Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Ordering of sections

The "Ordering of sections 2" subsection was closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

RfC closure

Hi everyone. I've just done an overdue closure of the RfC here. Formerip (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for closing that. and the conclusion that starting out with health effects is impacting the neutrality of the article. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So does this mean we can switch to a more sensible order now?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no consensus for a change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It also means there's no consensus to apply an inappropriate medical layout to an article about a consumer product. The conclusion of the RFC does not back keeping this format and it should be changed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC question was narrowly about whether the article should be changed to conform to MEDMOS, and there is not consensus to do that. It does not mean, though, that the structure of the article may not be changed at all. Personally, I would guess that an RfC about moving the "health effects" section might have gained consensus. I don't see any reason why an editor who wanted to couldn't try changing the order and then fall back into BRD if they encounter opposition. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. The issue is that some members of Wikiproject Medicine are reluctant to see the article as anything other than medical, despite the fact that e-cigs are not a medical product and have no known health issues. I'll certainly try rearranging it, and if there's any opposition start a new RfC.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you know there is going to be opposition maybe try to get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK then. I think we should move the Health Effects section down the article, below at least the Construction and Usage sections, because this is not a medical article. It's about a consumer product with no known health effects. Do you agree?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. People are coming here wondering about the health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what, are you psychic? How do you know what people are coming here to look for?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I also would like to know the source of that statement. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Look at what the media write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Look at what the media write about" fails WP:RS so no, I won't.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well then, look at what the medical literature writes about. If you won't look at the media to decide what the popular view is of what the most important issues are, what will you use? Your own opinion. Mine happens to differ from yours. That's why we use notability standards. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I share your concern as an ex smoker, but we should not overpromise either. Look at what the studies say. An effect size of 0.2 is almost nothing. They will on average do equally well with a nicotine patch according to Cochrane. And much of what is said about e-cigarettes being helpful compare placebo e-eigarettes to nicotine ones, and so are really showing the efficacy of nicotine and not the electronic cigarette format. We have to be honest with our readers about the evidence. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

These are studies using Gen 1 cigalikes with no choice of equipment, strength or flavor, and they still work better than licensed NRT. The latest study by Polosa used Gen 2 devices and found a 36% cessation rate. My guess is that when someone works out how to do a proper study with Gen 3 equipment the cessation rate will be 75-80%. E-cigs work as a cessation tool; at this point, given 700,000 successful quitters in the UK over the last 4 years, only a fool would deny that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then work with the other editors instead of trying to shut things down or place language in it that is easily misunderstand by the average reader. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you all up in arms in the epipen article making the same points.... And that is clearly a medical device but the article actually describes what it's talking about before talking about it's effectiveness, which is health related.TheNorlo (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people come here seeking medical information is not valid reason to insist that the Health Effects section remains at the top of the article. We have no evidence as to what people primarily come here to look at but it is probably safe to assume that some people also come here to look at the regulation and construction sections. In any case what WP:BODY says is that we should take precedent from a similar article with regards to section order. Other articles about similar topics such as cigarette and vaporizer do not have the health section at the top. On a logical basis I really cannot understand why someone would want to force it to the top.Levelledout (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that when you are a health professional everything looks like a health issue.TheNorlo (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a prevalent medico-centric ethos amongst some editors. However there is no established consensus for prioritising medical information over all other information simply because it is medical information. The only established consensus is that the article should follow the structure of similar articles, we need to implement this.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As there is controversy on the medical aspect of eCigs and some readers will want to know risks and benefits from use, why wouldn't a link be made, perhaps in lede, to a separate page that deals specifically and perhaps exhaustively, with all the "maybe" suppositions that are currently permeating this debate? I observe vaping enthusiasts who wish to tout the smoking cessation claims and their adversaries who wish to dispute such findings, plus insert own POV into this type of article. I find all of this to be a distraction to the topic of what is an electronic cigarette, that presents a poorly constructed content page on Wikipedia. I favor splitting off the controversial items to another page (or ten) that allows those sub-topics to be vetted out with their own talk pages and separate debates. I have made a proposal on this talk page to help get this ball rolling. Gw40nw (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We have one already; Safety of electronic cigarettes. Sadly it is, like this article, an unreadable mess stuffed with duplications and tortured syntax. Feel free to help me clean it up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sections Reorder Proposal

It has [been determined] that there is no consensus to use WP:MEDMOS as a guideline to this article or to treat the article as a "medical article". Therefore section organization should follow advice at MOS:LAYOUT which states that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." The e-cigarette article is currently placed in the following categories:

• Cigarette types
• Chinese inventions
• Smoking cessation
• 2003 introductions

Of all of these, Cigarette types would appear to be the most useful since some of them contain section headings similar/equal to the ones in the e-cigarette article. Out of these, the most similar ones to the e-cigarette article are:

• Menthol cigarette - Section order: history, usage, regulation, health effects.
• Lights (cigarette type) - Section order history, usage, health claims, regulation
• Kretek - History, structure, health effects, regulation, international availability

The following article is also similar to the concept of an e-cigarette:

• Cigarette - Section order: history, legislation, construction, ....... , usage ... , health effects

As stated there is no consensus to follow WP:MEDORDER and the only WP:MEDORDER example that comes anywhere close to being similar to the concept of an e-cigarette is "drugs, medications and devices". However key sections are missing from this example such as "construction" and other sections do not really fit the current section headings anywhere near as well as the above examples.

I therefore propose the following section order for the e-cig article:

• History
• Construction
• Usage
• Health effects
• Society and culture (includes regulation)
• Related technologies
• References
• External links

This proposal follows the advice given at MOS:LAYOUT and WP:STRUCTURE, attaining neutrality by following established examples. It also follows the advice given at WP:MEDORDER regarding "progressively developing concepts".Levelledout (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Positions

• Support This makes much more sense. Although really we should remove the category "Cigarette types" because, despite the name, an e-cig is absolutely not a cigarette.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The order is fine as it is. There is no good reason for this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is: The fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hum. We just had a RfC on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we did, and it concluded that "there are not grounds for enforcing the section ordering detailed in WP:MEDMOS."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue with the way in which guidelines have been applied in developing the proposal? Or do you just not like it?Levelledout (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine_replacement_therapy is a much better comparator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. NRT is a medical product. E-cigs are a consumer product.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have still not explained why you think NRT is a better example. E-cigarettes are a consumer device but NRT is a medical therapy and follows WP:MEDMOS, precisely the guideline that it has just been decided there is no consensus to adhere to. Most section headings on NRT are completely different to the ones on the e-cig article. Doesn't sound like a great example.Levelledout (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NRT expressly goes against the findings of the RFC.AlbinoFerret 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a binary proposal, one that we have debated before and not reached consensus on. Why spend effort on this when there are other subjects we are more likely to be able to reach agreement on?

(Comment above was posted but not signed by Formerly98).

Please specifically state your concerns with the original proposal and Bluerasberry's one.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this, support the following counterproposal AlbinoFerret and I discussed this at Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Workable_proposals. We two came to consensus that this was workable.

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

In my mind, these section headings have the "medical" definition. Albino Ferret probably did not have those definitions in mind. I still would support this order. I think this need not be a discussion at all about medical guidelines; for any product in any context, I think this is a good ordering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks entirely reasonable.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better than what we've got at the moment, but why have usage before construction and history near the bottom?Levelledout (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Levelledout The way in medicine, and I would argue the best way, is to first say how a product is used. Currently, this article is presenting a usage section which in a medical article would be called "frequency of use", and in medicine, that kind of information would go in "society and culture". I would like for the usage section (the first section) to say something like "e-cigarettes are plastic battery-powered electric sticks that people put in their mouths so that they can suck vapor/mist/aerosol/cigarette juice as a way to experience the stimulation of nicotine", and otherwise explain to an alien what the things do. History is interesting, but in my opinion and based on precedent of product treatment in medicine - not that I am saying this is medicine - it is most useful to say what something is functionally, then what it is materially, then go on with other topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's the whole point; this is not a medical article. You're also missing the point that a large percentage of e-cigs don't contain nicotine at all, including apparently 96% of those used by Canadian never-smokers (although that's not from an RS).--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970 No one said this is a medical article. I said the first section should describe how and why the product is used, and the second section should describe the product materially. Do you oppose that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really. How about doing that but moving History up between Construction and Health effects?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Bluerasberry having heard the details of your proposal I actually mostly agree with it. The only thing I would still question is the placement of history, I think it has to accepted to a certain extent that this article will look a bit different to a medical article, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. But, bottom line, I would support Bluerasberry's proposal if we cannot get agreement on my idea.Levelledout (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It took quite awhile to discuss this with Bluerasberry before. I think its a good order that is better than what we have at present. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd certainly support changing to BR's proposed order. I'm not 100% happy with it, as detailed above, but it's a lot better than what we have now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats just the nature of agreements and compromise. You seldom get exactly what you want, but you hope to end up with progress and something everyone can live with. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is something I can live with. Nobody who's taken part in the discussion seems to object, so maybe this is something we can ask for a change on.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK fine, there seems to be some consensus developing on this specific proposal so I will put in an edit request shortly if all is still well. A couple of issues though, we currently do not have the kind of usage section that Bluerasberry is proposing so we have two options, someone can make one in their Sandbox by extracting material from the existing text or we start out without one but with a consensus to add it in. Also, where is the existing usage/'frequency of usage' section going to go? I suggest it goes after health effects.Levelledout (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It was my understanding that during the conversation that came up with the order that the current Usage section was ok. I dont remember any discussion on creating sections, just reordering them. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But I dont have any issue with the usage section BR suggests above. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can add a few sentences to the start of the current usage section to say what BR suggests. "Electronic cigarettes are battery powered devices which release a flavoured aerosol, which often contains nicotine, that is then inhaled by the user through a mouthpiece." Something like that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That would seem a bit strange to me, this is two entirely different sections/concepts we are talking about. I think what Bluerasberry was referring to was "medical uses" or "indications", which in the case of this article would be "general uses" since it isn't a medical product. We can say that e-cigarettes are used for harm reduction and unofficially for smoking cessation but I'm not sure what else we can add to that. I'm going to put in a request for an edit now because we need to take some action, but I'd be happy to alter it if this conversation progresses any further. For now I'm presuming there is some tentative consensus for Bluerasberry's proposal, including the adding of a uses section at some point.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Current structure is inappropriate because this is not a medical article. -A1candidate (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Blue Raspberry's proposal. I would have had construction and usage the other way around but it's not a deal breaker for me. Levelled's proposal would still be better than the current mess. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current section order is appropriate for this article as previously explained in the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)'

We don't care what was explained in the RfC. What matters is what the RfC concluded, which is that there are no grounds for using MEDMOS as a guideline.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already given above.TheNorlo (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose NPOV has been excruciatingly challenged with content of this article that I, as editor, cannot support an article page for eCigs that insists on headings with: Usage, Health effects, Society and culture (includes regulation). Each of these feed into the other and present two opposing positions that have transformed an otherwise NPOV page of content into one with competing POV's. I understand that these type of headings are likely necessary on the main article page for eCigs, but it has clearly gotten to a point where consensus will be stagnated unless a spinoff occurs. I realize this is not desirable, but also strongly believe it is necessary. So those headings can remain, but POV forking ought to occur to bypass the POV battles and allow those to occur on separate pages. Again, this is all due to fact that science and medical communities lack long term data and so speculation or short-sighted data, with undue weight, is being allowed to hold up what is an otherwise NPOV written content article on Wikipedia. Gw40nw (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

With regards to why we need to change it I would have thought the need to follow appropriate guidelines was one good reason. A second good reason is that the current ordering is illogical and talks about concepts before explaining them. I have also yet to hear a genuine reason linked to actual established consensus as to why the health section must remain at the top. Stating that there's no reason to change it is hardly an answer.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC established that there's no consensus to apply MEDMOS and, as this is not a medical article, it's basically just inappropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

(Details edited) Whilst there is still some issues to be sorted out afterwards regarding the Usage section and a possible new section called Uses, there appears to be consensus for the core of Bluerasberry's proposal (detailed in the discussion above and also below). Thus the request is to change the order of the article's sections to the following:

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

Levelledout (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for this. The RFC was just closed as no consensus. Numerous editors commented in the RFC and this edit protected request is ignoring the previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It closed as no consensus but found no grounds for the current order. This is not a medical article and it is not discussing a medical product, so the order should be changed to something appropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate to get in the way of progress here as I see that AF and BR seem to be talking, and I think that's a great thing. But I'm not sure we can call this a consensus as BR's proposal has not been commented on yet by myself, Softlavender, Zad68, Yobol, or Cloudpkj and other contributors to the article who don't have time to spend 9 hours a day engaging in this discussion.

