Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Full protection

Why was this article fully protected? That seems a bit drastic. I saw little of what could possibly be described as edit warring in the page history. Everymorning talk to me 23:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is to force the editors here to actually get consensus rather than simply endlessly editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo in Device Generations

First generation devices e-cigarettes commonly look like tobacco cigarettes and are thus called "cigalikes".

We need to remove either devices or e-cigarettes, I propose

First generation e-cigarettes commonly look like tobacco cigarettes and are thus called "cigalikes".

SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, plus a change to American English They may also be designed as a reusable device with a battery and cartage called a cartomiser to They may also be designed as a reusable device with a battery and cartridge called a cartomizer SPACKlick (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Either devices or e-cigarettes will do, I don't think it makes any difference in this context. So yes I support the proposal as there is a typo in there atm.

With regards to the language variant, American English seems to be the established language on this article so I have no issues with that being changed either.Levelledout (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, these are both improvements. Zad68 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Got these two. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus vs One Report Says

Does anyone with better access to journals than I have a list of the most recent meta-analyses of the health effects, emissions and cessation efficacy of e-cigarettes. looking at a lot of the sources in the article it feels like we're reporting the findings of one study or one reviewers subjective opinion of a couple of studies rather than any form of consensus? I'm eagerly awaiting this analysis due out in January of next year which I think will cover a lot of ground. SPACKlick (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That'd make sense. Metaanalysees are generally much stronger than singlestudies. HalfHat 12:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Smoking Cessation - Ugly wording

The smoking cessation section's first sentences is;

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated, and the benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[1]

Which I would propose be changed to

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited[1]. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain[2] and has not been convincingly demonstrated.

as it reads in better English. To whichever admin makes the edits, the Harrell source is to go at [2] and the Franck source is to go at [1]SPACKlick (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Franck, C.; Budlovsky, T.; Windle, S. B.; Filion, K. B.; Eisenberg, M. J. (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes in North America: History, Use, and Implications for Smoking Cessation". Circulation. 129 (19): 1945–1952. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416. ISSN 0009-7322. PMID 24821825.

Harrell, PT; Simmons, VN; Correa, JB; Padhya, TA; Brandon, TH (4 June 2014). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ("E-cigarettes"): Review of Safety and Smoking Cessation Efficacy". Otolaryngology—head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. doi:10.1177/0194599814536847. PMID 24898072.

Two different sources made two different conclusions. Combing them together is SYN. The part "therefore their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain" is SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the therefore would be better as a fullstop. I have edited above for the ease of the eventual ediotr and removed the template until consensus is reached. SPACKlick (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated.[22] Their benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[5]" This can be done without combining two different sources and conclusions together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is very tiring and demonstrates the reason that this page was protected, This is what SYN would look like:

• "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited[1]. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain[2] and has not been convincingly demonstrated. Therefore man did not land on the moon"

WP:SYN has nothing to do with punctuation marks or other grammar. Further more neither suggestion combines two sources to reach a third conclusion. Both of the points that are made, whether separated by a full stop or not, are accurately cited to sources. There is no third/secondary conclusion, therefore it is in no way whatsoever WP:SYN. Levelledout (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks levelled, the original proposal was Syn I'd taken A therefore B. And C and turned it into A therefore (C and B). QG the issue with your proposal is that the first sentence isn't written in English. The current proposal is not Syn, well sourced and better written than the current. SPACKlick (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Given the limited available evidence on the risks and benefits of e-cigarette use..." This is about the risks and benefits but the proposal says only that "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited" for the first sentence. The part "therefore" is missing. The previous wording is explaining because the research is limited therefore, the effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid has not been convincingly demonstrated. This is closer to what the source said. You are using two different sources together for the second sentence which is misleading and the first sentence lost its meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really believe you are arguing over one word. I have gone with SPACKlick's suggestion as it seems an improvement over the current wording. You can carry on arguing over the "therefore"! A more serious problem was the double sentence starting "A 2014 review found ..." I assume only one of these should be there, or they should be combined in some way? Perhaps someone could create Draft:Electronic cigarette with the proposed wording (and no edit warring on that page please). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed with the new wording as previously explained. This is not about a single word. Now the first sentence lost it meaning. These are two different sources that should not be combined. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the proposed statements fail to represent the significant and opposing point of view, that e-cigs are relatively safe and effective for harm reduction and smoking cessation, as the high-impact MEDRS sources at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims clearly indicate. I have no confidence in the current set of editors trying to assert WP:OWNership over this article by trying to exclude those sources' clear conclusions in violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sources

