damotclese is correct. Electronic cigarettes do not emit vapor according to the sources presented. AlbinoFerret wrote "Until then, please wait as we all are." But SPACKlick wasn't waiting. Since SPACKlick did not wait for the RFC to finish the edits should be reverted. There were a series of edits. Some of the edits changed the wording while the RF is still open. This happened at the Electronic cigarette page too. Sidenote: I tagged a word that I think is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording

"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas".[2] It is more accurate to state it is inaccurately called vapor according to the source.

The source says "...regulation of the e-cigarette should be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." I could not verify word "potential". The source used the word "reported".[3][4] I removed the misleading text.

Spotted original research. Please read "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes..." The sources says "particles".[5][6] I removed the misleading text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Point 1) I agree
• Point 2) The source says "However, regulation of the e-cigarette should be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." This is the opinion of the authors on how they think e-cigarette regulation should work and therefore needs to be attributed due to WP:YESPOV. Furthermore it is not a particularly useful sentence from the source - "on the basis of reported adverse health effects" - reported by whom? Directly by the user, or reported by the medical community? The source is not clear on this and we are left in the dark. The wording currently does not particularly represent the source accurately either. I suggest that this sentence is removed, in the mean time it has been improved and attributed.

• Point 3) It doesn't say just "particles" the source says "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke."Levelledout (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Point 2) The review does give examples of the "reported" potential effects to health. Therefore, it is useful to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• The problems with the section are clear, and I agree with you Levelledout. This is starting to look like a word search without looking at what the source says. AlbinoFerret 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not responded to my previous comment that the review does give specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who reported the examples? AlbinoFerret 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have placed the line in the article without consensus.diff AlbinoFerret 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided an objection to including relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not relevant to a medical page. It is a Legal section. This is not the main page. AlbinoFerret 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As obvious by this section you had No consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

According to your own edit summary, it is health related claims. QuackGuru (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I took out the health claims, leaving the legal claims on the legal page.AlbinoFerret 11:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You left out high-quality sources that you have not shown was duplication from the legal status article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

They do not fit this article, no matter how high-quality they are. Stick to the topic of each subarticle, and summarize at the top-level article. --Kim D. Petersen 06:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane review

A Cochrane review about the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes has been published. This needs to be featured prominently in the article. Among the conclusions: "ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs" and "None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use". Mihaister (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a review we need in the article. AlbinoFerret 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding of Legal status material to a medical page

This edit added material that should be on the Legal status page.diff This is a medical page and should not be trying to emulate the main Electronic cigarette article. This is bloat. Shall I add a summery of Components, and Culture and society? AlbinoFerret 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is not the main article and does not need a "Legal status section" Since no one has chosen to respond with a policy or guideline why it should be here, its time to remove it unless an on point WP policy or guideline shows why an off topic section should remain. AlbinoFerret 22:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Current text to begin section: "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments.[17] A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be determined on the basis of the "reported" adverse health effects.[28]"

The section is relevant because "e-cigarette regulation should be determined on the basis of the "reported" adverse health effects.[28]" This is safety information. The regulations are about safety and are also related to safety too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the text is not relevant to that article then it must be relevant for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed Medical claims that have nothing to do with regulation. Much like here, you are adding off topic information to pages. Find the correct page to place it on. AlbinoFerret 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The "reported" adverse health effects has to do with the regulation debate too. QuackGuru (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That little claim about regulation is on the legal page, it should not be here. AlbinoFerret 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

According to your own edit summary the text are specific adverse effects. According to you they belong in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to place the information that is specific to a pages topic on it, not on others. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The section was left in order for you to move any information that needed to be moved to the prospective pages. It has now been removed as it was off topic and pages dealing with those topics already exist. This is not the main page, nor should it become it. The only summery sections that should go on this page are if specific sections of this page are moved to one of their own. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, you claimed it was off topic here but when I added some text to another page you deleted it.[7][8] QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the main page, Legal status and Positions of medical organizations are sub pages of the main Electronic cigarette page not this one. This material is on Electronic cigarette and the sub pages already mentioned. AlbinoFerret 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This section is short and concise and expresses concerns that are fully reasonable for this page. I stand in favor of keeping it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Im not in favour of recreating the main page. Im not in favour of duplicating things all over. There is no consensus for this, if you think there is, start a RFC. If you push a RFC to open the door for this you open the door for a Components section. Lets be plainly clear. This is a summery section for pages that are not daughter pages of this page. It is not a new section, it cant grow into a new page, because these pages already exist. Adding it here is an opportunity for POV pushing. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is utterly relevant for the topic. The legal status ties into what safety concerns there are. I see more pointing towards a consensus to keep the addition, but if you wish you may start an RFC about its removal. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isnt, Legal status and Positions are not the daughter pages of this page, but of Electronic cigarette. There is no consensus for the section, there never has been since its creation. It is useless duplication. AlbinoFerret 06:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy." Moreover, the review found that some case reports found harms to health brought about by e-cigarettes in many countries, such as the US and in Europe. is "pure health related claims from a page on regulation." What page is on topic then?