I don't think it needs to be unanimous, but I do think all the recent contributors should be pinged before we conclude that there is consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender isn't a contributor; all she's done is post two links to a crank site. Everyone else outside the MED group is opposed to the current order and as this is not a medical article there really isn't any reason for it to stay the way it is. However constructive comments are of course always helpful.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Softlavender is a contributor. We should not forget about all the other editors who commented in the recent RFC and the previous RFC. This has been debated for a very long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me just quote Softlavender here: "I'm not going to get involved in this article". She is not a contributor. The RfC found no grounds for MEDMOS and no consensus for the medical ordering; it also found that having health effects first does not look natural or neutral.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that this has been debated for a very long time because a group of MED-focused editors are insisting, for no reason that they have clearly explained, that a non-MED article be forced to comply to a MED layout. As the RfC has found that there are no grounds for doing so I would say that the burden of proof is now on advocates of the status quo to give a convincing reason why it shouldn't be changed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done per rough consensus established above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; it was long overdue.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but MSGJ, presumably by accident the subsections "Device generations", "Atomizer", "Power" and "E-liquid" appear to have been moved out of "Construction" and into "Health effects". Could you please correct this?Levelledout (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow one day. No consensus and still the edit occured. Will give User:MSGJ some time to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep a layout that the RfC found had no grounds for being applied. Nobody has supplied any real reason for using the MED layout. This edit reflects that. I don't see what the problem is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There were lots of reason 1) people are looking for health content most often (we see that the coverage of e-cigs is primarily focused on this) 2) so that it follows WP:MEDMOS

There should be a 66% support for changes to occur as is usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked you before: How do you know what people are looking for? There is no reason for this to follow MEDMOS because it is not a medical article. And was there 66% support for using the MED layout in the first place? No. There is no consensus to follow MEDMOS and no grounds to do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just undid the edit but I reverted it until discussion is done on it. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say discussion already is done on it. There was no consensus or grounds for the MED ordering in the first place. It's been discussed ad nauseum and no good reason for the MED ordering has been presented. It was all discussed again yesterday, at length and in detail - a discussion that Doc James took no constructive part in - and it's been decided. This is just disruptive editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been involved in an edit war. 3 reverts. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've raised this at AN/I. I'm sick of the OWN attitude Doc and others bring to this article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked the locking admin to undo Doc's final edit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So were is this clear consensus for the "construction" content going first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have looked through the whole thing and I see that User:MSGJ did decide that there was a consensus version. So I have restored that version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After 1 day and after User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus" here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop quoting so selectively. FormerIP ruled that there were no grounds for the order you insist on and that it does not look neutral.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One typically needs a consensus for a change. Where is that consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to impose medical ordering in the first place? You need to accept the fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I have no idea why you can't come to grips with that, but it's making rational discussion with you impossible.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Useage

The next thing we need to discuss is the wording for Usage, and what to do with whats in the section now. I dont have wording for it, and perhaps Bluerasberry or someone else has an idea. I dont know what we will do with whats there now, but one option is to create a subsection, perhaps called Statistics to hold whats in Usage now. AlbinoFerret

But the thing is that Uses/Indications is a completely separate topic to Usage Statistics. I would be happy with Bluerasberry's earlier suggestion of putting Usage (statistics) in a subsection under Society and Culture. Then creating a new section titled something like Uses/General uses with whatever text is required.Levelledout (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Either of these options is fine; I prefer moving this content in a subsection under society and culture. I am not sure what source to use to populate this section, but I advocate that the usage/uses section explain fundamentally what the product does and why it is used. I think this is of broad interest to many people, but in particular, the section should explain the concept of using e-cigarettes to someone who has never seen the product and who is not familiar with the concept of inhaling the output of the device. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, its ok if it is moved to a Statistics subsection under Society and culture. But we need wording to replace it first, empty sections are not a good idea imho. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording

The wording below is a rough draft based on the lede, please make suggestions so it can be improved or make a proposal.

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. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger devices that look nothing like a cigarette. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not use tobacco. In general, they all have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or in the case of automatic batteries activates it by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

AlbinoFerret 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? -

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

I think it carries the same meaning, but flows slightly better. I removed ENDS because it's really only used by a few ANTZ and certainly isn't widely recognised. It's already mentioned in the lede and I see no reason to overuse it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think ENDS is an antis' term, specifically? IMHO it's actually rather a useful one, though obviously MHO isn't an argument for using it here. :) Barnabypage (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's basically an ANTZ term. The intent is to imply that vaping is just about getting nicotine, therefore why don't we use nice, safe (useless) patches or inhalators? There was a recent article about why vapers should oppose the term; I'll try to find it later (need to sleep now). It is nice to have an alternative to e-cig, which personally I hate but use because it's the common term. PV isn't bad. I like Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System, but that's just because I have a sick mind. I totally hate ENDS though. Vaping is our thing, not the WHO's, and they don't get to decide what stuff's called.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I like that wording, minor nitpicks. "aerosol,^[2][3]" Should be "aerosol.^[2][3]" and I would prefer "aerosol,^[2][3] commonly known as vapor." although we may need to add a source for that claim. We probably also need to specify a source for the last couple of sentences. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted the comma that should have been a full stop but was too lazy to change it. Do we really need an RS to say it's commonly known as vapour? I know, the wikilawyers will be all over me for saying that, but it's not actually something that anyone with a functioning brain could dispute (see OED Word of the Year).--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheng, already in the article can be used to source the last sentences as well as the "commonly called vapor", its #3. AlbinoFerret

Yeah just found the same source as the right one. I say source basically every claim in the article to begin with. It's a controversial topic there should be a source for any claim that any advocate on either side might dispute.SPACKlick (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I take your point and I agree that we should source everything as thoroughly as possible, but I doubt anyone could dispute that it's commonly called vapour with a straight face.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hayden McRobbie, #38 could source the generations and how they look. As well as #31 Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 23:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding! Sorted then. Any comments on this wording? Any suggested improvements? Anyone just not like it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Since Bluerasberry and Levelledout have been involved in this, I think we should give them a chance to chime in. AlbinoFerret

Absolutely. We do finally seem to be seeing some progress at building consensus, rather than people just refusing to agree with edits.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It obviously repeats the lead a fair bit but I think its a decent starting point. I think we need to say something about why the device is used, we could use Public Health England for this which states that: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged, to cut down on smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, or to quit smoking".

So we could say:

• "Electronic cigarettes are used for tobacco harm reduction, smoking cessation, reducing tobacco intake or as a tobacco substitute in places where smoking is prohibited."
  Levelledout (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. While we're at it can we agree to get rid of "to circumvent smoke-free laws"? That's pure POV, because not smoking isn't circumventing a smoke-free law; it's obeying it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah of course, it's blatant POV, might be best to start another section to sort that out though.Levelledout (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• support I like the intent here. I am going to qualify my support. I would like for this to include information about why the device is used. "The device is used for the same reasons that people would smoke tobacco or use tobacco" or "the device is used because... (it is a social custom, or whatever)". There is a sentence saying "Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine". In my opinion, if this is a minority usage (less than 10%?) then it should be noted as a minority usage, or if it is a really small percentage of sales then just included in sales figures. I wish to avoid indicating that this is a typical use if smoking/using non-nicotine solutions is uncommon. The article on drug culture comes closest to what I imagine, but right now there is no smoking culture article like there is for many other concepts in Category:Drug culture, like drinking culture, tea culture, coffee culture, kava culture, and others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Electronic cigarettes are used to inhale a flavoured vapour that usually contains nicotine." I'm rummaging for stats on how many vapers use nic-free, but it's definitely pretty common. I'd say that most "advanced" vapers who use drippers would use nic-free at least some of the time. The "e-shishas" that teens like are all nic-free as well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nic-free usage seems to differ quite a bit among countries. I suspect it's talked about more than it actually happens because it's more likely to be the more vocal, interested vapers with the more advanced tech who do it than the casual, not-particularly-interested cigalike users. Barnabypage (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could always create an article on vaping culture :-) --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is deleting parts of other sentences based on the lede. Oppose. I starting a new proposal without deleting other parts based on the lede. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposal_to_expand_the_lede_without_changing_other_sentences_in_the_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James[1] and others disagreed with the word "emulated". There was a previous discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the lede. If you don't understand what people are talking about please ask them to explain it to you; don't start arguing with them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The above proposal is for based on the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not. It is for the Usage section. Please DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THINGS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. You are not helping the article by blundering around like this; you are just interfering with, and annoying, everyone else.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 opposes changes to the lede for now. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You misread what I said. QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand what you said, because what you said is blindingly obvious; you thought this discussion was about changing the lede because you either did not read, or could not understand, what had been written.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this proposal for the usage section? "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user."

QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It has no advantages over the previous proposal and several issues. Vaping does not have "a similar feel to tobacco smoking". It's very different. Adding "(mist)" is a) unnecessary and b) stupid, because outside this article nobody calls it mist. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is just exactly, and pointlessly, duplicating text which is already in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the point here is that it has a much more similar feel to smoking than, say, using a patch or chewing gum, and that is part of its appeal to some users. Feel may not be quite the right word, and it is certainly psychological feel as much as if not more than physical feel. Barnabypage (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed mist. The word "emulate" was previously rejected. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is not duplicated in the body and we should accurately summarise the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Emulate" was not rejected for this section because it has never been discussed in the context of this section. AF claimed that it was contrary to MEDRS so unsuitable for the lede. As this is for the Usage section, and not about health claims in any way, MEDRS is irrelevant. "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" adds nothing to this section, which is about how e-cigs are used; it is not about fluid dynamics. I do not support your proposal in its current state. I also do not think you are competent to edit this article, for the reasons I have explained at AN/I. I have no intention of having any further discussions with you about any vaping-related article, because either you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can go for WP:BOOMERANG or you are failing, at a fundamental level, to understand why your behavior is an obstacle to progress. Either way, talking to you is pointless. Closing this net; Fergus out.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose QuackGuru's version A workable one is already in progress that is only on Usage and doesnt add things that are off topic to Usage such as the word vapor is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where we are on this re-write. Is any of it in the article as yet? SPACKlick (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes in the article, because we're all too busy explaining for the millionth time why this isn't MEDMOS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections 2

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

---

There have been ongoing disagreements regarding the ordering of sections of this article. A prior slightly different RfC was closed as "no consensus". A new discussion but not a RfC was open the next day and after a day of discussion. Might be good to have another formal RfC regarding the ordering of the first three sections.