There's a few spots in the article that use patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sourcing. Also be careful with press releases disguised as "news" from institutions trying to promote the results of their own research efforts. These kinds of things are generally unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT, for hopefully obvious reasons. The filing of a patent application or even its granting is in no way independently notable. These sorts of primary sources can be used carefully alongside good-quality independent secondary sources to, for example, fill in a particular date or name that didn't appear in the secondary, but they cannot be used by themselves. I've corrected this in a few spots but there's more to go. Zad68 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. While I did not run across language that seemed to me to specifically prohibit the use of promotional material from manufacturers of products as a source, I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. It seems to me that we should be using WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and if none exist, the subject matter is not notable. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why this is framed as a WP:WEIGHT issue. A patent application is a perfectly reliable source for a statement like "In 2014, Pat Smith filed a patent application for..." and a press release is a perfectly reliable source for "Company X announced the availability of..." but compliance with WP:WEIGHT cannot be demonstrated with that kind of sourcing. Zad68 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We have perfectly good peer reviewed secondary MEDRS literature review sources. They fall in to two categories: inconclusive, claiming insufficient evidence for a determination, and conclusive, saying that e-cigs are clearly beneficial. The inconclusive reviews cite very many fewer primary studies than the reviews which reach substantive and prescriptive conclusions in favor of e-cigs. All of the primary sources from the past year which discern between 1st- and 2nd-generation e-cigs reach similarly substantive conclusions in favor. Why do we even need to worry about promotional material at all? WP:NPOV is completely clear that all mainstream points of view need to be represented. Period! Furthermore, WP:LEAD is clear that "prominent" controversies need to be summarized in the article's introduction. We are all very aware how prominent the controversy is, so why does the article only represent the "inconclusive, needs more research" point of view? That's against the rules, plain and simple. EllenCT (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Can you please show me where the website says E-cig advanced is a worldpress blog? AlbinoFerret 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, this indicates it's on WordPress. The site appears to be a "community-contributor" driven site, it has "regular contributors" who are simply enthusiasts. Look at the "industry news" section, the news articles appear to simply repeat press releases. Zad68 14:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That link only shows that they used the worldpress for the member blog area, which appears to be separate from the news section. AlbinoFerret 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I can find on the site is

ECig Advanced Transparency Statement

EcigAdvanced.com is a for-profit business. We employ the use of advertising, affiliate links and banners to bring in revenues. Our reviews are done by paid reviewers, paid for their time, not for their opinion. Our reviews are not biased based on the revenue that we stand to gain from a particular product. Our reviews are based solely on the opinion of the reviewer’s experience with the product and nothing more.

While we do employ these banners, affiliate links and other methods of advertising for a profit, we also have considerable expense to cover in order to keep the lights on and the door open here at Ecig Advanced. We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers as well as forum moderators. Ecig Advanced also uses its own funds to partially or wholly purchase products for giveaway to our community members. Further, we use the relationships we’ve established with vendors and suppliers to bring giveaways to our members, in exchange for advertisement and promotion on our pages.

Which doesn't comment on an editing policy. SPACKlick (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions

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.

---

The edit at [1] replaces statements appearing most prominently in the conclusions as well as in the abstracts of two authoritative WP:MEDRS research reviews which have both been cited in the article for months in support of other statements which the MEDRSs' authors did not state in their summary or conclusions, in favor of statements from other inconclusive sources contradicting the prescriptive conclusions of the more thorough reviews. The conclusive reviews are discussed at [2] and [3]. Should the conclusive statements be restored to the article? EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Could we please stick to 1-2 RfC's at a time? This one is premature imho. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew the Palazzolo et al (2013) RfC as its poster above per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs because the journal had some serious credibility problems of which I had been unaware, and consensus seemed clear enough because of that problem alone. The Polosa et al (2013) and Hajek et al (2014) sources have been discussed thoroughly above. Nobody objects to including milquetoast statements from them or their reliability, but a few editors simply don't want their most prominent conclusions included in the article because they say in plain language that smokers switching to e-cigs are likely to benefit tremendously because they are much less harmful "if at all." EllenCT (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's the central point. There is a group of editors who refuse to let anything into the article unless it's negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. The central point is not allowing in broad statements of health benefits that are substantiated to a lesser extent than those of a typical phase 1 drug that has shown some promising effects in an animal model. This is the EXACT sort of unproven claim that we don't allow for drugs, don't allow for medical devices, don't allow for nutritional supplements and don't want for e-cigarettes, irrespective of whether you choose to call them a medical device or consumer product. Doc James and I have deleted literally hundreds, possibly thousands of unproven health claims from scores of articles over the last several years. This one is no different. You can't say that e cigs are going to help people quit without performing large, randomized trials. It may sound very reasonable, but remember all the population surveys showing that people with high dietary antioxidant content had less cancer, but when randomized trials of supplements were done, antioxidants were shown to increase cancer. You can't jump over the step of doing a large RCT. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs aren't a medical device or nutritional supplement, so your argument is irrelevant. The fact is this: E-cigs are a recreational product with no known health issues, but this article has been medicalized and turned into an endless catalog of hypothetical "concerns" with no real-world evidence. It's POV out the ass.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your opinion reflected in any policy or guideline? WP:MEDRS doesn't say anything like that. It says to trust the peer-reviewed literature reviews when they have been favorably well-cited. That's what we have here. Multiple MEDRSs which agree because they summarize sufficient RCTs to satisfy their peer reviewers, in turn because it is obvious what is going on here. You are taking an addictive drug that is dangerous because it is traditionally delivered with smoke from burning vegetable matter, which everyone agrees is what causes the vast majority if not the entirety of the physiological damage, and delivering it without any smoke or even pyrolites. Are there any alternative hypothesis? No! But you persist in trying to make up new rules from whole cloth ... because why? EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for reliable sources to pronounce any need for any type of study. There's currently no verifiable evidence that "large RCTs" (or any other type of pharmaceutical study) are even applicable to understanding the current use of these devices. The RCT "requirement" opined above is nothing more than another attempt to "medicalize" the topic. Mihaister (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Decisions/statements like that really have to be made on a source by source basis; just because you don't have any in mind doesn't mean they can't be found by a diligent editor. I have a feeling of original research about a statement like that. To make an OR counter-argument (no, I'm not saying to add this to the article unless you find a ref) my main concern is whether N-Nitrosonornicotine can be produced by the degradation of hot nicotine solution by a poorly designed E-cigarette. I looked this up a while back and found there was only a minor amount in the refill liquid [4] but I didn't find data for the level in urine or in exhaled smoke. Probably should have looked harder because there must be something somewhere. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any exhaled smoke, so what are you talking about?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt A flipside to that is that in a fast evolving industry like e-cigarettes, where the first temperature regulating board was just released. I wonder how many of these journal articles are on poorly designed and obsolete hardware and crappy juice from china? AlbinoFerret 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a major problem. Researchers want consistency, so they prefer cigalikes with prefilled cartos because these have the "consistent dose" they think is important. They're self-selecting for shitty equipment and shitty results. This whole stupid debate is over vape gear that nobody in the real world has used since 2012.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Lorillard alone will have sold >$150m worth of cigalikes in the U.S. alone this year. It's a little ridiculous to say nobody is using them. The market may be moving in the direction of later-generation kit, VTMs or whatever you want to call them, but cigalikes clearly sell and presumably are used. They wouldn't be in retailers and coming off production lines in the quantity that they are if this wasn't the case. I'm not arguing they are better - but they do exist as a substantial part of the market. Barnabypage (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, sorry - I meant mist, aerosol, "vapor", whatever, not smoke. As for no one in the real world using the 'cigalikes', you should provide references. In terms of visible advertising presence - TV ads, posters on convenience storefronts and so forth - the "blu" brand still seems to be more visible than the others. Also you should provide some background on what you mean by "shitty" equipment/results. To the uninitiated, it would seem like either you inhale nicotine or not. What effect does the better gear or the fancy customizable features have? Wnt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that someone in the world uses ciaglikes. They are usually a stepping stone to better equipment because of their poor performance. I dont have a MEDRS source that says that, but it may show up in components as its not a health claim but a performance claim. In the UK ciaglike manufacturers are moving to ego type devices because of this as is V2 in the US. I see ego's just as often in stores as ciaglikes now in the US. But from what I have read, most of the studies used early forms of cigalikes, and dont mention the source of the e-juice which from the dates is probably from China. China is notorious for poor quality control in manufacturing. Your comment of finding information based on "a poorly designed E-cigarette" only reinforces the question of if others tested poorly designed e-cigarettes that dont reflect the majority of devices then or today.

