Talk:Electronic cigarette

Ordering of sections

Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support It is clearly medical. All one needs to do is look at the sources available. Perfectly reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as it has been doing for some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support If one conducts a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, 90% of the hits are health related. Likewise if one searchs on the word e-cigarette in combination with the name of any major media outlet in regular Google. NPOV requires that we emphasize what reliable sources, and in particular, scholarly ones are emphasizing. Right now, that's the health controversy. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, Given the number and level of authority of the medical sourcing available that covers this subject, especially in comparison to what's available for the non medical topics (I saw how hard it was to come up with acceptable sourcing to even describe the construction, and what's in the article now is built on: medical journal articles), WP:MEDMOS is clearly the appropriate guideline for layout. Zad68 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, there are plenty of sources for construction. That other editors have only focused on the medical aspect is the reason. I have been expanding components and have only been delayed by other matters in the article that suck up my time. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response provides excuses but doesn't counter my main points, does it? Zad68 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you said it was hard to find good references for components. I said no, they can be found, and I will clarify the last part for you. That editors some other editors have focused in on one section, does not lessen the other sections. Components can me more important than medical claims to some people. I would be expanding the components section but constant editor disputes slows work on the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is sort of artificial because it does not separate the meaning e-cig (usage of) and e-cig (device). More sources exist on the usage of the e-cig because (for obvious reasons) there is more research done on the usage. However, this does not imply that the device itself is a priori medical (some analogy with a syringe). Why not split the article? Jophiel 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel I did suggest that in the my original discussion I started on the classification. There was not enough input from other editors and one editor of the three (including myself) was against splitting. That was based on size of the article. But it wont be long, based on the growth pattern of the article where that argument will not have a lot of weight. These constant edit problems are doing harm to the article. It takes up everyones time that would be better used in improving it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC will not lead anywhere. Decision for an article being "medical" depends on the content (not on the subject itself). Article size isn't large, agree, but there is a good reason for doing a spinout: an obvious and tedious content conflict. Jophiel 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Components is also important and discussed in almost every medical reliable source if not all of them. As long as Health effects is not broken out it will not solve the problems of editor conflicts as almost al of the conflicts deal with health effects. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is a medical related article. A few editors think e-cigs are harmless vapor. That's incorrect. Yes, I know: e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which editors think that e-cigs are harmless vapor? Or is that simply a strawman? --Kim D. Petersen 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is not a brand of printer paper. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to check your printer paper, it may contain BPA Arzel (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good one. *grin* TMCk (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support In RS the health aspect is by far the most important aspect of the e-cig topic, and so must be prominently treated in this article; doing otherwise would destroy the fundamental NPOV we are required to maintain. As a secondary consideration, MEDMOS could usefuly inform the style/structure here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Essentially a medical-related product. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I can see the argument that this is a consumer, rather than a medical product, however as survey data suggests the use of e cigs is mainly to stop or reduce tobacco use (which is therefore a medical use), MEDMOS would apply here. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious Yobol - what you are saying is basically WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to actual content in articles. My stance, which is that consumer products that are primarily used for medicinal purposes should be first looked at from a medical standpoint, isn't so much OR as it is a question of emphasis. If that is WP:OR, most editorial decisions made here on Wikipedia are WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is a consumer product, but one that dispenses a highly addictive substance. If this were the first source of nicotine, it would never pass FDA approval as a schedule II, let alone be available without a prescription. Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: i'm missing something here. Are you saying that Wikipedia can decide on its own what a product is or isn't? Has the FDA rejected approval? --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whether this article is "primarily medical in nature" seems to be a philosophical or even semantic point that only distracts from the more meaningful question here, which is whether "Health effects" should be the first section. Given all that we know about the health dangers of smoking, and the widespread perception that e-cigs may be safer than conventional cigarettes, I submit that far more readers want to know about e-cigs' safety than their history. Per Formerly 98 above, the editors of successful and reputable magazines and news sources evidently agree. Therefore I support making "Health effects" the first section. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support in spirit but not in letter. The WP:WEIGHT of sources says that health issues are very important for e-cigs and there should be significant discussion of health issues. MEDMOS provides a useful structure that the article should follow, but whether "Health effects" or "Construction" comes first is trivial. I actually think that MEDMOS should be changed to place a description of the device first and have noted so on the MEDMOS talk page, since medical devices vary so greatly (unlike drugs). So on the narrow question of the ordering of sections, I would !vote for Construction to come first, so readers know what is being discussed. But I do hear and understand the argument that what matters most is how e-cigs affect you and so that should come first.Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Formerly 98, most reliable sources talk about the health effects of e-cigs rather than their recreational uses. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support The weight of the reliable sources is that electronic cigarettes, when discussed, are in 90% of reliable sources discussed mostly for their health effects. The reliable sources which discuss it in other contexts are usually on the lower-quality end of the spectrum of reliable sources. The weight of the available sources presents this concept as a medical concept. I agree with many who oppose who say that one might expect articles on products to be structured like other articles on products, but in the case of this article, so much more coverage exists on health effects than the actual product. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't it interesting that whenever you pick up a secondary WP:MEDRS review, then the layout of those almost invariably describes the product/construction/usage before it goes on to address chemistry, health effects etc. Even our most (over)used negative review paper (Grana et al. PMID 24821826) does it this way. My conjecture is that they do so because it makes the paper flow better... ie. start with an understanding of what it is, and then gradually move towards reviewing the health material. --Kim D. Petersen 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  The lead of our article should include the basic information about construction necessary to provide context for later sections. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Strongly agree that topic is medical in nature and should follow WP:MEDMOS. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly medical, and leaving medical information out would leave a very short and ill-conceived article, biased article. Most of what is in here is and should be medical. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is not about removing any information but the order of the sections already on the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Since it is a tobacco related product that hasn't been proven to cause no heath issues Avono♂ (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Summoned here by bot. Clearly health-related. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAVOTE Would you care to say why you feel the level of health relatedness for this subject warrants the MedMOS ordering? Not trying to be contentious would just appreciate hearing the reasoning from outside editors. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose This is clearly not a medical article. If one wishes to write an article regarding the medical effects/benefits/risks of electronic cigarettes, then they should do that. I will point out Cigar and Cigarette, which are also effectively delivery devices of Nicotine, both have History being the first section and Health effects being towards or at the end. Arzel (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons that Arzel provides. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is clearly a consumer product and does not require a prescription. There are no other consumer products that contain nicotine in the medical category. This article should not be in it either. I think the phrasing of the question is a strawman and the results will be tainted by it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you mind naming a few examples of "consumer products that contain nicotine" so I can better understand what you mean by this phrase? For example, Nicoderm and Nicorette both contain nicotine and are sold without a prescription, and I think that many people associate those smoking cessation products with health/medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's primarily a gadget/devise with non-medical purpose. A health section is of course warranted but not in a leading manner. Comparison to layouts like, I.e. asbestos and cigarette should be the guide to place it in proper order.TMCk (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  BTW: If it would be "primarily medical in nature" You would be able to buy devises at your local drugstore. But so far they stick with nicotine patches. TMCk (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK pharmacy counters are where they are found; tobacco outlets very rarely carry them. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And you live where? Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Here's a couple of examples of tobacconists that sell e-cigs in the UK[1][2][3], not particularly difficult to find. --Kim D. Petersen 01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - you may also want to see this[4], where there is documentation that e-cigs are sold in all kinds of stores in the UK (the article is about selling to <18yo.'s). --Kim D. Petersen 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate to say that pharmacies are the main source of electronic cigarettes in the UK. E-cigarettes are available in the vast majority of newsagent (tobacco outlets) and supermarkets that sell tobacco. Just because a pharmacy opts to sell a product it doesn't make it a medicine. Most pharmacies I know of sell beauty products of no medicinal value and I known of one major pharmacy chain that sells Coca-Cola, which the last time I checked was not a medicine either.Levelledout (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about a class of consumer products and the medical agenda is a only a tangential subtopic. As such, it should be structured like other consumer product pages such as humidifier, vacuum cleaner, or iPad; that is, History first, then construction, types, usage, and last any controversy as to health effects. Mihaister (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  This user was requested to particpate a few hours easier here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  And "th[at] user" has also been active almost every day on this article. Sigh! What are you trying to imply Doc? --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Apparently the Doc would rather not hear opinion that goes against his POV. thanks for your shiny example of consensus-building. Do you really think I wouldn't've commented on this irrespective of any notification? Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  AlbinoFerret apparently had some doubts. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  If you really looked at who I left a message about the RFC you would see its every editor, except IP addresses who has edited the article for about the past week or so. I only messaged those that had not left a comment. I went back 3 pages of history and included those, based on previous posts, that I had a good feeling would support this biased RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