Option 1

• Health effects
• Construction
• Usage

Option 2

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects

Option 3

• Usage
• Health effects
• Construction

Positions

• Option 1 (second choice is Option 3). If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily. The weight we give within our articles should be similar to the weight given in the literature. Also per WP:MEDMOS we discuss "health effects" before we discuss construction or chemical composition of medical devices or medications. As e-cigs are a type of nicotine replacement therapy follow MEDMOS is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:

• Health: 23 Articles
• Regulations: 22 Articles
• Usage: 10 Articles
• Other: 25 Articles

I don't see this "one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily" claim your making to be valid. TheNorlo (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake. MEDMOS is not relevant here because these are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I might be more easily persuaded if there were some actual health effects to include, but what you are demanding is that speculation about potential health effects comes before any information about the actual subject of the article. No. This is not a medical article, Doc. Please just accept that and move on.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to that, e-cigs are not a type of nicotine replacement therapy. They are not licensed as such anywhere. They are not intended as such. Many of them don't even contain nicotine. By this point I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't realize this. The RfC found no grounds to use MEDMOS and as you well know there is not a majority in favour of doing so. You're verging on deliberate dishonesty now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is the standard layout in most medical journal articles. What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources. Its also the same outline Cigarettes uses and most cigarette types use a similar outline. The Health effects first leads to a POV slanted article as the closer of the last RFC on this topic found. The previous RFC found no consensus for a medical order with Health effects first. It is better to describe how something is used, and how its made before its Health effects (mostly unknown, unclear, and and uncertain statements) are presented. It is best to present what is known, before the unknown.AlbinoFerret
• Option 3. Information about what it is and how it is used is probably the reason most people come to the article, probably because they saw an advert somewhere and were curious about it. Information about what impact it has on health, the risks/benefits, what research has been done on safety etc is probably the second most common reason people come to the article. The minute details of their construction (which could probably be trimmed considerably with no loss to article quality) would seem to be of interest to a much smaller subset of enthusiasts, so it makes sense to bury it later in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, the standard order for articles about consumer products. Option 3, with extreme reluctance, if someone can present a very compelling reason. Not option 1 because it is inappropriate. Doc still witters on about how articles on medical devices should be written. Sorry, that's just WP:IDHT. These are not medical devices and he should stop pushing this bizarre POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 Contrary to the inaccurate wording of the RFC, the majority of editors (7/11) supported the change. The 4 editors that opposed the change either provided inadequate reasons (i.e. "this is a better example") or basically no reasons whatsoever (i.e. "it isn't necessary"). Conversely, detailed discussions, a compromise and a consensus developed between the rest of the editors. Some editors appear to be refusing to accept this consensus. Firstly, a discussion was started on the talk page of the admin that made the protected edit to try and persuade them to revert the edit. That didn't go to plan, so attempts were made to simply edit war the previous order back into the article in spite of consensus. Finally we have this RFC, I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to see this as anything but WP:IDHT.
  Edit: I also refer you to my previous argument which details how the previous RFC found that there were no grounds for enforcing WP:MEDMOS, how the article must consequently follow WP:MOS and subsequently should follow the page order of similar articles, hence my continued support for Option 2.

Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per Doc James arguments. We should be reflecting the majority of the literature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would that be the same majority of literature which generally starts off by explaining construction before moving on and looking at the health effects?Levelledout (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim nailed it anyway. This is a medical topic, because the majority of the reliable sources focus on health, because the reliable sources we use are medical journals, because this is a medical topic. It's a circular argument.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 3 would be a nice compromise from my POV, and failing that, Option 1 as a second choice. I agree with Doc James that most of what one sees in published sources is about health (Yes, Norlo, the reason are regulated is because of health concerns). But I also see the arguments of those who think some description of what these things are for belongs upfront. I don't like option 2 in part because the "

Construction section is so long and detailed, putting it up front turns this article into a buyer's guide, and that's not what we do here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, we definitely should right a separate article about the construction section. Maybe that we could call this new article that details electronic cigarettes "Electronic Cigarette". TheNorlo (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly, "Aspects of Electronic Cigarettes Other Than Those Discussed in the Press and Academic Literature" Formerly 98 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we could create an article called "What the press and academic literature say about electronic cigarettes" and make this one about, you know, Electronic cigarettes.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of these Options See Expanded Options. If Doc James wants to emphasize the medical aspect of e-cigs, we could maybe direct the readers, in the leed, to the (medical) article that actually talks about the subject, i.e. Safety of electronic cigarettes. But he has to understand that this article here is mainly about the devices themselves not about the health hazards related to these devices. Should we talk about the health issues of these devices here, yes, but it should not be at the forefront TheNorlo (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 per review of sourcing, health effects as a topic make up the plurality (if not majority) of reliable sources. It is likely that readers come to the article to look for that information, given the frequency of discussion of that topic in reliable sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV policy to reduce the emphasis of the health effects topic. Zad68 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of search results given above would seem to disagree.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 is best. Option 3 is second choice. Option 2 is not appropriate at all. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Option 2 isn't appropriate, or do you just not like it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the one you favour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Anyway, never mind. By all means, don't give any reason for your position. You don't have to if you don't want to; I was just suggesting it. Feel free to ignore me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1. Saw the notice of this RfC at WT:MED. Option 1 is best because it best mirrors the way this topic is handled in RS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't. Practically every source describes electronic cigarettes first then discusses health issues. That's exactly what the article does with the current layout - it describes what they are and what they are used for before moving on to discuss other aspects. Also non-medical articles have their own MOS, so MEDMOS is inappropriate.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 second choice Option 3 Agree with Zad, Doc James. This is not just another consumer product like cheese or ping pong balls. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is the most logical layout, and the layout that is closest to how WP:MEDRS reviews take on this topic. You need an understanding of what a product is before you get to the description of how/what its physiological effects may or may not be. Assertions that people come here for health information is afaict based on gut-feelings rather than facts. To be encyclopedic we need to describe what it is, before we get to its effects. [nb. imho this RfC should be scrapped - see below, since it is mostly a rehash of the earlier RfC]. (second choice option 3, option 1 is simply silly) --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure I just advocated for the article to be ordered like option 2 because I wanted the article to match Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_medications_and_devices. I will think more about this. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• None of these Options Or really, only 1 of them is warranted at this point: Construction. The other two are creating visible violations of NPOV. As headings they ought to stay, but with content, they ought to be forked to other pages where the controversy that is visible here on talk page and represented on article page as hemming and hawing, ought to not be on the main article page for eCigs. Again, this is due to the fact that the medical and scientific data is currently inconclusive, and lacking long term evidence. As long as that is the case, an eCig article within context of 2 competing views (enthusiasts and antis) are not going to reach a workable consensus. I'd love to be proven wrong about this, but I currently observe a Wikipedia article that is locked for 3 months because of these competing POV's. Gw40nw (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Gw40nw Could you please clarify which of the selections above correspond to this statement "Or really, only 1 of them is warranted at this point: Construction." as all the choices contain a Construction section. AlbinoFerret 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret None of the ordered options are warranted. Construction is the only selection (heading) that is warranted on the page at this time for reasons I explained above and elsewhere (i.e. Proposal to Drastically Change). Gw40nw (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 is clearly the best choice. Option 3 is a good compromise. Putting the Construction section close to the top seems to be turning this page into a buyer guide, and that is a no-no. It is primary a medical related product. It is reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as this product is like caffeine. It contains nicotine. Nicotine is a drug. Far more coverage exists on the health effects of electronic cigarettes than the actual construction of the product. If one reviews the sources available such as a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, the majority of the sources are health related. If one searches Google using the word e-cigarette along with the name of any major media outlet one will get the same result as Google Scholar. NPOV requires that Wikipedia pages emphasize the WP:WEIGHT of what reliable sources are emphasizing. Of course, that's the health related claims. One cannot argue against that in WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS) the health aspect is by far the most significant aspect of the e-cig topic, and so it should be prominently treated in this page; doing otherwise would damage the fundamental Neutral Point Of View we are required to follow. Given what society knows about the health effects of tobacco, and the perception that e-cigs are probably safer than traditional cigarettes, it is presumable (over even evident) that the majority of readers want to learn more about the health effects of e-cigs than any other aspect. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that putting Health effects as the first section is the most appropriate option. QuackGuru (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2. "I am about to describe a device. Which would you like me to tell you first: what it does, how it works, or whether it harms the health of the user?" Maproom (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

That's exactly it: He refuses to accept what happened. The impression I get is he's just going to do this over and over and over again until we all get fed up and give him what he wants. It is not collaborative or helpful. He has no support whatsoever for his claim that these are medical devices and it's time he accepted that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed these are "medical devices". I have said it is a drug. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, what I am holding in my hand right now is a six-inch-long stainless steel cylinder with a whacking great industrial battery inside. Are you seriously telling me that it's a drug?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop focusing on trivia and address the point. This is not about whether you are falsely calling e-cigs a medical device or falsely calling e-cigs a drug. It is about your IDHT issue and refusal to help build consensus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so no dif than for "medical devices". So you are saying that e-cigs are not drugs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are not drugs. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, an electronic cigarette may (or may not) contain a drug, in exactly the same way that a needle and syringe may (or may not) contain a drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree, really.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