At least from my comments above, and CheesyAppleFlake's when you are testing old "shitty" equipment and juice from a country with notoriously bad quality control you are going to find problems. I would really like to see a study use a kanger or aspire tank (that dont use any solder) on any battery and use one of the popular ejuices made in the UK or US that use strict quality control and only use pharmaceutical grade components except for flavours for comparison. AlbinoFerret 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still have no idea what "poor performance" really means. Do you get less nicotine, or have they been shown to produce contaminants or bad taste or something, or does liquid come out where it shouldn't, or... ? I just don't have an idea and the article doesn't really give me one. Politically (a goal we should facilitate, but not follow) there would seem to be a relationship between the potential for regulation and the nature of the problems people experience. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because, no offense, you have no idea about the subject in general. Nicorette inhalators deliver more nicotine than most e-cigs, but users don't like them at all. OTOH, a lot of very keen hobbyist vapers are using low-nicotine juice despite having been very heavily addicted smokers. You insist on approaching it from a medical point of view where it's all about dose. That's wrong. There are all sorts of ways the newer devices beat cigalikes, none of which have anything to do with nicotine. Cigalikes give a low volume of vapor. They come in a restricted range of flavors, which are usually not very good flavors anyway. They don't let you adjust power output. They're expensive because you have to buy proprietary cartos or entire new disposable devices. Tobacco companies like them because they fit their existing business model and distributor networks but their sales are falling sharply, both overall and in market share. But tobacco controllers still obsess over them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor performance is the amount of vapor. That does affect the way they are viewed by the user and may lead to reduced levels of nicotine than advertised. That could be why we see so many people stop using them as a way of quitting or for duel use, that hasnt made its way into a review, yet. There are concerns (about nicotine delivery) in a journal article or review, not sure which off the top of my head, but is already being pointed out. The main point I made before is that the old saying of garbage in garbage holds true. Garbage hardware = metals in the vapor, already in a review. Garbage liquid can equal all sorts of things that were never intended to be put in them by using impure non pharmaceutical components. the Juice comparison isnt in a journal article yet to my knowledge, I hope we see something on it soon. One of the big names of cigalikes is even starting a new juice line from the better e-juice makers hopefully that gets it in a study soon. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the common complaints is that the perceived nicotine "hit" from a cigalike e-cigarette is less than from a supposedly comparable tobacco cigarette. Testing has also found very wide variations in the actual nicotine content of e-liquids at supposedly the same concentrations. I don't have a view on whether either of these points is valid or not, but they are among the widely-made criticisms. Barnabypage (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I welcome any such data you can cite, but the ref I cited above [5] actually said the bottles were generally accurate, so you have some convincing to do. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This, for example: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/26/ntr.ntu080.abstract but I'm really not interested in doing any convincing here. My point is that this is one of the aspects of "poor performance" that people talk about - whether or not their talk is grounded in reality, it still influences opinions, in the market and in policy-making. Indeed this relates to how, on a broader level, the whole article needs to recognise that views can be influential and important even if they are are not grounded in established scientific fact. (Not that they are important merely because they are widely-held - but if they are held by people in positions of power or influence they can be.) Barnabypage (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is persuasive; since as I've said I think contradictions are good it may be worth having a sentence or two with both sources. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 That sounds eerily like statements from the pharmaceutical industry. I know I havent added any quitting claims, and I cant remember one in the article, but we have dozens of unclear, unproven, and more studies needed claims on quitting. Its over doing it. AlbinoFerret 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What is eery about it? There is nothing out of line with Wikipedia medical sourcing guidelines, high-quality evidence must be summarized by an authoritative, independence source before an article like this one can make a health claim based on it. Zad68 04:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just the way its phrased, it reminds me of something I read, cant quite remember where. It will come to me if I stop thinking about it. As I said, I dont think anyone regularly editing the article is placing those claims. I would remove them if I did see an unreferenced one, and would be very sceptical if one was referenced. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• RFC Comment - This RFC's statement does not meet the guidelines for RFCs because it is not a neutral statement about the dispute. The idea that a conclusive source should be used in preference to an inconclusive one is mistaken. In the general sense, if the inconclusive source is a better quality source than than the inconclusive one, that's because the conclusive one is making conclusions it shouldn't be drawing. Zad68 04:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for this yet you keep adding it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus among those who choose to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, but not among those who allow their personal opinions to interfere with following that pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just like there is no consensus on adding more from Grana to the article, but the number continues to rise? AlbinoFerret