According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans. is "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature". If the text is about adverse effects then why was text deleted from this page as off topic?

AlbinoFerret has a pattern of deleting sourced text related to safety. Now he claims all text including the text about adverse effects is off topic. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those sections were not broken out from this page, the information exists on those pages. A RFC has been started to see where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted similar text from another page.[9][10] because you said it was off topic. So what page is on topic? This page under adverse effects is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are taking edits out of context. The first edit is removing medical information from the Legal page. It shouldnt be there. The second edit happened long before when you were adding medical sections to the main page when there was an ongoing RFC on the matter. The content was replaced a few edits later, by me, and the headers removed. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

This whole article needs to be completely rewritten. Right now it's just a mess of contradictory statements: "A review said e-cigs are bad. A review said e-cigs are good. A review said we don't know if e-cigs are good or bad. A review said e-cigs might be good or bad." It looks awful and it's just going to confuse readers. I propose that we rearrange the bulk of it as two properly cited sections, one giving the evidence so far and the other containing all the "we don't knows", instead of adding one sentence for each and every review.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the Etter commentary. Its not listed as a Review, but commentary. As such its not suitable as a MEDRS source. link to its abstract listing it as commentary. AlbinoFerret 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious wording

There's a lot of information in this article that, while sourced, makes no sense. For example:

"It is unclear in the manner that energy and materials used for production equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use."

What does that even mean? The "Environmental impact" section is particularly badly affected, to the extent that it's basically unreadable. It looks as if someone took every negative-sounding statement they could and pasted it in there without evaluating what, if anything, it meant.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole Environmental impact section is opinion except the battery exchange. Its all tied to one review that made no conclusions but called for more study. Its weight uis very low and the section shouldn’t be in the article at all. Read the section A perfect example of bloat. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example:

"It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to using one e-cigarette for the average user."

Huh? That doesn't appear to have any real-world meaning at all. It seems to be based on the belief that an electronic cigarette is a consumable item like an actual cigarette, which with the exception of disposables is not true. It certainly doesn't seem to have any relevance at all to environmental impact. This statement needs to be either made coherent or removed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is an example of a common Original Research that brings information on cigalikes and spreads it across all generations, when the source is clearly about cigalikes. AlbinoFerret 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's weird. I'm currently using a Nemesis and Taifun GT. How can that be defined in "traditional cigarette" equivalence? The nicotine content of the tank? Depends what liquid I'm using and how completely I fill it. Weight? Volume? Cost? It's just silly.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So unless someone can offer a compelling reason to keep it I'm going to remove it. NB: "It's sourced" is not a compelling reason. I would like to know what it means and what it adds to the article that would be lacking if it weren't there.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think looking at the source and seeing if they describe whats tested may be more productive. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just added to the claims that no studies have been done of looked at to come to the conclusions as spelled out in the so called review. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned the section up, removed some duplication (it said three times that no studies had been conducted into the manufacturing impact) and turned it into something that resembles coherent English. I think you're right though; it's just a list of things we don't know and doesn't belong in a Safety article at all. I say we delete it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did some calculations. I've had my Nemesis for just over a year. I'm calling it 380 days. That means, so far, using it has been comparable to smoking 16,374 cigarettes. As it's still in perfect condition I expect it to be in daily use for at least another couple of years, although the Chang review claims e-cigs only last a few weeks. I'm more baffled than ever as to what that sentence actually means and what, if anything, it's supposed to add to the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up the "Ultrafine particles" section too. It turns out that one of the cited sources actually contains quite a lot of information on ultrafine particles, which mysteriously had not been included in the section. Now it has been.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Further rewriting.