File:2014-Nemesis.jpg Does this look like a drug?FergusM1970 * Is that cocaine? I think it looks like cocaine. TheNorlo (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Come on DJ, is a syringe a drug? It can be filled with something infused with drugs and used to deliver drugs, with different attachments it can be used as a one shot water pistol. E-cigs are a consumer product which is most commonly used to deliver nicotine recreationally just like espresso cups are a container most commonly used to contain and deliver caffeine recreationally SPACKlick (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Doc, I added a photo of the device I'm using right now. Please explain to me how that's a drug. That will give us a baseline for further, and hopefully more productive, discussion.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: when all you know how to uses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When all your training is medical, everything looks like a drug or medical device. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) But that's Doc's problem and he should stop trying to make it ours. He needs to accept that there is no consensus to adopt MEDMOS, that the RfC did not go his way and that progress was being made until he started edit-warring and IDHT. Ideally he needs to walk away from the article. If it's drugs he's interested in he should go edit Nicotine.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC) An e-cig is a drug in the same way that a bottle is a drug. You can use a bottle to drink water (which btw is not a drug) or you can use a bottle to drink a hefty amount of GHB before going dancing at your favorite electro-douche rave. That does not mean that a bottle is a drug. TheNorlo (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I seriously can't believe that after the progress we were making yesterday he's managed to reduce things to this mess. Article locked again, pointless RfC taking up everyone's attention and Doc, having been confronted with the thorny problem of explaining why a device that's 90% identical to a flashlight (and might actually have been made from one) is actually a drug, nowhere to be seen.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) For fuck sakes!!! Where's this rfc page thing.... What a waste of fucking time TheNorlo (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I think I confused it, sorry. You should state your preferred order above, under Positions.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Oh! I thought it was on one of those special wiki pages. Got it. But I have to say that I preffer the 6 possible arrangement table below. TheNorlo (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer it if people would make some attempt to improve the article instead of spouting nonsense. "E-cigs are a drug similar to caffeine." Jesus.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Since when did "Not needed" mean "Not true"?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have concerns that there is an efforts to de-emphasize the discussion of health effects even though this is what the majority of the popular press concentrates on and thus our readers are likely looking for. The evidence for health benefits are not nearly as positive as those within this billion dollar industry would like so maybe this is not surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Go look at the article on Cigarettes. Health effects is in section 11, despite being what the majority of the popular press concentrates on. Can you give a reason why e-cigs, which carry maybe 1% of the risk associated with smoking, should be so radically different?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, it is equally possible that people would be looking for info on the many aspects of e-cigs that aren't covered in the popular press, for precisely that reason. If someone has read about "mods" and wants to know what they are, they're not going to find the answer in their newspaper or on TV. Barnabypage (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Its always best to understand exactly what makes up a device before going into issues with it. There is no way to tell what a general reader is looking for. Its just as possible that some people are interested in the construction of the device because they like hardware and how things work. Those looking for health effects will easily find it in the contents box. Since its a consumer device it should follow the listing of other consumer devices like it, like Cigarette that place construction above health effects. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, WP users (like myself) are likely to come to this page to broadly answer, "what exactly are e-cigarettes?" which includes how they work, how people use them, how prevalent/popular they are, how safe they are, whatever wasn't satisfactorily covered after a conversation or media mention or news report or blog post. As a general encyclopedia article, it should provide all of this information, just as it would for any other device: intro, history, how it works, usage, problems with, the usual. Why not put History first, that is common, and a well-written history section is frequently extremely helpful in WP articles. Otherwise, Option 2 2 or 3 seem...normal. Putting Health Effects first isn't functionally terrible as long as there aren't too many sections to scan in the menu, but seems to be emphasizing that Health is the most important aspect (if so, um, NPOV...), when it is really just one aspect of this mechanical device. To make sure health effects get their due, making sure the section is at all readable is probably the most important thing, not where the link goes in the menu. In all seriousness, take a look at jackhammer, clear and straightforward. --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• The 5-4 against statistic in the wording of the RFC is innacurate:
• Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
• Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)

Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote. We do not determine consensus based on raw vote counts. Zad68 14:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell Doc that; he's the one who (falsely) claimed there was a majority in support of the MED order.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to abstain from this RFC because my preferred option isn't there (Option 2 is closest) I prefer Construction, Health effects, Usage. I believe that telling people what the thing they're reading an article about is first makes sense. Then most people will want to know the effects of it and fewer people will want to know how they're used. Using current heading titles I strongly favour Construction, Health Effects, Usage, Society and Culture, History, Related Technologies. SPACKlick (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option X Same here, my preferred order is not mentioned in the arbitrary choices of option above. See below. TheNorlo (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think this RfC is frivolous. It seems to be based on nothing more than Doc's belief that e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine", which is manifestly wrong. I just had a quick scan through the first five RS used in the article. Caponnetto et al refer to them as "devices". O'Connor refers to them as "devices". Cheng refers to them as "devices". Saitta et al refers to them as "devices." Even Grana/Glantz, which is a very controversial paper indeed, calls them "devices". I do not recall seeing them referred to as "drugs" in any source, either general or medical, ever. Doc's argument for applying MEDMOS is wrong. That's really all we need to know.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument that a plurality of sources discuss health therefore health goes first spurious. The plurality of articles being about health means we should give more weight, and therefore likely more article words to the health discussion found in RS on e-cigs. It doesn't mean we should make the article less informative by talking about the effects of them before describing them. Also, as others have pointed out, most sources that discuss the health describe the devices first.

• Comment while this has been open for some time. Will request that someone close it. From non blocked users we have 7 supports for "option 1", 4 supports for "option 2" and 5 supports for "option 3". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanded Options

There are 6 options for the order of three sections, it seems silly to consider only 3. It might be best for consensus to see what order people rate them in. Please add to the relevant column your initial, linked to you as a user, for each of the 6 options SPACKlick (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Option	Preferred	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	Oppose
Construction, Health effects, Usage	S		TN A	F			Ts K
Construction, Usage, Health effects	F TN A Ts K	S
Health effects, Construction, Usage				S			TN A Ts F K
Health effects, Usage, Construction							S TN A Ts F K
Usage, Construction, Health effects		F TN A Ts K	S
Usage, Health effects, Construction			F	A			TN S Ts K

Wow. My question here is, why are we limited to three section heads, and these three in particular? In my opinion, Construction isn't very useful a section, what makes more sense is a Types section organized like this:

Types (with one para overview: various generations, basic similarities and diffs)

Basic components (or Operating principles, or Basic technology, or similar)

Generation 1

Generation 2

Generation 3

Related technologies

That set-up is more functional for this topic, at a glance it informs: "there are several types/generations sharing common technology, plus other technologies doing similar things." It also clearly perpares for breakout articles, for example, when Basic components has a dozen subsections, it's probable time for a separate article on components. --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree but for the purpose of this RFC I wouldn't want to propose changing the section. The construction section is intended to deliver the above information, we can deliver it differently but for the above table consider it those chunks of information, however they end up formatted. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand. My real compound question, then, is, does this painful process actually ever work? Does this series of convoluted arguments and RfCs and invoking of past consensus actually produce results? In three months, with spring in the air, will page protection be removed from a briskly written and informative, conflict-free e-cigs article? Is there any real value for me to stick around in the process, as someone who came to here for info, was disappointed, and stayed to try and help? I have no doubt that the people who have contributed to this page in the last couple of days could turn out a fantastic article in just few hours if they chose to actually collaborate...but will they? In the next weeks? Months? This is the question... --Tsavage (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not really so far because the time of protection has been to short. It has a better chance than people just doing what they want, that wont last till sundown. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of honesty I'll remind everyone that the majority are not opposed to this change. Let's not stoop to making up our own facts, eh?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to sleep and then came back to realize that WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TheNorlo (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Its Groundhog day!!! AlbinoFerret 03:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We were working yesterday on making the construction section better.... I guess that will have to wait until this ridiculous waste of time is settled. No point in talking reorganizing the construction section now..... You know, the section that actually explain what Electronic Cigarettes are!!! Funny how Electronic Cigarette sounds like the name of this article. Or am I dilusional and the article is actually called Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes TheNorlo (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheNorlo: The section will need to be improved regardless of the order. This RFC should not get in the way of us improving the articles content. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But see how I am not working on improving this section right now because of this rfc? Doc James is disruptive. TheNorlo (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

He is, but unfortunately nobody at AN/I seems interested in looking at him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Italic text

I would like to make one comment on my responses in the table. While I would prefer one order, its not always possible. This article needs to be edited as a group and we as editors should make reasonable compromises for the sake of getting things done if the choices are both good. Thats why in the RFC I said I would prefer #2. Sometimes its best to have something that you can live with instead of fighting for your ultimate goal so that progress can be made. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree Formerly 98 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrap this RfC

Extended content

Doc James has put forward this RfC because he claims e-cigs come under MEDMOS. His justification for this claim, stated here and at AN/I, is that e-cigs are "a drug, similar to caffeine." Devices made of metal, plastic and glass are not drugs, so his claim is clearly invalid. However he attempts to get round this by claiming that "A cup of drug is a drug, A atomizer full of drug is a drug, A syringe full of drug is a drug". This leads to his position that an e-cig does not actually become an e-cig until it's filled with nicotine-containing liquid. If it's filled with nicotine-free liquid, according to Doc, it does not become an e-cig. This is utterly bizarre and leads to only two possible conclusions. Firstly, Doc believes in sympathetic magic and thinks a steel tube becomes a drug if you put a drug in it. Or secondly, Doc is deliberately misrepresenting what an e-cig is in order to claim that the devices themselves, rather than only any nicotine content, are drugs. This is simply a crude use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, by claiming that any e-cig that doesn't have the characteristics he wants it to have isn't an e-cig at all. In reality E-cigs are not medical devices, as has been clearly stated by the EU, FDA, WHO and Health Canada. Nor are they drugs, because they are manufactured objects made of plastic, glass and metal. These manufactured objects are not mystically formless things that only become e-cigs when filled with nicotine-containing liquid; they are e-cigs from the moment they are assembled. Just as a rifle remains a rifle with the magazine removed and the chamber clear, an e-cig remains an e-cig even if the tank is empty. The devices are not drugs, similar to caffeine or otherwise. They are recreational products that can be (but are not necessarily) used to deliver recreational drugs, and they do not belong under MEDMOS any more than a Meerschaum pipe does. Doc should accept the facts and work to improve the article as it is, instead of trying to force his preferred rules on it by using misrepresentation, stonewalling and WP:IDHT.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Strong support Of course. What is mind boggling is that we are not saying that the Electronic Cigarette article should be free of an extensive health section. No one is saying that. But since there is no consensus to treat this article has a medical one..... It should not be treated as one. It should be treated has a regular article. TheNorlo (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Just simply weight in and walk away to give others a chance to do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Can you rephrase that I don't understand. thanks TheNorlo (talk) That's OK. Neither did anyone else.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Support An RfC on the order of three of the six current article sections I find...bizarre. If the reason is to put health first, I think Health Issues as the first section would be confusing to readers by giving it unusual and unwarranted emphasis. And if it's relevant here, e-cigarettes are clearly not drugs, they are little machines, electromechanical devices, whatever: health issues are one aspect because of their usual nicotine use, but their design and operating principles are independent of any drug use. IMO, this RfC doesn't make sense and is a time-waster. --Tsavage (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC) One can even ask the question; is wasting time the main goal of this RfC? TheNorlo (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I'm certainly not seeing any determination to improve the article, given how he started an edit war that was pretty much guaranteed to get it locked again.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Speedy scrap - Per FergusM1970 amd TheNorlo. -A1candidate (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose, this vote is out of order Its nonsensical to have a vote on the subject "we shouldn't have a vote". One can only expect that anyone who who vote yes in the RFC will vote No here and vice versa. What are you trying to accomplish here? Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC) But the thing is we did have a vote, and it didn't support Doc's MED template. So now he wants to have another vote, on exactly the same thing. Is this like the EU, where we keep having referendums on the new treaty until everyone gets fed up and votes Yes?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC) As for what I'm trying to accomplish, it's to knock this pointless time-wasting on the head and bury it behind the chicken coop so we can get on with the urgent task of making the article comprehensible.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I absolutely agree, this vote was done already. We already recently had a no consensus vote for basically the same reasons. Are we really to expect a different outcome? The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie. TheNorlo (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Strong support for closure So far Docjames has wrongly claimed that a majority of editors opposed the original change (the minority of users that did in fact oppose it mostly did so with WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments), tried to persuade the editor that made the protected change to revert it, attempted to edit war the original order back into the article. Then when all of that failed, still refused to accept consensus and started an RFC in yet another attempt to get the change reverted. This of course involved notifying WP:MED of the RFC in an attempt to get backing for having the Health Effects section at the top of the article. Seeing as this is a clear-cut example of WP:IDHT, I think the only reasonable thing to do would be to close this RFC.Levelledout (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Strong Support Starting an RfC on (almost) the same issue as a just closed RfC, because the results do not fit what you want, is an attempt at WP:FILIBUSTER. Now instead of progress based upon the earlier RfC, we have to wait (considering the time the last RfC lasted) more than a month to get on with improving the article. There was no consensus for a WP:MEDMOS approach - deal with it, and let the editors discuss first what the sensible approach is instead of this bureaucratic nonsense. This is not what RfC's are for. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Support I might as well note my own support, in case anyone's counting. This RfC is basically a rerun of the one that just closed. That RfC found no grounds, and no consensus, for the order Doc wants. There is no reason to suppose that this has changed, and nobody has presented any evidence that it might have. Given that, asking the question yet again is pointless. Kill the RfC and let's do something constructive instead.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Let's be honest folks The "last RFC on this subject was closed 24 hours after it opened, and this early closure appears to have been a deliberate strategy to declare a "consensus" before most of the editors who would oppose it became aware of it. The fact is that we have a large number of advocates working on this article who are here 6 or more hours a day fighting for their cause, while more typical editors drop by once or twice a day tops, because this isn't the only article they work on. This is not a healthy thing. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) @Formerly 98: Lets not be dishonest the RfC i was talking about is Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Ordering_of_sections, which i think you know well, and it was closed on the 17th of December and started on the 26th of October - which is more than a month. --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but that's just not true. The last RfC was open for nearly eight weeks and concluded that there were no grounds for using the MEDMOS layout and that it does not look neutral. What is not a healthy thing is the obsession with applying MEDMOS to an article about a consumer product, and the willingness to obstruct progress to achieve it. The article is currently locked again because Doc, for the second time in three days, started an edit war over a change he didn't like. There is no consensus for MEDMOS so let's just put it to bed and get on with rewriting this festering mass of repetitive, turgid prose.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Support This RFC is an attempt to wear down the opposition, successive RFC's hoping the other side will get fed up and not respond. Not responding is the goal and so win when the other side forgets to respond while arguing against the RFC. Everyone who thinks this RFC should end still needs to comment on one of the choices. AlbinoFerret 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT A VOTE