What would you consider to be a neutral statement of the dispute? What evidence is there that the two conclusive sources, which have been included to support other statements in the article for months, "shouldn't be drawing" their most prominent conclusions, with which they both actually conclude? If you have an issue with authoritative MEDRS sources, then you should seek a position as a reviewer for the journals that published them. As Wikipedia editors, we follow the MEDRS policy which does not allow us to second guess the decisions of those peer reviewers. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have asked about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the respondents there did not raise reliability issues with the sources or the statements, instead saying that inclusion of the proposed statements is an NPOV issue, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT, so I asked those questions at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Responses

• Support reverting [6] to replace the summaries of the conclusive sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support AlbinoFerret 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No, we do not place in Wikipedia's voice material that is contradicted by other MEDRS source, we do not replace material in text just because it is "uncertain" (uncertainty is a part of science), and we certainly do not value more reviews that come to a "certain" conclusion when the vast majority of sources do not do so. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Which sources do you suggest contradict the MEDRS reviews? Both of them are from journals with above-median impact factors, and both of them are reviews of many more primary sources than the uncertain reviews on the same topics. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mass WP:ASSERT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Would you please elaborate? EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Yobol. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Based on the preliminary discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims, I propose replacing the conclusive statements in question prefaced by the phrase, "A 201_ literature review in the journal [Journal Name] said ...." EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What sentence exactly are you trying to replace with what sentence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:PEACOCK in 2nd generation

The second generation section opens with

Second generation devices are often used by more experienced users. These devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.[50]

The first sentence is unsourced and feels like it's there to peacock users of 2nd gen devices. I propose

Second generation devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.[50]

SPACKlick (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, I doubt that any usage figures actually exist yet that are broken down into user experience and device generations so there's no real way of telling.Levelledout (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the source cited supports the content, the source says There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers). In the source it's in a paragraph discussing 2nd generation. I think it's reasonable to explain the difference in the users of first and second generation, don't see a reason to remove it. Zad68 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spot that, however I'm still not overly sure on the feel of the sentence as is (I know horrible fluffy wording here). The concept almost seems to be backwards. However, proposal dropped. SPACKlick (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. The previous wording that was in the article was something like "more advanced users", which I really did think was fluffy peacock, because it implied that e-cig use was on some sort of promotion/advancement track. "More experienced" I think is fairly neutral, it just describes the amount of time a user has been vaping. Zad68 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Zad pointed out, its in the source, I think its fine as it is. AlbinoFerret 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes create vapor

In the title section, it says EC do not produce vapor.

Interestingly, the Oxford dictionary on "vape" disagrees, it states: "vape: Inhale and exhale the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device."

This is reconciled very simply; there are 2 definitions for vapour - the everyday definition and the scietntific definition.

See Oxford Dictionaty on "vapour." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vapour "vapour 1 [MASS NOUN] A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: 'dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour' "

But then the dictionary states:

"[COUNT NOUN] Physics A gaseous substance that is below its critical temperature, and can therefore be liquefied by pressure alone. Compare with gas."

Bottom line: as EC produce vapor according to ordinary english in the way even Oxford understands, the title section should mention that it produces vapor. The technichal definition may be discussed in a separate section.