  Yobol, who stands with the "med-crowd" received the same message and he didn't edit here in the last couple of days. That shows "canvassing" within policy. Not so much what Doc did when you take a look at the 3RR notice board and trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin closing the report.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• OpposeThe article is about a manufactured product and should be structured as such. The health issues may be of great importance but they are not the only aspect of this device. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose E-cigarettes are consumer products, they are not medicine, nor are they sold in pharmacies. Yes, when used with an e-liquid with nicotine, then they do have some physiological effect. But such effects in consumer products are not an indicator of them being medicine. If we take for instance Coffee, then a Coffee machine isn't a medical device, Coffee is not a pharmacological product, even if it can contain Caffeine which is a crystalline xanthine alkaloid and a stimulant drug. On the legal side, both the EU and the US have refused to consider these as medical products. --Kim D. Petersen 12:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Mind you: This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the health effects section, just that this at the heart isn't a medical article. --Kim D. Petersen 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Untrue re the EU - see above. In the UK they certainly are sold in pharmacies and at pharmacy counters; that is where you normally find them. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not really the case. Boots and a few other chemists sell "cigalikes", but where you normally find them is newsagents, tobacconists & specialist shops. The leading models, refillable tanks, are pretty much exclusively sold through specialist shops. The Royal College of Pharmacists state that they're not a medical product.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which part of supermarkets sells them then? The refillable tanks are mostly sold online, as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are confusing the EU with member countries. I refer you to the TPD (tobacco products directive) of 2014 article 20[6]. And yes, there are a few countries that sell them in pharmacies but as CheesyAppleFlake notes: Even there it is not the norm. --Kim D. Petersen 14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Pharmacies (at least here in Denmark) also sell shampoo (regular not specifically medical), does that make Shampoo a medical product? --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim the shampoo comment is funny. But in the a lot of US pharmacies sell cosmetics, wouldnt the same faulty reasoning make mascara and blush a medical product? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is titled "Electronic cigarette" and that's what it should be about. If people want a medical article they can create a separate one for health effects, but this one should primarily describe the devices themselves.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly if one searches medical journals, one will find medical-related sources with a medical related agenda. However, if you search outside of that arena into places such as the mainstream media you will find issues such as construction, harm-reduction, vaping sub-culture and regulation regularly and readily being discussed.