• I'd like to remind editors that we do not determine consensus on the basis of raw vote counts. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments based in Wikipedia content policy and sourcing. Theoretically a vote result of 100-to-1 against a suggestion where the 100 votes are "I don't like it" and the 1 vote is a well-reasoned argument based in sourcing should be decided as consensus in favor of that one vote. Due to the level of contentiousness on this page, we will have to get experienced uninvolved outside editors to review the arguments and determine consensus, we cannot trust ourselves to do it. Vote-count charts of "7 for, 6 against..." are singularly unhelpful. Zad68 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you! That's just what we have here; the last RfC on exactly this question found there were no grounds for having the health section first and that it looked neither natural nor neutral to do so. The admin who made the change pointed out that the only argument against the change was "I don't like it."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad. Thank you. Everyone needs to comment on the RFC based on logic and WP guidelines/policy. The table above while nice is not a comment. Those that have comments will be weighed in the RFC, those that do not, will not. Everyone who has a opinion must comment if they want to be involved in the decision. Simple yes, no, or a number without reasoning behind it is a vote and will likely be discounted by whoever closes this. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, to explain my reason for inserting the table, I wanted to see if there were enough other editors preferring the other three options that it was worth broadening the discussion. Yes discussion is key to consensus but in an issue like this where ultimately the order is going to be, at least in part, stylistic preference, seeing where people prefer in a clear fashion can only improve the consensus building. SPACKlick (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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.

formaldehyde

According to NPR, "E-Cigarettes Can Churn Out High Levels Of Formaldehyde." Is it a good idea to cite this source in the article? IjonTichy (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Formaldehyde levels are already on a daughter page "Safety of electronic cigarettes". The levels are a medical claim, as such NPR is not a source that can be used. For medical claims WP:MEDRS secondary sources are needed. That would be a review in a medical journal. The article itself points out the problem with the study as have other medical experts. The study went beyond producing vapor and was burning the wicking material. Thats why reviews are important, so that the methodology is checked to eliminate bad testing. AlbinoFerret

Questionable Content

Please excuse me if I've gone about this the wrong way - I've never used to Wikipedia Talk system.

I noticed the following paragraph at the end of the section "Usage" :

Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes. A high number of youths who use e-cigarettes also smoking traditional cigarettes. Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this indicates that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths. There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes.

It seems contrary to multiple preceding paragraphs in the section. The paragraph is also poorly worded and makes redundant statements. In addition, the same reference cited is used for this statement :

Among adults or children, the extent to which a dual use tendency exists using e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes is unclear.

Which seems to be contradict the last paragraph in the section.Aquarat (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It may seem contrary, but please don't get in the way of the anti-smoking narrative that is being retold on the eCig page and sourced to a well known propagandist. While Wikipedia does have a pillar of conveying information on a topic from a neutral POV, we have managed to bypass this for this article and are touting the anti-eCig message as highly pertinent to what an eCig is (for). Unclear, uncertain, inconclusive data, and all. Gw40nw (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have raised this issue several times without getting anywhere. The first quote above is a nonsense statement packed full of weasel words and even outright factual inaccuracy.

• "Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes" - Larger as compared to what and when? And where? Worldwide or a particular country? Weasel words.
• "A high number of youths who use e-cigarettes also smoking traditional cigarettes." - How "high"? Weasel words
• "Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette;" - Some youths??? What 1, 2, 100, 100,000??? Weasel words.
• "this indicates that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths." - Can be? Based on what evidence?? Weasel words.
• "There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes." - how high? Weasel words.

Levelledout (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We can look at what the ref says

"The trajectory of the dual use pattern among adults or children is unclear, but studies of youth find that as many as one third of youth who use e-cigarettes have never smoked a conventional cigarette."

"The data reviewed here, together with evidence of dual use and youth initiation of e-cigarette use, do not demonstrate any hypothesized harm-reducing effect."

"Although it is reasonable to assume that, if existing smokers switched completely from conventional cigarettes (with no other changes in use patterns) to e-cigarettes, there would be a lower disease burden caused by nicotine addiction, the evidence available at this time, although limited, points to high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes, no proven cessation benefits, and rapidly increasing youth initiation with e-cigarettes. "

"The individual risks and benefits and the total impact of these products occur in the context of the widespread and continuing availability of conventional cigarettes and other tobacco products, with high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes at the same time among adults4–8 and youth"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the source fully admits that "The trajectory of the dual use pattern among adults or children is unclear". The fact that it contradicts itself by talking of "high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes at the same time among" should raise some eyebrows and does not justify our article contradicting itself in such a way or giving any impression other than the fact that the full picture is unclear.Levelledout (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Current use is high. Trajectory (otherwise known as changing rates of use) is unclear. Not contradictory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, tendency is a bad choice of words. AlbinoFerret 05:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole paragraph of the article is a bad choice of words, we should not be quoting weasel words. If a source discloses specific findings then by all means state them, if doesn't then its not worth including. As it stands the paragraph should be removed.Levelledout (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have closely inspected the source and have another proposal other than removing the content entirely, which I shall post shortly in a new section.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Levelledout, I agree, looks like a lot of weaselling going on in that section. AlbinoFerret 05:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Grape Seed Extract (antioxidant)

Apparently Grape Seed Extract has strong antibiotic properties.(see research article)

Bactericidal effect of grape seed extract on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

I'm not certain where GSE would fit into this article...ei class and such. I actually took it my prostate infection and it cleared it up quite nicely (just as well as traditional antibiotics), and it saved me a trip to the doctor because one can purch GSE from the health food store. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Replacing ambiguity with fact

The paraphrases of Grana in the Usage section do not appear to have been done very well. There is far too much paraphrasing of the opinionated comment on the data and very little actual data or unequivocal facts presented. This makes it look like we are using weasel words in the article. There is also some poor grammar in there.

"Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes. A high number of youths who use e-cigarettes also smoking traditional cigarettes. Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this indicates that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths. There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes."

The preceding paragraph should be replaced with:

"National surveys in the European Union and United States have reported that 6-7% of people have tried e-cigarettes. Studies of adult usage report that the most prevalent group of e-cigarrete users are current smokers with a lesser number of ex-smokers using e-cigarettes and "little use" by non-smokers. Data shows that usage is increasing amongst all three of these groups.

Data on usage by teenagers is limited but in the United States, Korea, Latvia, Finland and Poland usage increased quickly in the last few years leading up to 2012. In the United States the increase was from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012. In Korea the figures rose from 0.5% in 2008 to 9.4% in 2011. Data from several studies in the United States and Korea reported varying levels of youth never-smokers having ever tried e-cigarettes, with figures ranging from 7.2%-32%."

There is some other stuff in the usage section that needs looking at too but lets deal with this first.Levelledout (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the replacement is a good idea. Any time facts replace weasel words its an improvement. The readability and flow is much better.AlbinoFerret 14:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the stats are clearly changing fast, all stats need a date on them. Can we replace "usage" with "use", and "most prevalent group" with "most"? Could we also put the attribution after the statement in sentences, and put the most important parts first (e.g. "6-7% of people in the EU and USA have tried e-cigarettes, according to national surveys done in YEAR" and "Use is increasing in adults, teens, and never-smokers, as shown in..." (if that's the right interpretation for "all three")). 7.2%-32% is a HUGE range, and needs some specific comment; it looks like a typo.HLHJ (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"6-7% of people have tried e-cigarettes according to national surveys in the European Union (2012) and United States (2010-11). Use by both adults and teenagers has increased in the final few years leading up to 2014. Studies of adult use report that most e-cigarrete users are current smokers with a lesser number of ex-smokers using e-cigarettes and "little use" by non-smokers. Data shows that use is increasing amongst all three of these groups.

Data on use by teenagers is limited but in the United States, Korea, Latvia, Finland and Poland use increased quickly in the last few years leading up to 2012. In the United States the increase was from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012. In Korea the figures rose from 0.5% in 2008 to 9.4% in 2011. Levels of youth never-smokers having ever tried e-cigarettes vary substantially from 7.2% to 32% according to several studies in the United States (2011-12 and 2013) and Korea (2013)."

Is that better? Levelledout (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I've looked hard at this article recently while closing a couple of RfCs, and the lead section is annoying me. The first paragraph is full of information about what e-cigarettes aren't, and about what they don't contain. I think this is unsatisfactory. I suggest rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many times in which the intro compares against a worse product to give E-Cigs the appearance of being a positive product. The intro actually uses the word "benefit" as though the product improves people's health. The intro also uses "tiny" as a weasel/advertisement word.

The article is quite poor, due to both poor sources and poor extraction. Under Harm reduction, the sentence "Smoke from traditional tobacco products has 40 known carcinogens among the 10,000 chemicals it contains, none of which has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes." appears. The source for that statement said they had not been found YET, the source also stated that high levels of diethylene glycol had been found in an E-Cig, I won't even get started on probable carcinogens ignored by the paper such as acetaldehyde, or completely ignored carcinogens found in even higher concentrations than tobacco cigarettes like formaldehyde. The source then states that the FDA has found carcinogens at detectable levels. The source also claims no adverse effects have ever been reported which is obvious bullshit.