We are using a review rather than a dictionary for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if our readership learned their vocabulary from reviews instead of dictionaries. EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ignore MEDRS sources in favor of unreliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you think using dictionary definitions are unreliable for avoiding "words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary) EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The MEDRS trumps a dictionary. One might argue to add the word vapor to the list of misused words and we are following what the source did say for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't trump anything. In fact WP:JARGON specifically notes that we shouldn't use technical language if avoidable. I don't know where you get the "MEDRS trumps a dictionary" from? And of course as noted below, you ignore that even in the MEDRS literature there isn't consensus on using aerosol as the descriptive word. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See above, MERDS only refers to the technical definition of vapor, Oxford dictionary brings a separate technical and everyday definition for vapor. MEDRS do not include language journals and by no means takes priority with regards to the regular use of non-technical English over the Oxford Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But at the same time you are ignoring all the reviews that use vapour exclusively. Fact is that even in the MEDRS literature vapour is more used than aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have a massive, ongoing Rfc on this very issue higher up on this page. Please just comment there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

1RR proposal

I like the peace that has come to the page through the protection. To make a more lasting peace I think this page should adopt a 1 Revert Rule. This would help eliminate the edit wars. I also propose an addition to the 1RR rule that if something is reverted a talk page section be created and a revert by any other party not happen until consensus is determined. Of course spam and obvious vandalism is not covered by this rule. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does verify the claim

"Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does not verify the claim! Even the real world does not verify the claim (smoking among youth is on a new low)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Non consensus edits by QuackGuru

I thought perhaps the protection would change how things are done, apparently not QuackGuru has been busy in his sandbox and when he found the page unprotected did a massive edit. diff and then without discussion removed the POV tag. diff2 AlbinoFerret 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the NPOV tag removal. I'm still wading my way thru the other massive edit, and I find some of the changes helpful, but many are not and deepen the NNPOV slant. At this point, I think this should be reverted and invite QG to make small incremental edits to facilitate discussion and consensus for each item. Mihaister (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should be reverted, I am asking for protection now. AlbinoFerret 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the issue with any of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reasons? The POV tag, you didnt discuss its removal even though its been gone over before. The reason you gave for its removal isnt a reason to have it removed. Your other edit is massive and hurts the page POV, you didnt discuss such a massive edit, you just did it, there is no consensus now for adding so much to slant the pov even further. You have not added one positive, all negatives. Looking at your sandbox, you have been planning this since the protection was enacted but didnt come here and discuss them , but waited to ambush everyone. AlbinoFerret 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, QG! The burden of proof lies with you. And massive edits like that are against WP:CAUTIOUS, particularly on a controversial topic such as this. You should've anticipated that such an action would be inflammatory. Mihaister (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, QG, that the edit you did is all the proof we need that you are not acting in good faith. You didn't discuss a single one of those edits here while the page was protected. You are making the article more to your taste, not closer to the consensus version. I will freely admit that any edit you make to this page will receive more scrutiny from me that the average edit and if it's even slighlty out of line with consensus expect to find a revert and section on the talk page asking you to justify it. SPACKlick (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than feelings

The opening of this article states: (...) a battery-powered vaporizer which has the feel of tobacco smoking.

I've been vaping long enough to say that I don't get the "feel" of tobacco smoking... It's a different feeling.

All of this to say that this statement is subjective and should be rewritten. TheNorlo (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found a review to fix the unsourced claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Which ignores what TheNorlo said - doesn't it? It is not about it being "unsourced", but instead about whether it is correct or not. I agree with TheNorlo, it is not the same. --Kim D. Petersen 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it has the appearance of smoking, but feeling is subjective. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to not be in the source used I am placing a verification tag on it. If it exists, the original claim and page number need to be given here. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When you added the tag this was the text: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking.[1][not in citation given]"[8] You added a FV tag to sourced text. Did you read the source? The part "has the feel" was originally removed by me. By adding a FV tag you could be confusing other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Produce the line and page number from the source for verification please. AlbinoFerret

What do you think is unsourced based on the link to the source. The objection was the part "has the feel" and that was removed. What was the tag for when anyone can verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide the location in the source for the claim. Since you found it, provide it. 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have the exact wording, it appears to be from the Abstract. Per WP:MEDRS

When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.

The section in Capponetto that is relevant is

"The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine-delivery device resembling a cigarette designed for the purpose of providing inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution to the respiratory system. This device provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no smoke or combustion is actually involved in its operation."

It uses sensation. Feel, feeling, and sense are synonyms. The sentence should be rewritten based on this, not the abstract. Perhaps

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sense of tobacco smoke without tobacco or burning tobacco." AlbinoFerret 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence in the lede says "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." We do not need to repeat something similar in the lede. The word "sense" is practically the same a "feeling". The current wording is better. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Only the " emulate"wording is contrary to clear instructions of WP:MEDRS if you dont like the suggested wording, suggest something else, but it cant be based on the abstract.

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sensation of tobacco smoke without tobacco or smoke." is more like the original and can be sourced from the body of the review. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From the body of the PDF file: "Electronic cigarettes look very similar to the conventional cigarette and are capable of emulating cigarette smoking, but there are differences." ... "Hence, handling an electronic cigarette feels very different from a conventional cigarette."[9] The next sentence in the e-cigs page still say "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." The lede also says "They do not produce cigarette smoke". The part of your proposal "without tobacco or smoke" is repetitive text and the word "sensation" is not accurate when there are differences according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the PDF is wrong. None of mine look even vaguely like a cigarette. No Gen 2 or Gen 3 device does.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid Doc James's change but I undid it wrong and put in simulates instead of emulates. I've left simulates pending discussion from other editors SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes create vapor

In the title section, it says EC do not produce vapor.