I'm about to start tackling the Toxicology section, with the aim of streamlining it; I intend to use simple, clear statements with multiple cites instead of the current repetitive/confusing mess. However I'm frightened of what lies ahead, because right now the section is huge and dauntingly crap. If anyone wants to join me on this linguistic adventure please, feel free.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "Aerosol" section

I have no idea what this section is for. Everything in it could be quite easily fitted in to one of the other sections, and in fact a lot of it's there already. Any objections to moving the information to Toxicology and Adverse effects, then zapping the section?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It should really be second hand aerosol, whats in Tox is mainly first hand. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the same toxicants in either case. Exhaled vapour just has even less of them than inhaled does. Anyway I'll leave the section for now and just concentrate on sorting it out. If it disappears, as the Environmental section is so close to doing, then it obviously was never meant to be.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be seperation between first and second hand exposure. Otherwise the claims get mixed up and it becomes original research. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. Yes, that's much better. Thanks!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Choosing what to include

A good article is not written by stuffing in every catchy quote we can find from as many sources as possible. We should be working out what the consensus of reliable sources is and writing that in a clear, readable form then citing appropriately. That way we get content that will tell people something, instead of a list of ten sentences that all say basically the same thing but are cited to different sources. Write it ONCE and add ten cites. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but you know who I mean.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this be named "Dangers of electronic cigarettes"? (/* me ducks! */ :)

OK, really... Probably both the current name "Safety of ..." as would "Dangers of ..." (or "Risks of ...") are titles with a inherent tendency for one Point of View, wouldn't a title as "Health effects of electronic cigarettes", similar to the existent "Health effects of tobacco", be a more neutral option? And then redirect from the other - Nabla (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This page was at one time a subsection of the Health Effects section of Electronic cigarette. A stub now is in its place and a link to this page is at the top of the section. As a daughter page of the Electronic cigarette article it follows the name it had while on that page. Health Effects will likely sometime in the future have the same thing happen, we dont need two pages with the same name. Dangers would imply that there are proven dangers, at present most if not all of the health information is concerns, speculation, and calling for more study. So Dangers would be premature, perhaps when l;ong term medical studies are done this will change. I hope this helps. AlbinoFerret 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote" Health Effects will likely sometime in the future have the same thing happen..." There is no need to wait. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you agree Quack, lets move Health effects off of Electronic cigarette and to its own page today. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Health effects include 1) the medical uses such as harm reduction and smoking cessation 2) the adverse effects / side effects / safety. We should keep it matched with the heading of that name in the e-cig article. Thus moved back until more discussion occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with original research in the lede

The previous wording was sourced and accurate. Now it was replaced with original research and ambiguous text. The part "sometimes" is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not orignal research, mist is not used everwhere in that way, what you have created is OR by suggesting that it is. AlbinoFerret 12:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It is OR when the source does not verify the claim. I am trying to find a source to clarify this matter. I would like to find a source that does say it is used less often but we can't include OR. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Mist in the lede

User:SPACKlick is okay with "mist" in the lede for the main article.[11] I will go ahead and add it to the lede for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because one editor agrees with it on one page is not consensus to add it to every daughter page of Electronic cigarettes. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It is more than one editor who agrees it can be included. Adding a synonym benefits the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What is Cheng reviewing?

Copied from Cheng, from Results:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production, along with associated research needs, are described below."

What exactly did Cheng review and if he didnt review any studies on these topics are not the conclusions drawn on these topics primary research and pure opinion? AlbinoFerret 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a source to verify the claim otherwise it maybe a copyright violation on the talk page. When there is no serious dispute we WP:ASSERT the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The source as you well know is the Cheng article " "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" from Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2). AlbinoFerret 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious WP:ASSERT problem at the very least because "review" does not sufficiently identify these statements as strictly the opinion of Cheng. I also question it as a secondary MEDRS source as at least some of the comments in the article are purely the opinions of Chang and not a review of previous studies. Though that will have to be looked at in greater detail. Perhaps the battery recycling program is not. AlbinoFerret 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the serious dispute. There is no need to add a qualifier. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It can't be a review if the above is the case, and joins the McKee source below, as "reviews" that aren't. --Kim D. Petersen 03:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A review is a review. You haven't shown otherwise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What does it review QG? If there are no studies on it, then it can't be a review, since reviews summarize other studies. --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Methods Literature searches were conducted through December 2013. Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes."[12] The source is a review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it is a review (per PubMed). But all you can use the source for is to show gaps - not conclusions or speculation, since it specifically is a review of what hasn't been examined yet. --Kim D. Petersen 03:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

Officially is not a synonym of Formally. diff it is Original Research to add it. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

McKee is an editorial

The McKee article is an Editorial, clearly listed as such in the article itself at the top. link As an Editorial it is not a WP:MEDRS secondary source and is unusable to make medical claims. I have removed it. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The source said "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." Read under Footnotes: The source said is a "Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly did your comment here have to do with McKee's article being an editorial and clearly marked as such? We only accept WP:MEDRS reviews for medical info. --Kim D. Petersen 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the source it is "internally peer reviewed."[14] That means it is also a review. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That is a strange assertion - and one that directly contradicts everything you've said earlier with regards to the McNeill paper[15]. Here is an example - let me quote you[16]:

There is no evidence it is MEDRS compliant. Lots of sources are peer-reviewed in a respected journal and pubmed indexed. You have not made a good case. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen 02:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When know the source is "peer-reviewed" you have not made a case it is not MEDRS. The source is also a reliable SECONDARY source for other claims. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When an article is published as an editorial[17], and classified as an editorial by PubMed[18] then it is editorial. Where is your evidence that it is a review? Or WP:MEDRS compliant? --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I already made the case and you did not specifically disagree with my specific comments. For example, the source said in the footnotes it is internally peer reviewed. You did not disagree with that specific statement. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made no such thing. Peer-review does not WP:MEDRS or a review make - per your own words even. --Kim D. Petersen 03:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this. Read this again: "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." The source reviewed the current evidence. A review of the evidence is a reliable source. The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. Learn to read, would you? That is not a secondary source. It's not even a primary source. It's an editorial. An opinion piece. You cannot use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.137 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, your explanation is faulty. McKee is a Editorial, if it comes in so does McNeil which is a better quality source. Even if an editorial says its looking at something, it is not a review, its a pure opinion piece. It has been removed again and will be continued to be removed because it is not a WP:MEDRS source and this is a medical page. There are now three editors against it, even if it were a good source, there is no consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This might work. McNeil and McKee. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, get everyone to agree that they both come in and it will work. I would love to see a McNeil claim after almost all the Grana claims discounting them by the authors who's work was misapplied. Start an RFC and see if you have consensus to bring it all in. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Such a compromise would be contrary to WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. McKee is an opinion piece, which may be interesting if contrasted with other opinion - or if at the very least presented/contrasted in/to the light of the general weight in the literature. McNeill is a whole different kind of animal, which consensus has ruled out (wrongly imho - but that is what we have to work with). --Kim D. Petersen 04:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was foolish of me to say if one comes in the other comes in. Because neither has consensus. AlbinoFerret 12:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-medical claims

The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." So far it has not been explained how reviewing the evidence is not a good source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion articles are only reliable for the opinion of the author. That is basic WP:RS policy. --Kim D. Petersen 02:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As opinions, they only come in with consensus, which you do not have. AlbinoFerret 03:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that Martin McKee's opinions carry so much weight that you can use it to this extent? --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification

The line in the article "it is unknown if the increased exposure to toxicants and particles in exhaled aerosol will lead to an increased risk of disease and death among bystanders" was not found in the WHO. "Electronic nicotine delivery systems" pdf. Please provide proof of the claim. AlbinoFerret 01:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The quoted line is not in the source. AlbinoFerret 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The text passed verification. Please read page 5.[19] The text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

verified at 16 (b) page 5. Cloudjpk (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the location, but you restored text in the article that had another problem discussed in the section above. AlbinoFerret

Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC

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.

---

Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article? There is a discussion here on the subject.AlbinoFerret 06:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• NO This page should focus in on its own topic and not duplicate material from the Electronic cigarette article or pages that were broken out from the Electronic cigarette article. The only summery sections it should contain are for sections broken out from it. It should not be a source of duplication. The section never had consensus to be here in the first place. AlbinoFerret 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No it shouldn't That's what the main e-cig article is for.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No There shouldn't be duplication of sections however some information will be relevant on multiple daughter pages. SPACKlick (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Just to be clear on your comment. When you say some information may be relevant on multiple pages are you saying that some claims may be usable in different sections on different pages? AlbinoFerret 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text is relevant for this article and when it was added to another page it was deleted. User:CFCF is also in favor of keeping the concise section. This makes no sense to delete the relevant text from this page. So what is actual the reason for wanting to delete it? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this article. This article is about safety. There is another article for legal status. Legal information belongs there. It does not belong here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you have. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the discussion of you adding sections that were never part of this page. Fergus did not add the sections, you did. AlbinoFerret 20:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• No This is a daughter article - if we did this, then there would be a very real problem of this article turning into a WP:POVFORK. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• MAYBE question is too vague to answer. i don't understand the background of this but i can only imagine it is ugly. This is an important issue and way too often neglected in WP, leading to too many articles with contradictory or conflicting information. Here is how it is supposed to work. An article is created (say Electronic cigarettes) and it grows and grows to the point where a WP:SPLIT is useful. The split is done, and the split-off article gets a new lead paragraph that, per WP:LEAD, summarizes it. Per WP:SUMMARY, a summary of the split-off article should appear in the parent article, with a link to the MAIN article right under the section header. In my view, that summary in the parent article, should be identical with the lead of the split-off article. SUMMARY and LEAD work perfectly together. Now, it is not uncommon for a single parent article to result in several split articles, and quite often those split-off articles need to cover the same ground (each article needs to be able to stand on its own). In those cases, following SUMMARY, it is often useful to use the lead of the split-off articles in each other as well as in the parent article. The way that updates should work, is that new content is added to the body of the relevant split-off article. If it is important enough to rise to the lead of that article, the lead is updated, and the summary sections in other articles are updated too. That is the best way to handle this. It is kind of a subtle thing but it is very important to avoid the problems folks above are concerned about. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a comment, it appears you were canvassed link by QuackGuru AlbinoFerret 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now User:AlbinoFerret falsely accused me of canvassing User:Jytdog to this RFC. AlbinoFerret, please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a false accusing, you pinged an uninvolved editor in your comment, then went and started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page, they then came and posted here. That is canvassing, pulling in uninvolved editors to comment. Especially those who you believe will share the same point of view. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please strike your comment. For example, you falsely accused me of "started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page" without supporting evidence. You may want to scratch this RFC too. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Ambiguous RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a link to the section already on the page. But in case you missed it, link. 7 hours later he posted here. He has never edited this page or made a comment here before. The other evidence is out in the open, in your comment on the RFC, you pinged an another uninvolved editor, CFCF. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