I think some of these sources need to be dumped and replaced with more up to date studies from better journals. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the removal of sourced information is unacceptable within a 5 year limit. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, if something hasnt been found, we cant look into the future for what "might" be found. The article already reads like a medical journal and is full of "uncertain", "unknown", and "unclear" statements. The negative pov is so prominent it is a problem. None of the chemicals you mention is missing, they are on a page that was broken out called Safety of electronic cigarettes. Unfortunately that page will likely be swamped with non WP:MEDRS secondary sources and formaldehyde claims on that page because of sensationalism and poor methodology (as Dr Farsalinos has pointed out) that the news has jumped on. AlbinoFerret 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you both. Could we refocus on the first paragraph please?—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, do you have any specific changes? AlbinoFerret 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can draft something if you like? Means I won't be closing any more RfCs here, but hey ho.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

With the limited amount of closers that may not be a good idea in the long run. I have read the first paragraph, and like most of the article it is bloated. In fact the whole lede is bloated. something as simple as

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking.[1] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.[5] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.[3] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine.[6]

might be better. AlbinoFerret 14:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's my effort:

E-cigarettes are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vapourised by a heating element. The user inhales this vapour, which usually contains nicotine and flavourings. Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges for this liquid and so can be reused, although there are some disposable models.

In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odour, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

Any good?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on the inaccuracies you mentioned. I see these:

• "roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic" This may be ok for first generation e-cigs but not second and third which commonly have components made of glass and metal. They are also larger and dont use the same form of a tobacco cigarette.
• "Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges" again, this is a first generation device, second and third to not use cartridges.
• "although medical sources are cautious about these claims." not all medical sources are cautious, some have already stated that use in harm reduction (for those who are addicted to nicotine and cant or wont quit tobacco) there is a good reason to use them.

This was just from a quick reading. AlbinoFerret 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think AF's is better than yours S.M. simply because yours actually contains some inaccuracies. Most e-cigs are larger than a cigarette by a significant margin, contain more metal than plastic. Typically a button is required to activate rather than a puff. The second paragraph is pretty good.

Preceeding unsigned comment by SPACKlick

AF, also remember that we have to generalise to some extent to keep the lead simple even if cartridge is not always technically correct. I think you will find that the vast majority of medical sources are naturally cautious, regardless of whether they are mainly supportive of the technology or not. AF's idea is the same as what we already have, with a couple of lines removed. I think that User:S Marshall's idea is more descriptive and informative, in fact very well written, disinterested and impartial as it should be. Just need to replace

They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic.

To be replaced with:

They vary in physical shape and size and are often made of plastic and metal.

Levelledout (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats better. I can agree to let the medical experts line go, for the reason you mentioned. But how about a slight change to the cartridges line to "E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges". AlbinoFerret 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So basically remove "Most e-cigarettes have" and replace with "E-cigarettes can have? Yeah I have no issue with that since it's more accurate.Levelledout (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the rest of the line stays. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think SM's wording is better and raises a very important issue that AF's editorial comments address. Many devices after first generation eCigs are less eCigs and more PV's. This could be considered semantical, but is akin to saying a cigar is a cigarette or vice versa. Both have strong similarities, but both are generally kept distinct as two different type of products, consumed by different group of users (generally speaking). I would also note that most of the scientific studies (sourced on the article page) are using first generation devices or ones that operate like them. Lumping everything together in one big article is doable, but continues to be a challenge because a) they are distinct devices and b) users of more advanced gear tend to harp on items that may not be the case with first generation-like devices (i.e. advanced gear is ideal for smoking cessation). If the goal here is to shorten up the lead, present info on what an eCig is and stay away from what an eCig is not, then I'd prefer SM's wording. But if goal is to be as comprehensive as possible with all current devices that could plausibly fall under the eCig umbrella and present an article that tries to cover everything, including all political angles, then I would think we'd continue in vein that is already existing. And continue in vain attempt to appease pro-cessation crowd mixed with anti-tobacco (or tobacco control) crowd. Gw40nw (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, so I've made those changes, lightly copyedited and reduced the beautiful spellings of Her Majesty's English down to the simplified American dialect used in this article. I get:

  E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes, and are made of metal and plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vaporized by a heating element. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges for this liquid and most can be reused, although there are some disposable models.

  In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

  Any better?—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I would still prefer "They vary in size" but will accept "they are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes" since the vast majority probably are larger than a standard size cigarette to some degree or other. I may just be nit-picking on that point, over all it looks pretty good.Levelledout (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the "They vary in size" is important, because most cigalikes (first generation devices that look like a tobacco cigarette) are larger than a combustible cigarette. Leaving out the vary in size ignores the second and third generation. Another note for accuracy, cartridges for the most part are not refillable, while some may refill them, they are not designed to be refilled. Cartridges are meant to be unscrewed and disposed of. Being able to refill really started in the second generation with clearomizer tanks. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• "They vary in size" gives the uninformed reader no useful information at all, so it's better to remove the phrase completely. I'll also tweak the "taking a puff" sentence and the "cartridges" sentence to remove inaccuracies that have been pointed out during this discussion, which gives me:

  E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.

  In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

  Are we nearly there, do you think?—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The last one was OK by me and this one, being an improvement, is obviously also fine.Levelledout (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, though they may need to be combined into one paragraph to satisfy the restrictions on the lede size. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"they are considerably cheaper to use."

Which ref supports this?

"E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims."

Oppose this wording. Health effects are discussed in the second paragraph. We want the evidence not the marketing claims first.

"Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers."

Some refs are reporting that a fair number of users have never used cigs. Thus maybe most. But this is discussed in the 4th paragraph.

"The user inhales this vapor"

Not a vapor technically but an aerosol.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We will need refs to support this content as it is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide language in the article and source that says most e-cig users have never smoked cigs. The forth paragraph says "About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers". AlbinoFerret 04:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It would seem odd that you have chosen to describes the words of an up until now, heavily active uninvolved editor as "marketing claims". I put it to you that the claims made would not be particularly controversial to most people without a heavy interest in the subject and in many cases qualify as obvious facts.Levelledout (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As an example you oppose the wording ""E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes". Yet it is patently obvious that most users think they are healthier since that's the reason that they use the product. And hardly "controversial" that manufacturers think they are healthier either.Levelledout (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James' view is reasonable and I was hoping he'd weigh in.

1) Are e-cigarettes cheaper?
This will obviously depend on the tax treatment of tobacco in any particular jurisdiction. In June 2013, here in the UK, e-cigarettes were about 20% cheaper to use than conventional cigarettes (source, source). In other jurisdictions the difference will vary, but I think cost is a major motivator for people to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

2) Marketing claims
There are no marketing claims in my draft and I emphatically deny any connection with the e-cigarette industry. My motivation in writing this draft is exactly as I posted right at the start of this discussion: "rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why". The "why" part of that is the key one here. If you're under the impression that it's a good idea to start an article about e-cigarettes with the criticisms of them, then I disagree with you. A thorough criticism section belongs in the article. It doesn't belong in the first couple of paragraphs.

3) Vapor vs aerosol
The lead needs to be a non-technical introduction to the subject for the curious and intelligent, but uninformed, reader. An "aerosol", to the uninformed, is a kind of spray can. "Vapor", to the uninformed, is a suspension of droplets. I think we can, and should, go into this later and explain why aerosol is the correct technical term, but I think that the lead needs to be the view from 30,000 feet, and will therefore necessarily not be strictly accurate on all the details.

I hope this clarifies?—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much what is often said on here but the inflammatory way in which its said, which I commend you for not reacting to. In any case you don't need to look far to realise that all of the things requested are backed up by MEDRS sources that are already in the article:

• Claim: "they are considerably cheaper to use."
• Public Health England: "Electronics cigarettes... are relatively inexpensive"

• Claim:""E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims."
• Caponnetto:"Users report buying them to help quit smoking, to reduce cigarette consumption, to relieve tobacco withdrawal symptoms due to workplace smoking restrictions and to continue to have a ‘smoking’ experience but with reduced health risks"
• Grana: "Grana and Ling 3 reviewed 59 ­single-brand e-cigarette retail Web sites in 2012 and found that the most popular claims were that the products are healthier (95%)"
• Incidentally, Caponnetto even goes as far themselves as to say: "Smokers who decide to switch to electronic cigarettes instead of continuing to smoke would achieve large health gains."

• Claim: "Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers."
• Grana: "All population-based studies of adult use show the highest rate of e-cigarette use among current smokers, followed by former smokers, with little use among nonsmokers"

• Claim: "The user inhales this vapor"
• Public Health England: "Electronic cigarettes typically comprise a re-chargeable lithium ion battery, and a battery powered atomiser which produces vapour... Not all electronic cigarettes include nicotine; some simply produce vapour for inhalation"
• Many medical sources use "vapour" exclusively, a couple like Grana point out that this is not technically correct.
• Furthermore there was a fairly recent RFC on this topic which decided that either vapor or aerosol was fine to use, regardless of what word a particular source uses.Levelledout (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We still have two paragraphs. Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear [2] These changes mix content in later paragraphs in the first paragraph (two paragraphs?). The first paragraph should just discuss contruction.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We could just simply replace the first two paragraphs in the lead with the two being suggested, which would help to simplify and shorten a lead that is currently complicated and confused. This would be my preferred option. Alternatively the paragraphs could also be combined into one by dropping the paragraph tag and the text would still flow perfectly well. "Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear" is probably roughly correct and is represented in this proposal with "medical sources are cautious about these claims". However, reviews also remark that users and manufacturers think they are healthier. Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's. Certainly the medical reviewers of the likes of Grana and Caponnetto thought these were prominent enough to include in their reviews and I'm pretty sure that these opinions are also voiced in the mainstream media. I can find no suggestion that only construction should be discussed in the first paragraph at WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"

The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic

Levelledout (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the lede as it is now is overly complex and way to detailed. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose simplifying the first paragraph to:

An electronic cigarette (also known as e-cig, e-cigarette, personal vaporizer or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. This produces an aerosol, which is frequently referred to as vapor. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. They may be single use or refillable.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That appears to be almost the exact same thing that is in the article. AlbinoFerret

I think its a bit of an improvement. As Marshall states, the old version suffers from the "what e-cigarettes are not" syndrome. They aren't a lot of things, but that isn't how they should be defined.

I tend to disagree with Marshall though on the statement "Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's." Wikipedia does and should represent the opinions of competent authorities, especially on medical topics per WP:RS/MC.

"Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.""

We don't include the opinion of horticulturalists on the subject of surgery, nor that of chemists on the subject of world history. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but having an opinion does not make one a reliable source for medical or other technical information. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes because chemists and world history is a great analogy for e-cigarette users and e-cigarettes isn't it? It is simply hard to believe that it is being claimed that e-cigarette users' reasons for using e-cigarettes are irrelevant to an article about e-cigarettes. Yet the medical community's opinions are relevant. Even though that same medical community considers these views relevant and includes them in their research.Levelledout (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the opinions are in the medical research, and are therefore sourced to MEDRS sources the argument falls flat. Its an argument about something that isnt being done. AlbinoFerret 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes the arguments being presented might fall flat, but the intended effect is achieved. The previously active steps towards consensus and compromise are averted and the discussion instead heads towards no consensus, the non-negotiable WP:NPOV effectively being disregarded for other policies seemingly considered more important.Levelledout (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep precisely the same thing with the odd insignificant word swapped and "They may be single use or refillable" stuck on the end of it. In other words although the points raised above challenging what is wrong with the previous suggestion have not been answered, the editor simply wants to keep the original for an unknown reason.Levelledout (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to disagree with Marshall though on the statement "Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's."----This quote is misattributed. I did not say this, and I've never said it. But my position is that e-cigarettes are not medical devices, and they're not available on prescription or recommended for therapeutic use. We need to give priority to the medical community's view only insofar as the article makes medical claims.