Interestingly, the Oxford dictionary on "vape" disagrees, it states: "vape: Inhale and exhale the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device."

This is reconciled very simply; there are 2 definitions for vapour - the everyday definition and the scietntific definition.

See Oxford Dictionaty on "vapour." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vapour "vapour 1 [MASS NOUN] A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: 'dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour' "

But then the dictionary states:

"[COUNT NOUN] Physics A gaseous substance that is below its critical temperature, and can therefore be liquefied by pressure alone. Compare with gas."

Bottom line: as EC produce vapor according to ordinary english in the way even Oxford understands, the title section should mention that it produces vapor. The technichal definition may be discussed in a separate section.

We are using a review rather than a dictionary for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if our readership learned their vocabulary from reviews instead of dictionaries. EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ignore MEDRS sources in favor of unreliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you think using dictionary definitions are unreliable for avoiding "words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary) EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The MEDRS trumps a dictionary. One might argue to add the word vapor to the list of misused words and we are following what the source did say for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't trump anything. In fact WP:JARGON specifically notes that we shouldn't use technical language if avoidable. I don't know where you get the "MEDRS trumps a dictionary" from? And of course as noted below, you ignore that even in the MEDRS literature there isn't consensus on using aerosol as the descriptive word. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See above, MERDS only refers to the technical definition of vapor, Oxford dictionary brings a separate technical and everyday definition for vapor. MEDRS do not include language journals and by no means takes priority with regards to the regular use of non-technical English over the Oxford Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But at the same time you are ignoring all the reviews that use vapour exclusively. Fact is that even in the MEDRS literature vapour is more used than aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have a massive, ongoing Rfc on this very issue higher up on this page. Please just comment there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ECigIntelligence.com as possible source

ECigIntelligence.com has a lot of secondary source material, particularly on regulation but some scientific coverage too. I am involved with the site. If any editors would like to see the text of specific articles or relevant segments of articles I'm happy to provide it (within reason!); probably best to mention my username in the request so it shows up on my notifications. For obvious reasons I can't provide access through the paywall to all and sundry in an open forum like this. Barnabypage (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it counts as a reliable source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I think it meets the criteria (as an independent, professionally-edited news publication specialising in the subject) otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it, but if you do have any specific questions regarding that feel free. :) Barnabypage (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also would suggest it meets the criteria, the staff seems to be a mix of Lawyers and Journalists. They make clear declarations of independence from subject companies. It seems to hit all the criteria. It's not a source I'll be using because I doubt the subscription would be worth it for me personally, however I wouldn't object to it being included in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah it has no reputation for reliability as required by WP:RS. And it is mostly written by User:Barnabypage so definitely not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't mostly written by me. There are six writers on staff (including myself), as well as occasional outside contributors. I write about half the news, maybe slightly more, and none of the longer in-depth pieces on specific countries. Barnabypage (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Atomises in the lead

Does the Atomiser actually atomise? I don't have access to the source but my understanding is that it vaporised the liquid which then condensed into a visible aerosol? If the source says Atomise that's fine but I wanted someone to confirm. SPACKlick (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The source uses it, and its common terminology when talking about a vaporizer. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Coolio just couldn't check the source and I'm always unsure between those two. SPACKlick (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Extending the articles protection

I think that the article has quieted down considerably. I think the page protection is a good thing and that it should be extended. AlbinoFerret 05:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

hummm... What?TheNorlo (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably better to have this conversation on the Requests for Page Protection page. Obviously it's quietened down considerably at the moment but I must say that I don't personally see the point in temporary page protection if not accompanied by other measures as it just delays the disputes until the article is unprotected.Levelledout (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If support for extending the protection is established here, a request for it at RFPP pointing to this discussion is likely to be accepted. Zad68 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: I think the temporary page protection might just delay things. But if an extended protection doesnt change things for the better it may show where the problem lies by the contrast to when it was in place. At this point I am enjoying the peace it brings and using the time now to look forward. I thinka first step towards not needing protection can be found below. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support extending page protection, for let's say another 2 weeks, I think it's helped the editing atmosphere immeasurably. Zad68 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support extending page protection. The improvement in atmosphere is very apparent. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "I think that the article has quieted down considerably." That is a good reason to remove the NPOV tag at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why the protection is needed. Without consensus you removed that tag. That was wrong of you. The object is to solve the issues before removing tags. You didnt even discuss it. AlbinoFerret 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: In light of the massive, controversial edits that occurred as soon as protection expired. Mihaister (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support extending page protection, this page needs a little more discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin 1971 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• wholeheartedly Support. QuackGuru has shown that those with a POV to push are willing to make wholescale changes to the article without discussion. Forcing discussion is the only way this article is going to be improved. I'm slightly disappointed there wasn't even a minor slap at AN/I for QG following his giant edit pile within 5 hours of the protection being lifted. Protect, indef if needs be. SPACKlick (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The POV pushing, including making contentious changes while RFCs in place is why we need to protection. I have reverted to the previous version that was protected, and encourage editors to get consensus before making contentious changes. Yobol (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