I think that it also must be recognised that bodies such as the EU have specifically declined to classify e-cigarettes as medical devices under most circumstances and that the vast majority of e-cigarettes are simply not medical devices, are often not used are such and are not allowed to make medical claims about their products in many jurisdictions. Therefore medical guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are inappropriate across the whole article. The medical community feels very strongly about e-cigarettes and this can be recognised in the health section, which rightly should be subject to medical policies and guidelines.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Very vague oppose. MEDMOS gives a recommended list of sections, which may be good advice for this or any medical article. But it's not going to write the article for you. Any change made to follow that advice has to actually be a good change; you shouldn't make it "just because MEDMOS says so". Philosophically, from the history, we could say that Gilbert's non-commercialized nicotine vaporizer from 1963 made it a consumer product, not a medical product, that could have replaced the tobacco. (A moment of silence to contemplate the millions of lives that could have been saved, had a common sense way to reduce cancer deaths been pursued with resources. The magnitude of the sacrifice our society has made on Moloch's capitalist altar!) The Chinese product was introduced for "smoking cessation and replacement". Smoking cessation is clearly a medical product - smoking replacement is obviously not a medical product. The philosophical ambiguity since then remains unabated. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Electronin cigarette is a consumer device, not a medical one. Also, if you take a look at cigarette, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. And that article - if any - would have all the reason to acclaim itself as a medical one. I think it would be quite logical to benchmark cigarette in this case. Levelledout is also making a good point while explaining how EU has declined to classify electronic cigarettes as medical products[7]. This is something we certainly should not ignore. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is an electronic cigarette. It is not an endoscope or a central venous catheter. -A1candidate (talk)
• Oppose Electronic cigarettes are as much of a medical topic as regular cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, or potato chips. The fact that the majority of sources the article uses are medical publications is one of a series of serious WP:NPOV issues that need to be remedied; moving the "Health effects" section to the bottom of the article where it belongs would be a good start. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As many have stated above me, e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a pharmaceutical product or other drug. Health effects definitely have a place, but they are not the primary focus of the article.Doors22 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if WP:MEDMOS - and more particularly, WP:MEDORDER - gave clear section headings and an order for medical devices (which it doesn't), those headings and that order are a guideline only. Of greater significance to me, and the main reason for my !vote, is that I think it serves readers better to discuss what an e-cigarette is and how it's made before discussing its impact on health. That said, the construction section is very long and it would be better if it was split out to another article and just summarized in this article. By doing that and putting construction first, the health effects are still near the top and not buried way down the page. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james Do you think it would be an alternative to split out the health content to an article "Health effects of the electronic cigarette"? Jophiel 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel, I know that splitting out the health content is on the table and has been discussed at length. Personally, I think the details of the way these items are constructed, which is included in the Construction section, is a fairly specialized topic that bogs down the flow of the article. IMHO, putting the Construction section before the Health section gives the article the best flow but that flow is interrupted by all the details in the section. That's why I'd split off the Construction section before splitting off the Health section. At some point the Health section will need to be split out but I'm not convinced that it needs to go out first. Ca2james (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james Yep, I had a look at the archived talk pages. Would it be feasible to ignore article size and doing both splits, i.e. having this article referring to the respective spezialized articles (legal, construction, health), and thus relieve the dispute tension? Jophiel 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel, yes, I think so. Both sections are fairly long and are specialized and detailed enough to stand on their own. Shorter versions of both sections (but especially the Construction section) would improve the flow of this article as well. Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping Health effects and forking off other parts will not solve editing disputes. Almost all the disputes are in the Health effects section, so keeping it defeats the purpose of the proposed split. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret It won't end the discussion on the health issues. But this discussion right now is in the section of an RfC raising the question if WP:MEDMOS for this article should be followed and a split could be an answer to it, i.e. applying MEDMOS to the split out article. Jophiel 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We may not violate WP:NPOV and split off a topic just because there are editing disputes regarding it. Zad68 14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that parts of the article be split out because there are disputes concerning those sections. I'm suggesting that they be split out because I think that doing so would improve article readability and flow, and I would suggest the splits even if there were no disputes. Ca2james (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Jophiel 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, as evidenced in the ongoing discussion, such a split would also risk a WP:POVFORK. Since health is the princpal aspect of this topic in which POV matters, it needs to treated front & centre in the main Electronic cigarette article and not pushed aside. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

no, the REAL trouble is, health isn't the principal aspect of this consumer product and you and your buddies from project medicine are trying to hijack the article for who knows what reason.... but make no mistake you will not succeed 191.187.236.240 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose belatedly (sorry). It looks like a medical article at the moment but ideally should not be (I appreciate the point that non-medical reliable sources are harder to come by). Cigarette may not be a bad model, and there are no doubt others on categories of consumer goods. Just at a glance, Mobile digital media player has some strong points (though over-emphasising individual brands), for example. Barnabypage (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's an analogy. I would advise anyone to drink whisky in preference to methylated spirits or moonshine. I believe whisky is less damaging to health that alternatives which might contain methanol. Yet the article whisky is not formatted as a medical article. I realise that at present many readers will come to this article seeking medical information, and this should of course be provided, indeed it is likely to form most of the content. But "electronic cigarette" is no more a medical topic than is "whisky". Maproom (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not a medical article. It's a consumer product article. The fact that this particular consumer product has been the study of medical studies does not make it NOT a consumer product article. --Jayron32 04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a consumer product - one that happens to be of medical interest for its ostensibly adverse health-effects. We follow the rules for an article on a consumer product, making sure that the notable controversy is adequately covered. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are over 400 consumer brands of 1st generation e-cigarette, with multiple products per brand. There are precisely ZERO medically licensed e-cigarettes. Whilst there are obvious health related issues that are still being studied, the devices themselves are the subject of this article and the fact that not a single medical option exists whilst several HUNDRED consumer options do should settle this matter quite simply. Both the US and the EU have rejected classifying them as medical device, with the US preferring to classify them as tobacco products and the EU specifically classifying them as consumer products. Why is this even up for discussion? (This is my first edit on wikipedia, please be gentle with me) Entropy72 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about a consumer product. This consumer product certainly has related medical issues. Alcoholic Beverage isn't a primarily medical article and resolves the issue by separating the information into Short-term effects of alcohol, Long-term effects of alcohol and Alcohol and health. Cigarette similarly have three paragraphs on the health effects which direct to the main article Health effects of tobacco. Not Also that WP:MEDORDER doesn't even have an appropriate category for this sort of article. The closest is device, which would suggest the first section should be "Medical Uses" and the answer to that would be "there are no medical uses an e-cigarrette is a recreational nicotine delivery device". There definitely needs to be medical information in this article, it's where a lot of people will start looking for the conclusions the medical community has drawn about these devices, that does not make this a medical article. SPACKlick (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

It's a matter of definition and terminology. The electronic cigarette is not a medical device a priori. It can be used as such (beneficial for health) but it can also be used just for leisure (possibly harmful). Recently EU decided (wisely) that electronic cigarettes and the liquid solutions are not medical unless their presentation or function is medical:

"Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated by this Directive, unless they are - due to their presentation or function - subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) or to Council Directive 93/42/EEC (*3)." [8] (2 = Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67), 3 = Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1).)

So, there are three aspects: 1. The technical (about the device), 2. the medical usage (for smoking cessation), and 3. the non-medical usage (for leisure, possibly harmful). Most sources are, of course, on the health issues i.e. on the usage (2. and 3.), but this does not make the device a medical device a priori.