7 hours later User:Jytdog did not post here. User:CFCF wrote "It is utterly relevant for the topic. The legal status ties into what safety concerns there are. I see more pointing towards a consensus to keep the addition, but if you wish you may start an RFC about its removal."[20] User:CFCF is clearly involved. User:AlbinoFerret, please try to focus a bit more on formulating a RFC that is specific rather than ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully back QuackGuru here, and don't understand what the RfC actually means to address. If it is about arbitrarily removing sections on the grounds there are other articles covering certain element related to the security then I strongly oppose it regardless of how you word the argument. The fact is that regulation is relevant to this article when the regulation is due to concerns involving the safety.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with CFCF Cloudjpk (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actively abstain. I have received four Requests for Comment for Talk:Electronic cigarette, and now this. I suspect that someone is trying to game the system. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 User:FergusM1970 deleted the section from this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737551&oldid=638557066 User:FergusM1970 moved the paragraph to another article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 But then User:FergusM1970 acknowledged "This has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims."

Both of these editors claim the text does not belong in this article but are deleting text from another article they don't want in this or any article. It appears they don't want most of the text in any article. A lot more text was deleted. One of the edit summaries was revealing. I don't think that's meaningful in any way. I'm sure a lot more text will continue to be deleted if past behavior is represented of future behavior. For example, User:FergusM1970 wants to "zap" the "Aerosol" section? User:Softlavender explained "It's not hard to see there's a pattern here" in regard to User:FergusM1970's recent behavior at the electronic cigarette page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Quack, I want to zap it. Its content belongs under various other sections, mostly Toxicology. Regarding the edit comment you highlighted, no, the sentence I removed was not meaningful. It didn't mean anything. It was just a more or less random collection of words, galloping merrily across the page free of worries, cares, syntax or grammar. If you want it back in the article then by all means suggest a form that makes sense; I'm happy to work with you on that. As for the rest of your comment:

1) Yes, I deleted text brought in from another article. That's because, as you have already been told, it belongs in the other article. Not here.

2) Yes, lots more text is going to be deleted. Around 80% of it, I'd say. However the amount of content that will be deleted is virtually nil. I'd suggest you read this, but if it's too complex here's the short version. This:

A study says something.¹ Another study says the same thing.² Yet another study says the same thing.³ This study says the same thing too.⁴ Here's another study that says - hooray! - the same thing..⁵

Is much longer and contains more text than this:

Some studies say this.¹²³⁴⁵

But it doesn't contain any more information. So yes, I am going to delete vast amounts of text from this article, because right now it is practically unreadable. It is stodgy, repetitive, confusing, internally contradictory and just appallingly badly written. What I am not going to delete is any information.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have just had a closer look at your complaint, Quack. I am WP:AGF here and assuming that you are failing to understand my edits, rather than deliberately misrepresenting them, so I will explain. I moved a section on legal issues from this page, where it does not belong, to the legal page. Then I deleted half of it (the reference to the old 2009 FDA cigalike tests) from there because it dealt with purely health issues. You claim that I "don't want the text in any article." Well what's this then? The text you accuse me of "not wanting in any article" is right here, in this article, where it belongs - in the Toxicology section. However now it's in the article once, like it should be, not twice like it was before. Firstly you need to accept that needlessly duplicating content does not make the article better or more informative; it turns it into an unreadable mess. Secondly you need to make sure of your facts before you start throwing accusations around. You've been accused of not following AGF and not being WP:COMPETENT plenty times; this is why.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 You clearly deleted it from this article. Your edit summary was "Moving to Legal Status article". It was not duplication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 You moved it to another article and then you deleted almost all of it from the other article. The text you deleted from the article article belongs in this article but you claim It's not relevant to this article. You seems to be making two different arguments. You claim it's not relevant to this article but then you claim it was duplication. Maybe you should strike you comment at ANI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh FFS.

Yes, I removed it from this article and moved it to the Legal article. That's because it was about legal issues.

Yes, I deleted most of it from the Legal article. That's because what I deleted wasn't relevant to that article; it's relevant to this one. And it's still in this one, because it was duplicated!

The text that is not relevant to this article is the legal bit. The safety information is relevant to this article.

You clearly cannot understand my edits. Maybe you should stop commenting on things you do not understand.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The text you claim is "duplicated" is not found in this article because you deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

headdesk It is in the article. It is in the first sentence of the first section following the lede.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you claiming the text you deleted is in another section? According to your edit summary you moved it to another article (but you deleted most of it). Right? QuackGuru (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Quack. I am not claiming that it is in another section. I am telling you exactly where it is. Go and look. It's not hard to find. It's right here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 deleted the paragraph and then claimed it is still in the article. That is disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was still in the article, right there in the first sentence of the first section after the lede. At least the information was there. There's no way I was going to leave your whole paragraph, because it was utter gash. From now on it's best you stick to seeking consensus on the talk page then let someone else edit the article. You can't write. You have no idea of how to construct a sentence. The edits you make are often completely incomprehensible. And I know what I'm talking about, because I'm a professional writer.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears editors may have been recruiting to Wikipedia. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing and has made mass changes to this article. I think we need to restore the deleted text and undo the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have misrpresented the facts. One editor was blocked because he was paid to edit and did not disclose it. He admitted he did so. He did not admit nor is there proof he edited this article for money, or recruited anyone. AlbinoFerret 09:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MastCell and User:JzG. There has been mass changes to this article. A lot of text was deleted by User:FergusM1970. Some assistance may be necessary. I have updated the article and restored the text. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Quack. You have created a useless, unreadable mess of contradictory claims.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the above, it smacks of WP:CANVASsing. But fortunately the two editors getting called here are level-headed. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen Since Quack rolled back all of Fergus's edits diff I question the need to call for help and suggest your assessment is probably correct. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have words for what Quack did, but it's a mess. I'm going to remove a few contradictions, but the text needs cleaned up. Again. I wish he'd leave the writing to others because he's shit at it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't this article about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he claims the text belongs.[21][22] If User:AlbinoFerret beleived the text belonged in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Health related info doesn't belong on the legal aspects article, nor do legal aspects belong on the medical article, except in very rare cases. These are daughter articles, not articles where you can refight arguments differently (see WP:POVFORK) --Kim D. Petersen 03:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So you agree the health claims belong in this article rather than legal status?[23][24][25] QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Those 3 diffs did the correct thing imho. If you want to synthesize legal/policy arguments from health arguments, then you need a third party to make the comparison. Otherwise you are doing POV editing. --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown which sentence does not belong in this article. Both editors have shown the text does not belong in legal status.[26][27][28] I am going to rewrite some of the text. So that makes this RFC irrelevant anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that the text was rewritten and updated this RFC is no longer applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The RFC will run until its end and we will find where consensus lies. That way we can avoid others doing the same thing or in the future the sections reappearing because the RFC never finished. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I explained this RFC is no longer applicable for the current text and you did not disagree. If you do disagree please show which sentence does not belong in this article. So far you have not shown what is not relevant to this page. The RFC is not referring to any specific "currently rewritten text". So you can't delete any rewritten text based on this RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The WP:POVFORK was adding it to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes because the paragraph has nothing to do with legal status. The text is about the health claims. So why are editors claiming it is a POVFORK to include it in this article when it is about health claims? The text is not a duplicate summary of other pages or sections. We can avoid the section reappearing in Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. This RFC should not be misused to delete relevant text from this page. When health related claims do not belong on the legal aspects article then they belong in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous RFC

User:AlbinoFerret wrote in part: "Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article?"