POV edit

I went back and read the Harm reduction section today. Amidst all the issues an edit sneaked in.diff Yobol turned a neutral statement into pure negativity. Should this have happened? No the claim was sourced. AlbinoFerret 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you fixed it, and that's good but I don't like the third sentence purely stylistically. It is possible one could be approved in the future, but hat approval would have to demonstrate that they reduce harm for tobacco related disease or will improve the health of the population as a whole.. This is pure speculation and talks about regulation rather than harm reduction. Not sure how to improve though SPACKlick (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I will remove it.AlbinoFerret 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yobol just reverted everything, including sourced additions. diff and replacing the part you pointed out that I just removed and restored the POV edit. AlbinoFerret 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This was explained here which is now archived as no one actually responded to it. You don't get to wait a few days after a discussion is archived and say something was "sneaked in" and then revert to your preferred version as if no one discussed this at all. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion a day with only two editors, during normal travel time before a holiday. You did not have consensus to change it to the POV edit you did. Completely removing one claim. AlbinoFerret 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So instead of unarchiving the discussion and continuing it, your decision is to ignore the actual discussion and edit war over it, against the objections of both editors who did respond to it. Awesome plan. Yobol (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt aware it even existed, still, you have no consensus as is shown by this section. You edit warred over it by reverting it a second time, before discussing it. I started this section before my edit. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for the change, it reverts back to before your edit. AlbinoFerret 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You weren't aware of a talk page section you started and replied to existed? Really? Yobol (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh now convenient that your interpretation of the rules leads you to believe that when two editors disagree with you, and no one agrees, there is "no consensus" and therefore your version is the one that has to stay put. /smh. Yobol (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I forgot the section existed, I was out of town for thanksgiving in a place with very limited internet. I actually enjoyed my time away and was planing on coming back and starting out on a new foot when I found the page had been protected during one of the few chances I had to be online in a town of about 600 people. There is more than one person that disagrees with your edit, look above. AlbinoFerret 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that you are aware of the section, why don't you actually try responding to it, instead of edit warring? Yobol (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I changed back the bold edit to show I dagreed with it. You , knowing that the section existed DID edit war by reverting it. You also removed sourced material in your massive revert. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, why don't you actually try responding to the the discussion points brought up instead of trying to justify your reverts/edit warring. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did not edit war, You did. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I note User:QuackGuru and User:Cloudjpk have engaged in a tag-team edit war to insert inflammatory and unsubstantiated opinion into the article written in Wikipedia's own voice. [10], [11]. Per WP:BRD, QG made the Bold edit, I reverted here, then QG should've brought the topic for discussion here and seek consensus, rather than proceeded to edit war the claim. Mihaister (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not making much sense for deleting the text. I don't understand your objection based on WP:PAG. The text is sourced using a MEDRS compliant review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The material is relevant and factual, the source is MEDRS, and the source verifies. Anyone is welcome to check. Calling it "inflammatory and unsubstantiated opinion" is simply inaccurate and frankly over-the-top. An actual objection, we can discuss. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The addition is in a section describing another page, its supposed to be a summery. Adding to it over and over again is bloat! There is no consensous to add the claim, add it to the Legal page. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You have to have a reason to exclude it. The addition was relevant text. You haven't given a valid reason to exclude the text and you deleted it from the other page too. You replaced the MEDRS sourced text with a primary source at the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do, it doesnt belong on this page, it belongs on Legal Status. AlbinoFerret 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This arbitrary and prejudiced opinion does not belong on Wikipedia in any article. It is not a medical claim - so MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. Mihaister (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a very POV twisting of whats in Grana. Grana is also not a source on marketing or laws or how laws are formed. It is not a source for how people exercise their rights. I agree it is nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX. Would we use a journal of an association of mechanics or lawyers to give insight into medical issues? No, its not their field of expertise. AlbinoFerret 04:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Seems fairly relevant in a society and culture section. Could use some adjustment to wording. Would also belong in a section called marketing rather than under legal status. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry can we have specific line by line justification of that text it makes lots of claims.

1) The companies recruit consumers to push a policy agenda? This will need to be distinct from advocacy because it's a different claim. Also they'll need to be recruiting specifically for that agenda.

2) Do e-cig companies highlight laws negative to their business to their consumers more than other industries? What source says that?

3) We seriously need exact reference in a secondary source for the 1980's smokers comparison because that is POV as hell and it will need to be well sourced for weight.

4) The TPD wasn't minimised, and we can't really raise the advocacy issues with the TPD without also mentioning the fact that many of the scientists quoted to justify the regulations outspokenly claimed to have been misused.

All in all the whole passage reads like spin. I would oppose inclusion in any form without significantly better sourcing and I don't believe the better sourcing exists. SPACKlick (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that this is the opinions of the authors, not facts. And the authors (and the venue of publication) is not authoritative on that particular issue. We may want to have a section on such policy/marketing, but it should be populated by WP:RS's that are highly reliable within that particular subtopic. And not just present opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Heavens, nothing is stopping you from going to Grana and reading it yourself. I did so and the source verifies. Nor is it a matter of opinion what companies have done; e.g. websites and marketing are pretty public behavior. A reliable soure is documenting what has appeared there. It's relevant, factual, sourced, and not otherwise covered in the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James: I agree with everything you said except for section. The activity in question is aimed at affecting legislation and regulation, not just marketing. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't find a better source. Why? I know a better sourcing does not exist because we are already using a high-quality MEDRS compliant source. It is not our job as editors to question a reliable review in this manner. Neutral observers can read the source to verify the claim. The text belongs in the legal status section IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? No one is doubting that the source is stating this opinion. You cannot quote opinion as fact - and you most certainly cannot quote opinion in Wikipedia's voice! --Kim D. Petersen 05:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You argument is we can keep it if we add in-text attribution? QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is a singular opinion - no. If it reflects the balance of writings on the topic then yes. But opinions are not authoritative. A general caution between what is opinion/policy recommendations/.. and factual medical material is needed when citing papers. While a medical review may be authoritative on medical stuff, it is not authoritative on policy, history etc. --Kim D. Petersen 08:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