If you call this article "electronic cigarette" you should focus on the device and its technical aspects (1.). If you call this article "health effects of the electronic cigarette" the focus should be on 2. and 3. (i.e. on usage). Split the article. Jophiel 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Would someone take a minute and explain to me why this article cannot be split - disregarding article size and following WP:IAR. Applying the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." could mean here splitting and using all the energy consumed in unfruitful discussions for improvements and maintenance. Jophiel 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question, and a very good suggestion, IMO. Mihaister (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC) re

Ill second its a very good question, and since most of the problems revolve around health claims, it should be the section split off to a new article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the health content may not be largely moved off into a subarticle is because of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which requires that the emphasis in the article match the emphasis found in reliable sources. As has already been demonstrated, a survey of the available reliable sourcing shows that the reliable sources place heavy emphasis on discussion of health-related topics. Therefore the health-related topics must feature prominently in the main article. Zad68 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The article could be summarized somewhat while still maintaining NPOV. Legal issues regarding them appear to be the major issue in reliable sources, yet this is relegated to a summary and side article. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like legal, at the time of the split, it wasa source of editing disputes. The same thing applies to Health effects. Its the source to almost all the editing disputes. Keeping it will only keep the problems. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are content issues, they need to be resolved using the WP:DR processes. If there are behavior problems with editors they need to be worked out at WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI or other venues that deal with editor behavior. It is unacceptable to change article structure to avoid dealing with these issues. Zad68 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I don't understand why splitting off the health section would necessarily result in a de-emphasis on the health information in the article. A summary of health concerns could still feature prominently enough even if the details have been split into another article. Personally, I'd split the Construction section first, but I could see both being split off at the same time. With respect to dispute resolution, I don't understand why splitting off parts of the article is an unacceptable solution to dealing with the content issues here; part of the WP:DR process is discussion, which is what's happening here. Also, dealing with content issues and splitting need not preclude dealing with editor behavioural issues. Ca2james (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the disputes wont be avoided, but they will be on a talk page of an artile that deals only with health issues. The section can still be proment proment on this page, it will still contain the major points. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern that the split of the "health section" could be construed as WP:POVFORK, though I do not agree that's what's being proposed here. I'm inclined to view this proposal along the same lines as the "legal status" section split (as noted above), which was forked as a content fork to a separate article without causing NPOV problems in the main. Wikipedia content guidelines consider this "acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Mihaister (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above splitting the article could be an (alternative) answer to question raised by the current RfC (which, I think, won't have a useful conclusion). Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking. Jophiel 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 Reading what is being written gives the impression to me that editors are aware of the rules. Why not give some space for pondering on how to apply them? Questions are raised not because editors don't understand the rules but because they do. May I give a quote to you (not just an abstract WP): "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." Jophiel 19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123, let me make sure I'm understanding correctly: You are suggesting we invoke WP:IAR to avoid following WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia core content policy, mainly so that we can avoid having this particular article's Talk page host the main discussions about the medical topics, because you find them upsetting? Zad68 20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 I apologize to have caused a misunderstanding, I may have used clumsy wording. That's not what I am suggesting at all. Splitting this article should be based on WP:CFORK - why not doing an article spinout with (further) sub-articles giving greater detail (NOT based on POV). Doing so would make the RfC redundant since the spun out article on health issues would follow, of course, WP:MEDMOS. I was suggesting only that WP:IAR should be followed with regard to a split based on article size (since it is not that large yet). Jophiel 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support a split, leaving the major conclusions and overall consensus of the medical literature in a one or two paragraph section prominent in this article linked to a main article "Health effects of E-cigarettes" SPACKlick (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We are over split size at 65kb of readable prose. I am thinking that a split is a good idea, but it will be a major discussion with a very long and large RFC that will take some time. I anticipate that there will be a lot of resistance to splitting out the Health sections. Taking out the next largest section, Components would turn the article into what would better be called "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" as the medical information would easily overwhelm the remaining small sections. The Health effects section itself is 33kb in readable prose. All the remaining sections combined without Components is only 14kb. The Usage section is the next largest and it also has a lot of medical sources. One option is a double split. Taking Components and the Health section out as separate pages. I think that would be the best way to go and allow the whole E-cigarette topic to expand. AlbinoFerret 00:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