It appears the question in this RFC is ambiguous. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. Therefore, this RFC is meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A RFC does not have to be on an edit that is currently on the page. The question is specific. AlbinoFerret 05:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret has not shown what was the problem with the previous text or current text. Therefore, the question for this RFC is vague. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Replacement of claim based on policy statement

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

Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is a policy statement with clear conflicts of interest. Its use for medical claims is suspect and I removed it, Yobol replaced it. I have added to it the conflict of interest. AlbinoFerret 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of COI is ridiculous and removed. Yobol (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The funding, under a COI header, is in the paper. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not funding for this paper. This is just funding that these authors have received at some point in time. You have obviously read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes_needs_eyes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of Cheng Opinions

See also What is Cheng reviewing.

The Cheng "review" and I use that term loosely because it really didnt review anything is not usable to post the opinions of Cheng as fact. It is not even possible to use "A review said" in the claims deleted because Cheng didnt review any studies on manufacturing of any component of Electronic cigarettes or nicotine. The statements are pure opinion. As such they need to be notable as well. Otherwise the use of the claims is undue weight. WP:UNDUE. The journal article is only cited by 4 other journal articles, none of them reviews, and has very low weight. AlbinoFerret 01:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I added in-text attrition rather than in Wikipedia's voice. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since they are not a product of a review process, since there are no studies to review, they are purely the opinions of Cheng. As such it is inappropriate and inaccurate to say "a review said ....." There is also the weight issue. The opinions have no weight, they are only sited 4 times, none of them reviews. It is undue weight WP:UNDUE to even use them. In fact , the whole section which is only sourced to this review should go. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Both User:Bluerasberry and User:Cloudjpk agree with keeping the review.[29] The sourced text have weight. These are facts when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no facts, its opinions that have been removed.Bluerasberry made those comments before it was pointed out the so called review said no studies had been done to form its opinions. What it did review, is still there so this so called review has been "kept". All Cloudjpk did was verify that the statements for another issue were there, he didnt comment here on the lack of studies as the basis for those pure opinions and the improper attributing of them. Neither of them commented on the weight issue for the whole section. This so called review, which is about 10 months old had only been cited in 4 other articles, none of them reviews. It has very low weight, and probably should not have its own section and a position of prominence. AlbinoFerret 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Cheng didnt review any studies on these subjects, the opinions based on things that no studies exist for (as the so called review clearly points out), it is not a secondary WP:MEDRS on those subjects. AlbinoFerret 18:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Appropriately sourced and weighted to a review. Objections that there are no studies about the subject are spurious because the lack of studies supports the conclusions that we are not certain about these subject in discussion. Yobol (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A review has to "review" something. There is nothing for it to review. That logic is twisted to include this. It isnt a secondary source. Thats because there is no primary source to look at in a secondary sense. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the question on Cheng as a secondary source to WP:RS. AlbinoFerret 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It states "Literature searches were conducted through December 2013. Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes."[30] so yes is a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James If you read the review, the only sources it reviewed were newspaper articles related to battery disposal and advertising. I left those claims in. What I removed were pure opinions where Cheng clearly states there are no reviews to study. He has sources that discuss how things are made. He has no primary sources discussing the environmental impact of anything, except perhaps the newspaper stories questioning the disposal. In fact Cheng states this in "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" Cheng makes two statements:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production "

Without any sources on environmental impact of these topics, how is it a secondary source? AlbinoFerret 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It systematically look for evidence and did not find any so says "A 2014 review stated that it is unclear" There is nothing wrong with this. This is the power of a review. One can say no evidence exists for something as one has systematically looked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It cant be a secondary source without primary sources. WP:MEDRS states "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies." If there are no studies, or sources, it cant be a secondary in those areas. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we may need to correct MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just leaving a note here that the RSN post has closed. There's some good conversation that should hopefully clear up some questions above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does Drummond say this?

Recent edit cites Drummond for "Aerosol particle concentration is 5 times lower than a cigarette". I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where he says this. Where is it please? Cloudjpk (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

p238, third column top: Similarly, the mean aerosol particle concentration was higher with exhaled e-cigarette vapor compared with background exposure, but fivefold lower than conventional cigarette use. There was no measurable difference between background and e-cigarette volatile organic compounds --Kim D. Petersen 07:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Is this original research?.[31][32][33] QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is a conflict of interest section in that source that details the COI. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the source, Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest page OF10. Not only did the authors receive funding, they are on the boards of pharma companies.. AlbinoFerret 02:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