FDA quote

"E-cigarettes have not been fully studied, so consumers currently don’t know: the potential risks of e-cigarettes when used as intended, how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or whether there are any benefits associated with using these products. Additionally, it is not known whether e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death."

As this bolded claim has all but been debunked is it worth including that the FDA speculated about it in 2013? I'd recommend truncating the quote to remove that part. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

AgreeZvi Zig (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Um no, that is madness. We do not remove reliably sourced information because individual editors believe something is "debunked". Numerous medical organizations have come to the same conclusion as the FDA. Yobol (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol. Has the FDA withdrawn the statement in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The point being the concern expressed in 2013 has been tested since and so the concern is no longer relevant. Nobody is saying the FDA didn't say it just that the concern was considered and found without merit. I'm trying to find which source the relevant studies on gateway effect were discussed in but I can't off the top of my head remember. 213.106.233.97 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So tell the FDA to take it down and when the do your argument will be stronger. The page in question was last updated in late 2014 [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense inserted

Immediately before the article was locked again QuackGuru inserted this. Do we really need this sort of subjective rubbish?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A comparison of the difference is reasonable. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of e-cigarette is it talking about? Define "cold". What about the ones with a soft rubber coating? It's nonsense. It adds nothing to the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of e-cigarette is it talking about? The review did not mention any specific e-cig. Do you have a source for a soft rubber coating. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If the review didn't mention any specific e-cig how is it a reliable source for the claims it's making? As for the rubber coating, most Gen 2 batteries have one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for the claim because we are using a review without OR. For the rubber coating we can include that too if you have a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It. Is. Wrong. Have a real close read at that PDF. It's full of nonsense claims. "E-cigs closely resemble a tobacco cigarette" and similar bilge. That paper is in no way a reliable source. It's absolutely riddled with errors. As for the rubber coating, would a manufacturer's site satisfy you or are you going to insist on something from UCSF?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is a recent review. "Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Papale G, Russo C, Polosa R. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2012 Feb;6(1):63-74. doi: 10.1586/ers.11.92. Review." The source is definitely reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is definitely wrong, Quack. Modern e-cigs do not closely resemble cigarettes. They are not smokeless tobacco. They are, largely, not made by tobacco companies. And the "cold, hard and bulky" description is not universal by any stretch of the imagination.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Distributor of standard black eGo batteries, referring to a soft rubber coating.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:SECONDARY for what is a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to insist on a WP:MEDRS source for the finish on an e-cig battery? Don't you see a problem here? The most common e-cigs are eGo-style ones. Unless they're SS finish they are coated in rubber. This is non-controversial and should not be subject to wikilawyering.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt by Quack to insert nonsense based solely on what can only be described as magical thinking (i.e. it's small, white and smooth and looks like a cigarette, therefore it must be "bad"). WTF? Mihaister (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Caponnetto(2012) is not a "recent review" in this context - it only covers 1st generation devices, and thus only "cigalikes"... probably because in 2011 when the review was written, that was the most common device in the US. The world has moved on... Here in late 2014, the information is outdated, and incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Would remove. This is a better overview [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How is a statement from the FCTC that they are preparing a statement/report a better overview? It provides little to no information. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What that says is already in the Components section sourced to reviews. The addition by Quack isnt needed and is outdated. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If editors are concerned about the text they can tweak the text or add or replace it with text from WHO. See "Although some e-cigarettes look like tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipes, hookahs, or shishas), they may be produced in the form of everyday items such as pens, USB memory sticks or larger cylindrical or rectangular devices."[14] There are options on the table. QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The information is already in the article sourced to a 2014 review

Most electronic cigarettes take an overall cylindrical shape although a wide array of shapes can be found: box, pipe styles etc. First generation electronic cigarettes were usually designed to simulate smoking implements, such as cigarettes or cigars, in their use and appearance

If anything that reference can be added to the already existing wording. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of redundancies and over detail in the lede

I propose removing the following from the lede as redundant or excessively detailed

1) E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles This sits between sentences detailing that it contains nicotine and forms and aerosol.

2)The evidence suggests that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes. This bolded section seems to add nothing but bloat to the sentence.

SPACKlick (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yes belongs in the body of the text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Its already in the body and the lede has become more detailed and harder to read, again. AlbinoFerret 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If the proposal is to shorten this sentence then that is fine. Shortened sentence: The evidence suggests that products such as a nicotine inhaler may be a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes. If the following sentence is too much detail for the lede it can be deleted as long as the similar sentence in the body stays: "E-cigarettes provide nicotine by forming an aerosol of liquid particles". QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We can shorten it even more by changing the clumsy "liquid particles" for the more familiar and accurate "droplets".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)