As this is the third time we are discussing this about time to have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RFC is to narrow and does not get to the heart of the matter, if the article should be in the medical category at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The first bit is a question of "is this article medical" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But the request is only going to medical editors. It should be in the widest pool. Its like the mouse guarding the cheese. The article was placed in the medical catagory by a editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. It was not a medical article for over 4 years. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a math science and technology RfC. There is no medicine RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then this RFC will be tainted, its like asking only a group of Republicans who should be president. The wording is also is a straw man, no one has said it doesnt have medical resources, but should a consumer device that doesn't require a prescription, be in the medical category when no other consumer product with nicotine is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The health effects of cigarettes and cigars are well established and not controversial. Its 40 year old news that my 5 year old nephew knows. That's why health isnt' in the first section of those articles. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd statement to make. WP is not here to promote a specific point of view. Your argument seems to be that because they are new people need to be told of the health effects right away so that they know that they are bad for you. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not for warning anyone about anything. I'm for making sure the article gives different subjects the same weight and priority as is extant in non-Wikipedia sources as demanded by the WP:NPOV rules. I offered speculation on why the cigarette articles and cigar articles might not put health effects as the first section, but ultimately whether or not those articles are correctly formatted is immaterial to this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither of them is listed in project medicine yet all are effectively the same device. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that MEDMOS is probably unncessary here. But I think that the health section should go at the beginning for now, because that is what people are discussing outside of Wikipedia. If it turns out they are harmless and the health aspect becomes a non-story, I'd move it to the end. But for the next 2-4 years I think health issues will dominate the public discussion. JMHO Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, legal issues are what I hear being discussed. Regardless, I think you are taking the wrong approach here. The actual device is nothing more than a tool. What I am hearing from the support side is really related to the effects of the liquid being used. In any case, the "Support" argument does not justify illogical article structure. Arzel (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about what I "hear people talking about" . I said that I did 6 different e-cigarette Google searches focused on what are generally considered reliable sources and all were 90% dominated by health issues. Because the weight given to issues by reliable sources (and not by one's friends, co-workers, and family) are is the standard that WP:NPOV sets. WP:BALASPS In any case it is clear that we will not agree. Welcome to the argument discussion, you're now a member and an outside observer no longer. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We write for our readers, right? I'm a long-time editor but also a reader and as a smoker I looked up our article on those e-cigs. What do I get? Non info! First I get the usual "it's bad for you" advise (w/o scientific backup either way) and only if I scroll down I get a glimpse of what those devises might be and (even so only potentially) could do for me. To get real and unbiased info I have to do my own research with WP only being of help in providing opinion disguised as fact. That'll work for dumb people but dumb people don't check or listen to WP at all and smart people check the sources and come up with a different conclusion than provided. The result is to feed those who are already with or w/o knowledge against something [in this case e-cigs] what they want to hear. You see? You make no difference at all -- you [the ones who see only their POV] only embarrass yourself writing this non-educating stuff up. NPOV means... not what is happening here.TMCk (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of legal issues, US District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:09-cv-00771-RJL, 2010) ruled e-cigarettes were not medical devices [9]. Mihaister (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law and our purposes and guidelines really have no reason to be in line with a given court ruling. Zad68 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but Wikipedia doesn't invent its own classifications, we have to follow reality. Otherwise we'd be doing WP:OR. Remember that is what our policies say. Wikipedia cannot on its own decide what a product is or isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What we need to do is follow the sourcing. In the case of the subject of this article, multiple authoritative bodies and top-tier medical journals have provided lots of high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and surveys of the sourcing show a heavy emphasis on medical sources, as others have pointed out here on this Talk page. A court of law has its own context and purposes, but again, we are not a court, we are an encyclopedia. Zad68 02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how willful ignorance of court ruling having the power of law meets encyclopedic standards. Please explain. Mihaister (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Be happy to reply when you address my point. Zad68 03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Let see if I get this straight. The verifiable fact is that FDA (or any other entity in the US for that matter) cannot define vaping products as medical devices, because that would be illegal. However, Zad thinks that fact is of no encyclopedic consequence, because some "high-quality" medical literature can be found about these devices, which somehow makes them medical devices. Surely I'm missing something, cause that doesn't quite make sense for me. So, I'll ask again, please explain. Mihaister (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So because medical sources describe the medical aspects of e-cigs => medical. Erh? Something here went circular. --Kim D. Petersen 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said either. Zad68 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seem like that is exactly what you were trying to say. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement, but I come to the same conclusion, Arzel (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply because there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources out there, it does not really follow that WP:MEDMOS should be applied. As I'm sure you are aware WP:MEDMOS is a style guideline for medical articles that has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS sources. If the article isn't primarily medically related, then it isn't appropriate to apply WP:MEDMOS. This is the question we should be looking at, based on the subject and structure of the article.Levelledout (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are WP:MEDRS sources used in health sections of a lot of consumer products. The health sections are not at the top of the page, they dont follow MEDMOS. A prime example is Cigarette. It even provides a lot of nicotine and even worse chemicals. Is it a medical device? How about a Tobacco pipe? Its a device for concentrating the nicotine from a source for inhalation by the user. is it a medical device? Should it have a Health section at the top and follow MEDMOS? I can buy both at Walgreens, a drugstore. But I see neither is treated as a medical device on WP, but for some reason e-cigarette is? The lack of consistency is confusing. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making the same point Doc James, Formerly 98, Alexbrn, Jinkinson, Blue Rasberry are making. Formerly 98 makes this same point particularly well. Zad68 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not a medical device, but I still think the medical concerns should be in the beginning of the article because that's the subtopic that CBS News, the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, the Times of London, and the majority of academic papers published in Google Scholar have focused on, whether taking a "pro" or "con" position. I don't know that its in a guideline anywhere, but it seems odd to me that so many here are upset that Wikipedia should cover this topic in the same way as the rest of the world. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd logical falacy. Of course the history and contruction of the tool is not going to be described over and over and over. By you logic, almost zero articles on WP would have any remote semblence of logical thought or presentation. They would be a mish-mash of information presented in order of their prevelance without any regard for how anyone would read about a subject. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, formerly is making an argument about how much WP:WEIGHT to give health concerns. How do you determine WEIGHT? (real question) thanks. Jytdog (talk)

Please check yourself. I have made no determinations of weight with regards to what should or should not be covered. Formerly is making an argument that since Health Effects are the most covered aspect then that section should be first. Taken to the logical conclusion this approach, throughout WP articles, would result in absurd articles that have no logical structure. I was simply pointing out the logical falacy that Formerly was using to try and justify why Health Effects should be first. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry what do you mean "check yourself"? also would you please answer how you determine WP:WEIGHT (regardless of what you think Formerly was talking about). thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are changing the core principle that Formerly was making and then linking the new line of discussion to me as a question. I don't want to get into a tangential discussion about how much weight should be given to the health section. My argument has been the flow of the article not the content. As for Formerly, there is no question as to what he was saying. He made a specific statement, that since the majority of discussion about e-cigs is regarding health, that health should come first. That is a logical falacy which if applied to almost any topic would result in illogical article stucture. He even weakens his case by agreeing that e-cigs are not medical devices which makes the classification as a MEDMOS article less justified. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

this is not productive. stopping. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so random break

COMMENTS and a question - the RfC is unfortunately framed, for two reasons.

• 1 "medical" vs "health": On the face of it, there are only a few countries' medical regulatory bodies that classify e-cigs as medical devices. There are some - so for those !voting "oppose" above, saying flatly that "e-cigs are not medical devices", this is not true so flatly stated. But those "oppose" votes have a wikilawyery, narrow point, in that in most jurisdictions, e-cigs are not regulated as medical devices. I say that the RfC is unfortunately framed because MEDRS and MEDMOS are primarily concerned with Wikipedia content about health. And a) most regulatory bodies that have said anything, have said something about health; and b) most coverage in the media and in the biomedical literature (and there has been a lot of both) have discussed health issues. (As a side note, per WP:WEIGHT, health issues should get a significant amount of coverage in this article.) The discussion on this page has become stupidly polarized and in a context like this, writing usefully nuanced content becomes impossible. I ask everybody to take a deep breath and try to walk away from the knee-jerk reactions that folks are giving. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

• 2 Use of guidelines: by framing it as "should MEDMOS apply", the question of why it matters is lost, and nobody is discussing that. MEDMOS is a very useful guideline for structuring articles with a strong health focus (I know MEDMOS says "medical" but please don't wikilawyer the point) I very much recognize the importance and utility of following guidelines but we don't apply them mindlessly, and if local consensus develops to not use them or depart from them, that is fine, but the consensus should be based on reasons why it matters. So I'll ask - Why does it matter to folks which section comes first? Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

my answer to my own question, by the way, is that it doesn't matter. The article would be fine either way. I am interested to learn why other editors think it matters.Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, there's an underlying NPOV issue here. One wished-for change among some editors here, as I understand it, is that this article should be de-medicalized (or de-healthified) to focus on non-health aspects of e-cigs: construction, social changes, flavourings, user experience, uptake statistics, etc. This would go hand-in-hand with shunting the health information off to a separate "Health effects of e-cigs" article. I fear this could make Wikipedia engage in e-cig advocacy, by unduly de-emphasizing the not-so-helpful-for-advocacy health information. Whether that fear is founded or not, I think it's important for NPOV that this article mirrors the RS coverage of e-cigs, which is largely health-based. Whether the precise details of MEDMOS are followed is a mere secondary detail. Unfortunately, the RfC failed to make a distinction between the importance of the first part of the question ("is this article primarily medical in nature") and the second part (so "use MEDMOS?") Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most people understood the issues here. I am new to this page and I did. We have had a neutrally worded RfC, let us stick with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Jytdog has made some excellent points, and has nicely cut through the bullshit on both sides, as he so often does. The discussion has been way too polarized, there is too much focus on "winning", and we've spent too much time arguing about symbolic issues.