where funding from companies woes products compete against e-cigarettes was given to some of the authors is not how to write text for articles on Wikipedia. Who cares whether they have a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point about something that isnt in the article is? I think its a clear COI, not just about funding, they are on the board of directors of companies whoes products compete with e-cigs. AlbinoFerret 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research, but it sure seems over-the-top. Perhaps a better description than WP:OR would be WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE (in emphasis), perhaps WP:POINTy, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:ALLEGED, or trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to sneak in an editor's POV rather than simply reporting what well-accepted reliable sources say. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The source itself, published in a peer reviewed journal, made the claims. In a section about COI. I think your links are not applicable. Its not in the article, so your point is? AlbinoFerret 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. It was from the source itself. That's why I said it's not original research. My point is that there are reasons why it shouldn't be in the article even if it's not original research. Since it's not in the article now, as you point out, I'm happy. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The part where funding from companies woes products compete against e-cigarettes was given to some of the authors was added to the article. The part "some" was unsourced and the text was not encyclopedic. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was not original research because the article had more authors than the number with the reported COI, or would you rather it said the authors had a COI, wrongly implying all of them did. . AlbinoFerret 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does the source say "some"? Of course it is original research when you can't verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem on your part. AlbinoFerret 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider merging this article with the electronic cigarette article

I came here from the reliable sources notice board and have a suggestion. I think there is a built in problem given the name of the article. "Safety of electronic cigarettes" is an unusual title for an article. Other editors should notice that there do not appear to be many articles on the safety of X, y, or Z and none of those are the safety of a specific consumer product. It would lead me to believe that this article may have been started as a form of advocacy and has now become a battle ground. I think it would be better to merge this into the electronic cigarette article and pare it down to just what the most reliable and reputable sources say. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine This article started on the Electronic cigarette article and was broken out to its own page. The reason was the article was at a size to split. Electronic cigarette itself is a contentious article, splitting this off did not remove it. AlbinoFerret 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY: "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." The Electronic_cigarette#Safety section should summarise this page. Currently the Electronic_cigarette#Safety section may not summarise this page. The lede section of this page can be part of Electronic_cigarette#Safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. its full of bloat, and it should not be added to the E-cig article, whats there is fine. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What is there is a bit to short and should be expanded like this article was expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, there is way to much bloat in the lede here. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Environmental impact

There appears to be a problem with this section. While I am against removing relevant information. The section is about the environmental impact. Not marketing. Nor is it about the amount of cigarettes compared to one combustible cigarette. That is not on the environment. AlbinoFerret 16:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The marketing claims cited are about environmental impact; that's their relevance. The cigarettes compared material however is missing key context from the source: "energy and materials used for manufacturing" is the comparison. That should be fixed. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That they are marketed as "green" is a marketing claim and has nothing to do with an impact on the environment. That would require something tied to an environmental impact. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with? Nothing?

Seems to me a claim of foo has something to do with foo :) We don't confuse the two but they are related. I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with each other.

I trust we agree that the material comparing cigarette and cigarettes needs the context from the source. Shall I go ahead and fix that? Cloudjpk (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say "the number of times each cartridge can be recycled is unclear." It says "the prevalence of recycling is unclear", which does not have the same meaning. Why do you and Yobol keep changing it back to the incorrect wording? --InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk, The problem is that its in a section on environmental impact. Its not in a marketing section, its off topic because it doesnt deal with an impact on the environment, but on sales. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also can someone tell me what useful information the reader gets from this sentence:

"A 2014 review stated that information is limited on energy and materials used for production to equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use."

--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, it means what it says. Consider the difference between "here's how Ebola is transmitted" and "information is limited on how Ebola is transmitted". Stating what is and is not known can be useful. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what it means, in clear and simple English.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly i don't understand it either. --Kim D. Petersen 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your not making any sense with deleting the additions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your dumping of POV material is hurting the article. I think a POV header is appropriate. AlbinoFerret

You have not explained what is the specific issue. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole article is one giant negative point of view problem. AlbinoFerret 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the specific issue. Please don't restore the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret tried to hide Environmental impact section from a reliable source from the page. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[34][35][36][37][38] QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The environmental impact section is tied to one source. I question its weight, and the inclusion of opinion based on no studies being preformed as noted in the source itself. It is a pure opinion piece that has no place seeing how it is not notable, so its weight is super low. It is closer to a primary source than it is to a review. AlbinoFerret 03:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The review said "Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes."[39] There is no evidence it is closer to a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There were no studies, the so called review said as much.

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production, along with associated research needs, are described below."

Chang didnt "review" anything. His opinions are his own and not the product of reviewing studies.AlbinoFerret 18:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But, but, but....they're FDA approved - they must be ok. [40] Atsme☯^Consult 21:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)