  I'm not keen on DocJames' version, which gives in great detail the exact chemical names and technical terms by which the vapour is produced, without making any attempt to explain what e-cigarettes are, who uses them or why they do it.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with S Marshall that eCigs are not medical devices and that medical community's view comes into play when an article is overtly conveying medical related information about the topic. The lead need not do this, precisely because current medical information is unclear, inconclusive. Where it is not so unclear, it is biased. Our talk pages are full of those biases which amount to some editors wanting to tout eCigs as smoking cessation tools or other editors wanting to tout eCigs as potentially harmful based on claims from anti-smoking propagandist. There's a place for all that to occur, but not in the lead paragraph of what an eCig is, so that a reader gets an idea of what they are before getting entrenched in the ongoing political battle over what they could be. Gw40nw (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 95% of what you say including the bit about the lead. However you say that "Our talk pages are full of those biases which amount to some editors wanting to tout eCigs as smoking cessation tools or other editors wanting to tout eCigs as potentially harmful based on claims from anti-smoking propagandist". It isn't quite as clear cut as that, no doubt there are at least a few editors on both sides trying to do that. But on what is frequently accused of being the "e-cig advocate" side, there are a good number of editors who want neither, instead simply wanting all sides of the debate described proportionally instead of exclusively the medico-cynical one. On the MED side of the debate, I see little appetite for that, I only see the opinion that the article should be treated as a medical one, e-cigs should be treated as medical devices and that therefore only the medical community's opinions (and organisations that derive their opinions directly from the medical community) should be allowed into any part of the article. With a few of these editors, but by no means all, this is even restricted to those sections of the medical community that are sufficiently cynical enough about the technology. This is what causes the problems since this article's subject is not a type of medical treatment and Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV and informative, not partisan and persuasive. I apologise for going off-topic but this needs saying since we very rarely make any significant progress towards consensus on here.Levelledout (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We use medical sources for health care content. We do not allow non medical sources to make medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that a basic premise. But the main reason other sources are excluded from making medical claims is presumably on the grounds of public safety and consequent legal reasons, not simply as an excuse to promote one particular point of view over another on any subject. So it has to be weighed and balanced against other policies, some of which are non-negotiable, not just simply pursued at all costs without even common sense applied which is often what seems to happen.Levelledout (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's basic common sense. It's not just on grounds of public safety. Homeopathic remedies, for example, won't do you any harm at all if you take them, so there are no public safety grounds why we'd insist on medical sources. When it comes to homeopathic remedies we'd insist on medical sources simply because the non-medical sources are, all too often, a tissue of lies written by people with a commercial motive for concealing the truth.

But I think it's important to restrict the reliance on medical sources to the actual medical claims. I mean, to take this to ludicrous extremes, if we wrote an article about cars based on medical sources, then it'd go something like: Cars are petrol-powered devices that emit toxic chemicals. They are the single largest cause of accidental death in the western world. By far the majority of hospital admissions caused by cars involve blunt force trauma... and we might get a few paragraphs about transporting people from place to place halfway down the article.

I'm being a bit facetious but the e-cig article genuinely does have this problem. It goes into details about toxins and harms before describing the essential purpose of the device.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that analogy SM, that's exactly the right way to look at it. I really like the slightly simplified lead and believe the whole article would be improved if that attitude were taken more often. SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article suffers from over reliance on medical sources as S Marshall pointed out in his analogy, it reads like a medical journal. What better place to start fixing it than at the top. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, my position is that the sections about medical claims do not suffer from over-reliance on medical sources and in fact I'll argue for the removal of phrases such as "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes", because I don't think we have enough medical evidence to say that in Wikipedia's voice. (We might say things like, "Sources X, Y and Z claim that e-cigarettes may be safer than traditional cigarettes" instead. That's a discussion for later.) In this discussion I'm trying to separate the parts of this article that should be written based on medical sources on the one hand, from the parts of the article that should be written from general sources on the other.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall You might want to consider where "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes" is located. Its part of the daughter page Safety of Electronic cigarettes. On that page the line is completely dwarfed by negative statements. That page/section has been bloated beyond belief since it was moved. AlbinoFerret 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this is what I get for losing focus on the lead. Let's worry about that first.  :)—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My thinking would be along the lines that if somebody is given advice to take homeopathic "medicine" for an infection, this could be potentially dangerous, even though the homeopathic treatment would not do any direct harm in itself. I have almost zero interest in homeopathy which is a theory of nothing in my opinion. But if it was up to me, an article about homeopathy would at some point, explain why most people use homeopathic medicine, why the medical community thinks that these reasons are effectively based on nonsense and it would be made clear that there is zero evidence to support any claims about homeopathy being effective. If you do not explain why people take homeopathic "medicines", then the counter-claims are almost meaningless and the article ends up looking confused and failing to include a basic description of the subject.Levelledout (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to User:Doc_James' comments mis-posted in the sourcing section below:

• User:AlbinoFerret, please combine the two paragraphs into one then we won't have any more complaints about two paragraphs being used.
• The bit about it sounding like an advert, it is simply a statement of fact. We are allowed to say things that might be perceived as being positive about a technology if it happens to be true. Your bet that this would not be the case globally is original research, please stick to what the sources say. Both Grana and PHE attribute cheap cost to the main reasons for use.
• "This is undue weight..." - we need to explain the reasons that people use the technology, cost and suspected health benefits are two of the main reasons as identified by WP:MEDRS sources such as Grana. Why not suggest a rephrasing of sentence if you aren't happy with the wording?
• "Usage is already discussed in the usage section" - So are the health effects, I don't see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Grana is the report for the WHO, I cant think of a more global perspective when dealing with cost as a reason. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Break for editing convenience

• Here's a re-edited version that attempts to address DocJames' concerns.

  E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.

  In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use. Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers.

  Is this an improvement?—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see this as improvement as it is simplifying things. Editors of this page ought to realize by now that the rest of the article will not be overly simplified like the lead is, but that the lead needs to be because all the sourced information is either inconclusive or caught up in a propaganda battle. So, the lead ought to really strive to present a simplified introduction of "what is an e-cigarette."

My only dispute, and perhaps it is minor, is that I'd prefer to see "user" replaced with "use" and make it less focussed on the person. Emphasize the product to help simplify the presentation. Example, "typically, an e-cigarette is activated by taking a puff or pressing a button on the device." I also don't think "and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use" is necessary. The observational differences between an e-cigarette and combustible cigarette are: 1) less odor (wording we have is fine), 2) no ash and 3) no side-stream vapor as the heating element is not constantly activated as a combustible cigarette is. Whether we mention any or all of these is TBD. The parts of "some users" and "medical sources" are items I'd rather see removed from the lead. And mostly because it introduces the controversy that I'm fairly certain (now) that editors of the page want to have on this article page, but need not be present in the lead. If truly deemed necessary in the opening paragraph(s) of what is an eCig, then I would propose a third paragraph that is distinct from what previous paragraphs were intending to do: present a simple understanding of what an e-cigarette actually is. Gw40nw (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. WP:SILENCE. Either there are no objections left or else I've exhausted the objectors. I have no way to know which.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find medical material that claims e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes. In fact the opposite is the case. While there is debate on how much less harmful they are, there really isn't a debate on them being at least somewhat less harmful. --Kim D. Petersen 13:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If most / all users continue with duel use than they are not less harmful.

Do not see this an an improvement over what we currently have Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, the WHO 2014 report said that duel users would have less benefits than quitting completely. Not that there were no benefits. As KimDabelsteinPetersen pointed out, the argument isnt "if" there is less harm, but how much less. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see there isn't an argument. There's a lack of data, which rather understandably means a significant proportion of the scientific community is unwilling to comment. I think it's well established that using NRT (which gives the nicotine without all the other harmful stuff that's in cigarettes) is better than smoking, and on this basis a few medical sources are speculating that e-cigarettes may possibly turn out not to be a completely terrible idea. What isn't established is whether there are any other harms from using e-cigarettes. For all we know they might contain chemicals that future doctors will realise are as harmful as lead and CFCs. (Probably not, though...)

I don't think that this Wikipedia article should suggest that e-cigarettes are a good idea on health grounds, and I'm trying to be careful not to imply that in the lead.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the uncertainty. There is loads of uncertainty as to how dangerous, or safe e-cigarettes are. But there is not a lot of uncertainty on them being safer than cigarettes. And we are not talking about "a few medical sources are speculating" - it is a common theme throughout all of the reviews that we have that e-cigarettes are considered safer than cigarettes... how much safer? No one knows .. but certainly safer. We can go through the reviews one by one if you want (which i don't think we have time for), but to address my point: Which review considers e-cigarettes less safe than cigarettes? If there is no such review, then we have to consider that reviews generally consider them safer. --Kim D. Petersen 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Ie. safer != safe, less harmfull != harmless --Kim D. Petersen 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. What the draft says is in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. I submit that this is accurate.—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes S Marshall, unclear, but not non existent. I dont think non existent is what you are thinking, if so please comment on it. I think this is a tangent that serves no purpose. Some people though do get the difference between safe/safer and less harmful/harmless mixed up, I wonder why though in some cases. Tobacco Harm Reduction is a major reason for use and the health sources are backing it up, though rather slowly, 2013/2014 seems to be a turning point to looking at THR. AlbinoFerret 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"... X thinks it is safer, although Y thinks it is unclear" - what sentiment to you gather from such a sentence structure? I'm in agreement with most of the text except that particular part. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of it looks OK. Criticisms:

• "within the body of the device" seems unnecessary.
• I think legality is at least as important as cost, so maybe "In some jurisdictions they are cheaper to use; in others, they are illegal", unless you can think of a better place? A link to a table of which jurisdictions might also be helpful, and we could probably compile one without too much debate :) . Legal status of electronic cigarettes is a bit disorganized and out-of-date, and could do with graphics for areas other than Europe.
• Both legality and cost seem more important than odor, and less important than medical benefit and risk. Generally, I'd say more important stuff should go first, in lede style.
• "Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear." I agree with Mr. Petersen here. First, the balance of medical evidence takes precedence over the feelings of users if we are discussing medical risks and benefits. The feelings of users are irrelevant to the actual risks and benefits, though not irrelevent to the reasons people take up vaping. How about splitting the two, to get: "Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is unclear." Is this true? Do we really have no idea if they are likely to be safer? If we have some, how about "...but the medical evidence for this is weak" (indicating that there is some evidence for it).
• I think the harm-reduction/harmless difference is also important (since there are some non-smokers who take up e-cigs), so we might want "E-cigarettes are not harmless, but their full medical effects are not yet known.". Is that a fair assessment of the evidence?
• I think we should mention bystander effects (other than odor) and put odor in the "user experience" section.
• "Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004." My impression is that the rate of increase has been increasing. Most new technologies increase in use exponentially. Do we have data or a graph to check this?

So:

E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.

E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing (exponentially?) since the first models were marketed in 2004.

HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A few things. So far no harm has been found to my knowledge. Its all concerns and unknowns at this point. So saying it is not harmless really isnt supported. The reasons why people may use them is sourced to medical sources, so its removal is questionable. The source isnt weak, but the one of the most used sources on the page. At present there are no known risks, again its all concerns and unknowns. As far as safety is concerned, there is evidence that they are safer than combustible cigarettes. The controversy is how much safer. This has been covered in this discussion. If you look below in the next section you will see a start at what has been sourced, all to review articles and already in the article. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree with HLHJ's well-reasoned changes.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see why legality is such an issue? It is only illegal in very few places, so it seems undue to focus on this. And AlbinoFerret has a point with the fact that no harm has actually been established.. it is reasonable to assume that there would be some to the user, but we certainly can't state it this way, and most certainly can't make claims about second-hand harm. To illustrate: All second hand emissions found so far, are below limits set for work-place standards.. lots of speculation exist in the literature, but no actual tangible evidence. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly, and the proposed edit actually states speculation as fact. AlbinoFerret 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Break

I think we might be getting too bogged down with singular statements and words here, the proposal has already been edited several times to encompass editors' concerns. Are we in agreement that the proposal is, broadly speaking, an overall improvement on what we have at the moment? We can agree to sort out the minor details at a later date. We also need to answer DocJames' question (see sourcing section) of whether we are intending to replace the first paragraph or the first two paragraphs of the lead.Levelledout (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to replace the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, we do not need two paragraphs on the health implications. Parts of the current 2nd paragraph could possibly be combined with the 3rd which needs trimming and simplifying.Levelledout (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourced Version

Added after one comment: This section is for sourcing, please make edit suggestions of complaints in the section above. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have started sourcing out some of the claims.

E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models. In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

But we will probably need more. Point one out, and I will add it here. AlbinoFerret 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of issues

This sounds like an ad "considerably cheaper to use" when it is not at all clear that this is true globally (my bet is it isn't)

This is undue weight "E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes"

This is not the position of most organizations "although medical sources are cautious about these claims"

The current summary that "the benefits and risk of e-cigs are unclear" is a more accurate summary

Usage is already discussed lower in the lead.

Additionally it is not clear why we are replacing one paragraph with two? This suggestion contravenes WP:LEADDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This section is for sourcing, if you have edit suggestions or problems please make them above. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

They're not unreasonable suggestions so I'll post a re-edited version above.—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to keep this section on a specific purpose so the discussion above doesnt fragment and happen in different places. As soon as you work through the issues I will repost it here and move the sources in. AlbinoFerret

Still not clear if this is to replace the first paragraph or first two paragraphs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

RFC on daughter page

There is an RFC on the Safety of electronic cigarettes. HERE The RFC is asking if Sources like Press releases should be used to make medical claims. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

they are position statements. Only one of the two was released in the form of a press release. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Emissions from e-cigarette may contain tiny ultrafine particles of flavors." This should use the plural form "e-cigarettes". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

New UK guidelines

The UK's National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training has issued new guidelines downplaying concerns and stating that smoking cessation professionals should support e-cigarette users.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a government or medical position. Appears to be an "interest group". Would be interesting to know who funds said interest group?

Goal is "support the delivery of smoking cessation interventions provided by local stop smoking services" Not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Interest group? It was set up with a Department for Health grant in partnership with the National Health System (and academics) and has received funding from Public Health England. Link Levelledout (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup here [3] right lower corner it says "community interest company"

The website in question does not call itself "NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training" but the "National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training"

It appears they are selling their content [4]

Just because they may have received a grant from the NHS does not mean there conclusions are that of the government.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It sort of does actually. Their main function is training NHS & other staff to run smoking cessation courses etc, set up and funded by the NHS/PHE/government. The "community interest company" is for reasons such as so they don't count as civil servants with vast pensions, unions etc etc. They won't make their own policy I think you'll find, and will not be out of step with government/NHS/NICE views. But they are not the ideal source for public-facing government pronouncements, which is not really their role. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a position statement to me. AlbinoFerret 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it that press releases from antis are position statements but position statements from NHS-funded cessation groups aren't? I think some people need to take a step back from this article and look at their POV issues before contributing again.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Johnbod's view that they don't technically represent government opinion. But they are an organisation set up in partnership with government that provides expert advice to government agencies (NHS stop smoking services) and therefore I see no problem with using them for position statements on the basis of them being a "nationally recognised expert body".Levelledout (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

They would certainly count as that. Their website is not terribly clear on their status, but this report on their first 3 years to March 2012 is clearer. The Department of Health (ministry) put 3 years of funding for NHS smoking cessation training out to tender, which was won by University College London, & they are the vehicle set up by UCL for this. The idea was I think, that after that period they would get much of their income by charging the NHS employers for their courses; not sure how that has turned out. Now their core funding is from Public Health England. As an NHS "smoking practicioner"(!) I think by now you need to be "accredited" by them, having passed their courses. From the report (p8) UCL "hosting" ceased in 2012, and they are apparently supposed to be self-supporting. On a further point raised by Doc James, from "NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training" to "National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training" was a name change, in 2012 (p 9, and at the start of the report). By March 2012 9K people had received training courses and 5K had passed, at least 75% NHS staff (p.14). The report included a list of research publications they have produced/contributed to, on the effectiveness of cessation interventions and such like. I've just noticed that Cancer Research UK's (old) logo is at the bottom of the start of the report, with others, so they probably get or got some cash from them, or help from the CRUK funded health behaviour unit at UCL, a group of whom I trained when Wikipedian in Residence there. So I should declare an interest. At the very least a para should be added to the UK section of Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, so I have done that. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the full briefing (much longer) as a PDF. Although not (presumably) peer-reviewed, it includes a review of studies, with 82 given in the references at the end. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, in fact we are using this as a source in the article in the construction section.Levelledout (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure so if appropriately attributed would likely be suitable for the sub article on positions of medical orginizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Legislation sentence in lede

I've been away from the article a bit so I'm not sure what if any debate there's been on this sentence (which is why I'm not just being WP:BOLD): Because of the possible relationship to tobacco laws and medical drug policies, electronic cigarette legislation is being debated in many countries. This reads to me as if it's saying that the reason for e-cig regulation is the existence of tobacco and pharma regulation, but that seems a slightly odd way to describe it. I'd suggest something like the following might be better: Electronic cigarette legislation is being debated in many countries, frequently in the context of tobacco and pharmaceutical regulation Barnabypage (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2015 ((Chose -> Choose) Found in the 'Third Generation' section

Third generation devices commonly use rebuildable atomizers allowing users to choose the wicking material.

81.153.86.103 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at AN/I. BMK (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Who was the sockpuppet?

DGG said at ArbCom that "With the removal of a persistent sockpuppet, it is very possible that the situation can now be resolved..." (at electronic cigarette) articles. Could someone here please comment on which users are supposed to have been sockpuppeting? Who is the persistent sockpuppet supposed to have been removed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe InfiniteBratwurst was discovered to be a sock of the previously banned paid advocate FergusM1970. SPACKlick (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2015 (Chose -> Choose)

Third generation

Third generation PV.

Third generation devices includes mechanical mods and variable voltage devices though both are commonly called "mods" are the battery section of the device. Mechanical and variable devices are commonly either cylindrical or a box. They can be made of wood, aluminium, stainless steel, or brass. A box can hold larger and sometimes multiple batteries. Mechanical mods and variable devices use larger batteries. The battery is installed in the mod and can be removed. This allows the user to change the battery when it is depleted. Variable devices often have a USB connector for recharging and can be used while they are charging as a "passthrough". Mechanical mods do not because they do not contain circuitry. The battery must be removed and charged with an external charger. Common battery sizes used in mechanical mods and variable wattage devices are 18350, 18490, 18500 and 18650. The power section may include additional options, such as displays and support of a wide range of internal batteries and allow different atomizers to be connected. Third generation devices commonly use rebuildable atomizers allowing users to choose the wicking material. Handmade coils can be installed in the atomizer to increase vapor production. Hardware in this generation is sometimes modified to increase flavor. This generation can also use clearomizers. The size of the battery section allows the use of larger tanks that hold more e-liquid.

81.153.86.103 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Done I've changed "chose" to "choose" in that paragraph for you. Next time it would be helpful if you could describe the change you want a bit more clearly - I thought you wanted to add a whole new paragraph at first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2015

Vapor is not Aerosol.... BIIIGGG difference...

65.64.165.194 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The stuff produced by e-cigs is technically an aerosol, not a vapour, which is why the article is written the way it is. And in any case, you need to be a lot more specific about what you are requesting. It's not at all clear what changes you want made at the moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 March 2015

Please read "I'll venture to suggest that option 3 is the one that more editors seem to be able to get behind, and it's probably the most fruitful basis for future discussion.". I think option 3 with the ordering of the sections is a compromise that most editors can live with. See option 3 for the section ordering.

• Usage
• Health effects
• Construction

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_22#Ordering_of_sections_2. QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure I think that would be okay as a compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please retract this edit request and seek consensus as the template says. It's a controversial topic and "the most fruitful basis for future discussion" means just that. Perhaps User:S_Marshall would be willing to clarify matters for you as they were the closer of the RFC.Levelledout (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I closed that RFC before I became active in trying to fix the article. Now that I've attempted to reach consensus on improvements, I've become involved, so I shouldn't assume a false air of authority as RFC closer.—S Marshall T/C 21:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you can still comment as a regular editor. Levelledout, you haven't made a specific objection to the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• As a regular editor I think the sequence should be:- (1) what e-cigs are for (a non-therapeutic device that aims to replace cigarettes), (2) what e-cigs are (plastic and metal tubes with various named components), (3) how they work (press the button and draw on the device), (4) why people use them (but without ever saying or implying that e-cigarettes have any health benefits of any kind, so this would need to mention the cost reasons for uptake), and then (5) what the health effects are.

  This is a typical sequence for articles about devices. For example the article on car says (1) what they're for (wheeled device for transportation), (2) what they are (machines for transporting people on roads), then goes off on a brief historical tangent before saying (3) how they work (controls, engine etc.), and then (4) health effects (injuries, accidents, toxic chemical emissions). It skips over the reasons why people use them because that's apparent from the first couple of paragraphs. In the e-cig article this is much less apparent.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to make specific objections but for the editor seeking to make a protected edit request to get consensus for controversial edits before making that request. Seeing as there have I think been multiple RFCs on this subject in the past, it is obvious that the proposed edit is controversial. I broadly agree with S Marshall's suggestions on the basis of logic and precedent. Putting health effects before construction has always seemed illogical to me. No argument has been provided to the contrary, just a quote from an RFC, that although provided some useful comments, ultimately ended in no consensus.Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The current option 2: "Option 2 is preferred by a number of editors but I can't see any compelling reason to give their views any additional weight. I can see no consensus for option 2." According to the RfC the current ordering has no consensus. It is best to compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue has already been discussed many times and I wonder it is being brought up again now, two months after the closure of the RFC when little else has changed. In any case the suggested proposal is not a compromise, I'm not sure why it's being touted as one. Either we have health effects before construction or we have construction before health effects. It's one or the other. The proposal / edit request reverses the current order and puts health effects before construction. The only thing to compromise on is the placement of "usage" which many editors seem to feel less strongly about.Levelledout (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way it is misleading to say that the RFC found that the current order has no consensus, almost implying that the current order must be changed. The RFC found no consensus for any of the proposed orders including Option 3, thus the section ordering as it was before the RFC, was retained. This is in line with WP:NOCONSENSUS.Levelledout (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The long term consensus was originally option 1 not the current section order of 2. It is reasonable to go with the compromise with option 3. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: I'm afraid I can't see any consensus for this request as it stands. If a consensus develops after further discussion, please reactivate the request. (The correct procedure is to find a consensus before using the {{edit protected}} template, as it is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial requests.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)