• As a "pro-medical" partisan, I think I can summarize my concerns as follows: 1) I think the main issue covered in the news and science articles has been health, and so I think that should be a big part of this article, and 2) I'm a little concerned that the size and detail of the design section makes the article read like an article in a vaping enthusiast magazine or even a vendor website.
• On the other hand, I think Jytdog may be correct that the order of the sections does not matter, so long as the length of the article is not so long overall that most readers never scroll down far enough to see "Medical". I could see that section go 2nd as part of a larger compromise.
• I'd be also be willing to see the negativity of the health section toned down as part of a compromise. The main thing we know about these things is that they are almost certainly healthier than cigarettes, and almost certainly less healthy than not vaping, though the size of that difference may not be large compared to being obese or eating a lot of hamburgers. We can probably turn down the level of obsessiveness about trace amounts of metal microparticles and the like. We all breath that kind of stuff daily just walking down the street.

I'd like to hear a reasonably concise summary of what the key concerns of the anti-"over-medicalization" faction are, and where there is room for negotiation, compromise, and turning down the confrontationalism. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This will probably be in the TLDR domain, but here we go:

First let me state what i'm in agreement with in your comment: Yes, a medical section must exist, at least until such time as the article get unwieldy and should be split, and i also agree that health aspects, with the same caveats as before, must be a significant section. I also (although i can't determine if you think so) that the health section should be based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS.

On the other hand, i do not agree that WP:WEIGHT is a useful measure in applying/limiting the amount of content there should be in individual non-similar sections, that is why we have WP:SPLIT. WP is not paper. Weight is a determination for us to measure contrasts between views within a scope. (ie. i can't see weight as being an argument for limiting any section of the article, let the sections take up the amount of space that we have individual aspects to write about).

I can't agree that E-cigarettes are medical products despite your insistence on them being so, they are several things: a leisure product, a tobacco replacement, a hobby, a cessation tool. Only one of these would fall into the medical category (sessation). And not to put too fine a point on it, but e-cigarettes have several meanings: The battery(mod), atomizer, and usage - and only usage could ever fall into the medical category, and only some usages thereof would be. So no - putting them down as medical in nature is simply false. (TLDR section done)

Finally to your primary question: The main reason as i see it to restructure the article is because it will flow better for our readers, and while i acknowledge that much of the media seems more interested in the medical stuff, an e-cigarette is more than just a health issue. Thus using MEDMOS for the whole article (as opposed to the health section(s)) is the wrong take, imho. I can't really see the NPOV issue with either way of having the structure though, that seems more to be perception rather than reality, i have other POV problems as mentioned earlier but structure is not one. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would go with a compromise. I think we all agree that it is not the purpose of this article, or WP in general, to warn people of the dangers of ECs any more than it is to promote the products. I supported the structure change because I think it is more appropriate for a manufactured object.

Regarding the pro/con medical opinion I think we must avoid saying what we do not know. Editors here cannot assess the relative merits of peer reviewed journals or other quality publications. I suggest that we state the generally agreed health position on the subject but word more contentions claims in a way that shows that there is some dispute over them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim, with regard to your comments on WP:WEIGHT in your 2nd paragraph - that section says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Can you please explain how what you wrote in your 2nd paragraph squares with that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: yeah, that might have come out confusing :) What i'm trying to say is that the article as it stands, really is a collection of different topics, and if e-cigarettes keep continuing their expansion then each will probably have a seperate article, ending up with this as a summary article, since they aren't really about the same thing. Within each of these topical areas, weight certainly plays a role. But between these different topical areas, i don't think that weight is supposed to be considered this way, weight is basically an aspect of NPOV and it doesn't scew the neutrality of the article to have more health stuff, or more battery stuff etc. I'm a bit down with a cold, so i'm probably rambling :) Hope you can see my point despite that. --Kim D. Petersen 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry you are sick, kim. in my experience WEIGHT applies to the overall structure of the article, as well as perspectives described within any given section. i do hear you that the article is sprawling, and WP:SPLITs are likely! Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The test of whether MEDMOS should be used is whether using it is beneficial to the article. For example, when I read this discussion I discovered there were the recommendations for headers, so I tried applying some at Acute flaccid myelitis, an article I'd just started and hadn't really figured out an organization for. And what do you know, they actually seemed to work! Except for a few which I didn't really come up with an edit I liked, so so far I haven't done those. That's the way it is with guidelines: you try their advice, and if they help they help. But we still have to write articles ourselves, and when the flow of an article obviously fails -- as with the current jump to health effects here -- it's time to try something else. In part it fails because they're not really medical; in part it fails because, despite being new, electronic cigarettes are very much a historical phenomenon, being controlled much more by community knowledge of tobacco's health problems, economics, regulation, and liability than by medical science of the product itself. There's an exception in MEDMOS for having the history first; I say we use it.

I would like to see us start with the Gilbert idea and a deep explanation (if we can find it) of why it failed. Some tie-ins I'd like to see explored, if sources can be found, would be with the idea that tobacco company regulation of nicotine content was used as a basis for liability (per Brown & Williamson's more modest effort to increase nicotine/tobacco ratio with genetically engineered tobacco) and the risk of regulation of nicotine inhalers as a medical device. Of course there might be simpler economic or technical reasons, I don't know. Then -- what changed in China recently to make this a viable idea? There are some obvious socioeconomic reasons, and of course the degree of tobacco use in China that might play into that, but a little explanation there might help. You have to background, of course, with some discussion of when tobacco health effects were known and how they affected the market, as well as other nicotine delivery methods.

Once the history is laid out, I think then you should move on to cover the varieties of the device that now exist, how they work in more detail (how do they produce "smoke" exactly?).

Then you should cover the health effects, which you've started to introduce in the history - evaluate how they've reduced tobacco mortality; also how they retain nicotine addiction. Hmmm, I ought to search to see if they're used in Parkinson's and whether they have any unique role due to the controllable dosing... I think I'm about done with this anyway :) Wnt (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... I should have looked first before saying that! Despite a burst of recent talking head activity, apparently people suspected and tested nicotine for parkinsonism two decades ago. As briefly reviewed in [10] there still is no real progress in actually protecting patients with nicotine, despite some signs of neuroprotective effects and some wacky (who knows maybe true) ideas like PMID 24753353. One reason: as described in PMID 25217056, Parkinson's disease simply makes it easier to quit smoking! Wnt (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649, per my comment above, may I suggest that you withdraw the RfC and start two new ones, along the following lines

• 1) Per the policy WP:WEIGHT, how much weight should content on health have in this article? Please !vote and provide reasons based on the policy.
• 2) Should the "Construction" section or the "Health effects" section come first? Please provide reasons based on policies and guidelines and if you are providing a !vote based only on your preference, please state that and provide the best reason you can.

I would be happy to launch the new ones, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Starting a new rfc when the premise is faulty from the beginning is wrong. The Electronic cigarette article is not in a medical category. The talk page has been adopted by a group to keep an eye on it and show interest in it. But the article itself is not subject to any medical guideline other than a health section on any page is subject to WP:MEDRS. Secondly weight goes to the size of information and weather a source is included, it never discusses placement of sections, and should not override the style of articles on similar subjects.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The dispute here is the strict application of MEDMOS on the section ordering, once we either decide on one or the other, things can continue down either track, and figure out how to handle it. As for your 2nd bullet: Policies don't decide what order an article should be in, nor is it general for MOS' to specify that sections should be ordered in a specific way. MEDMOS (and probably other specialized ones do, but they are usually also targetted towards a particular article type)... not something that i've generally come across. Lets cross the bridge of further RfC's once we reach the point where they are needed again, much could be resolved if only the talk-page was used more. --Kim D. Petersen 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim and AlbinoFerret, I disagree somewhat with you. WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". I don't have a official definition for what is meant by "prominence of placement', but to me the most obvious aspects would be "higher or lower in the list of subtopics" and "having or not having its own heading". I think both would be involved. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of things that you cite from WP:DUE. Where i don't agree is that on such a diverse topic as this, where we have several diverse areas of interest such as Mods (which is a HUGE topic), Atomizers (again HUGE topic), Batteries (probably the most controversial aspect at the moment, because of interchange of chargers causing LiIon failures sometimes with hospitalization), and Health (which is also a HUGE topic), that this is what UNDUE is about. I think each section should be allowed to grow to the point where the article can WP:SPLIT and the sub-topic summarized. I have nothing against a large health section, and i can also see your point about prominence, even if i disagree with it (i basically think that readers will read the lead, and then jump to the sections that they are interested in).. but currently the article as an entity flows wrong, i don't know how it should reflow, perhaps with history first or construction? But as it is at the moment it (imho) fails.

From my view (and experience on other articles), i would say that DUE is mostly about similar aspects, and the prominence of placement is mostly within sections/paragraphs/sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Back at you: I'm not sure more is necessarily better. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive textbook. My gut feeling is that the medical section drones on endlessly trying to gaze into the crystal ball and figure out what will be readily apparent 5 years from now, and that the design section is dangerously approaching the appearance of something put out by the Electronic Cigarettes Manufacturing Association. I'm sure you will disagree, just my humble opinion.

I also think that we are to some extend blending the very different concepts of placement, quantity of text, and tone. I suspect that some of the anti-medicalization faction would be less upset with the medical section being on top if it were less negative in tone. I would object less to the design section being on top if it were not so lengthy. Both position and volume of text make implied statements about what is important. Given that the health aspects are still unclear and that this aspect has been the subject of so much attention in the media and journals, this worries me a bit. Its always the non-verbal communication that controls what the audience walks away with. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head for one of my problems with the health section. An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries. What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics. But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus. There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article. Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret please discuss content, not contributors; please focus on what sources say, and please frame arguments with regard to what policies and guidelines say, all per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not name anyone but addresses concerns of mine about the reasoning on guidelines. Ill try and rephrase some of it in the future, but the erroneous viewpoints are part of the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. AlbinoFerret was indeed addressing article content and how it looks to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I also have to agree that AlbinoFerret was raising a valid point that relates to article content. I do think that it is import to maintain WP:AGF. I don't think that it should be off the agenda so to speak to discuss exactly why it is of such enormous importance to some editors that

• The health/medical section must appear first
• The rest of the sections must be structured according to WP:MEDMOS even though the sections on the WP:MEDMOS page bear very little relevance to the article's subject and its current sections.
• Any attempt to split the article from the health section must be vehemently opposed.
• WP:MEDRS must be applied even when it isn't needed (such as to describe construction)

All of that stuff affects the article's content profoundly. If we are going to find a way forward, I don't think it is inappropriate to ask why the feeling is so strong about blanket applications of these policies and guidelines across the whole article.Levelledout (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Leveledout, as frustrated as you may be feeling I think its probably better to focus on 1) what we agree on, and 2) exploring differences in a detailed way to see where hidden points of agreement and willingness to compromise might be found.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done a strikethrough on my comments, I admit that I had not read this discussion in its entirety before posting. After doing so I realise that my previous comments probably don't add much to the debate at this particular stage.Levelledout (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks AlbinoFerret. I agree that the article should not be targeted to a medical audience, and disagree with what I think you said or implied, that the article should instead be targeted to users. I think the article should be targeted to the average person, who is neither a medical professional, an anti-tobacco activist, nor a vaper. In this regard, I think the suggestion above from Wnt (I think) that the article should have more history, somewhat less detailed medical speculation, and somewhat less detail on the finer aspects of design might be a good direction to go in. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something that sounds to me like progress towards consensus. I agree that the article should be targeted at the average person, as well as needing more history and less medical speculation. As far as ordering of sections goes, I find these comments from above [11], [12], and [13] make a reasoned, balanced, and compelling argument. Finally, I don't think the two new RfC's proposed are likely to provide constructive results at this stage in the discussion, for the reasons presented here and here, but also because this discussion here appears to be already getting pretty close to resolution. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if he will accept the task, but I propose that we ask Jytdog to prepare a WP:BOLD revision of the document (here or in his sandbox) based on the discussion in this section (rather than on his own opinions), followed perhaps by a straight up or down vote on whether to accept it. He got this conversation started, is a non-combatant, and does not seem to be overly tilted toward either side. I'm sure I'll find many aspects of his draft objectionable, but it will probably be better than another 2 weeks or more of acrimony. Anybody have any thoughts on this?Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Answering your previous post, but I dont want it to get missed. No, I did not imply that the article should be specifically targeted at users. But that users are a growing segment of the population that may read the article. I also disagree that the components section is to fine on detail. That section is dealing with 3 different generations of devices in a rapidly expanding and innovating marketplace. Each generation has benefits and problems, mostly benefits over the previous generations. Components is a very much detailed section when dealing with any device. There are even people who are just interested in design of things with no intention of using them. Should the article be targeted to them? No, but Wikipedia isnt a paper enclapedia and there is more than enough room for information that is concrete and verifiable. I wouldnt put up speculation on design, or concerns about what may or not be with respect to flaws in hardware, or any place else. Such information is speculative. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess the difficulty then lies in where we can find room for compromise, assuming that is still our goal. I don't know what the detailed concerns are of the other "medicalists", but I suspect they are variations of my own concern that this not become a "look at all this really cool technology" article with a subliminal message that "this is cool and you really ought to try it". Examining my motives, my push for the medical aspects to be highlighted is partly in response to the size and detail of the design section and this fear that the article begins to seem almost promotional.

I'm sure you think that's silly, but that's my concern and it probably won't change just because you tell me I'm wrong.

On the issue of facts vs. speculation, I think that you can take that argument a mile down the road, but it won't get you all the way to Omaha. We prepare for all kinds of things based on speculation, whether it is war, pandemic flu, or economic downturns. In economics we estimate the financial impacts of future problems by multiplying their cost x their probability. I'd not allow my kids to vape nor would I do so myself for the reason that I think the percent risk of bad health outcomes x severity of problem > benefits of vaping. Though neither may be huge, I think arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to which is greater. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "reading between the lines" idea isnt helpful to anyone. I dont think its a good motivation for any edits. No one is a mind reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some amount of speculative material should be there, but there are degrees, speculation on extreme outside chances, is unnecessary... Picking unique speculation from one review, combining that with even more unique speculation from another review etc makes for rather bad material.

But to mention something else that i realized today: Virtually all of the review articles that i've read about e-cigarettes (ie. all WP:MEDRS sources) start with a section on construction, history, usage etc. before they reach the medical review, Grana as a good example (for once :)). It simply flows more naturally, you want to know what the thing is, before you go into what it might effect. Made me realize why it is that i feel that the flow in the article is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I don't think having the med section first is a point that I'm going to fight to the death over. But compromise is compromise. So far all I seem to be hearing is that it would be great to move the medical stuff down, make it less negative, and keep all the stuff that I've expressed concern about 100% intact. Apparently I'm a lousy negotiator. Time to climb back into the trench and load a fresh belt of ammo into the Vickers? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your concerns. But I dont think anyone is glamorizing the hardware but sticking to facts. What someone may think about the hardware descriptions, and perhaps use it, as long as they are an adult, its out of our hands as long as we are not commercializing it. I also think that lowering information to stop an adult from using something is not something that wikipedia should do, but I am unable to pop off a reference off the top of my head. It sounds like censoring to advance a social policy. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ௐ ௐௐ ... ௐ ௐ. ௐ .. ௐ ௐ .. ௐ ..ௐௐ

Rata-tat-tat-tat ▻▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ ௐ ௐ

▻ ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ. ௐ

▻▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ௐ ௐ . ௐ

ௐ ௐ.ௐ .ௐ ௐ.ௐ ௐ ௐ ..ௐ ௐௐ ..ௐ ௐௐௐ.. ௐ

Formerly 98 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: regarding your post above - I find this rather problematic. It seems to me you already have made up your mind regarding e-cigarettes, enough to make what appears to be a quantitative (albeit WP:OR) determination about risks ("bad health outcomes") both in terms of their probability, as well as severity ("of the problem"). Further you suggest you've also quantified the benefits (unspecified) and basically found that e-cigarettes are a problem with bad health outcomes that outweigh any benefits. To advocate this WP:POV you inserted some text in the article citing a press release from AAPCC as the source. I find this goes against at least 2 of the WP:5, many general WP policies, and pretty much everything WP:MED stands for. Mihaister (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Weight Issues

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The above quote seems to suggest that the only argument against the excess WEIGHT of the medical and health content of this article is "I don't like it" so allow me to advance the arguments against the excess weight of medical content in this article.

Let's start with somethings I believe everyone agrees. We're getting a pretty good understanding of what is in the emissions of an e-cigarette and what is in the second hand vapour. We're getting an understanding of how long it hangs around for. We have some information about the short term effects of exposure to those emissions. There are no long term studies because it's a new technology. No negative health effect is strongly indicated. Some chemicals in some samples are ones where we do have evidence of negative health effects. An overwhelming majority of the chemicals known to cause harm in Tobacco Smoke are not present in e-cig vapour. Now even with detail and sources, here's my take on why the above amounts to over 5,000 words of text. 1) There is a lot of redundancy, the same 4 or 5 health points are made many times over making the article bloated. It's quoted under each body that said it, each country that endorsed it etc. As many of these claims are "we're not certain but we're looking at x, we'll know more when we have evidence" it adds up to a lot of words saying very little. 2) The excess weight results in a masking of the lack of certainty. If you say "Corn flakes may spontaneously combust when stored without milk" 30 times in their wikipedia article, people start to worry about the risk of that happening. If you say once "It is possible for corn flakes to spontaneously combust although there is no indication it is likely and has never been observed" once then people are more likely to take the right level of risk and hazard. While the claims in this article are not as unlikely as spontaneously combusting cornflakes the same principle applies. 3) Ambiguous use of "may" and "could" in medical context exacerbates the above. "Smoking may cause cancer" is phrased that way in some places because not everyone who smokes will get cancer, the may relates to the individuals. "Cell phones may cause brain tumours" was for a while phrased that way because there was no confidence in the claim that they didn't. The may related to the general effect. The level of uncertainty around each claim should be clearer.

I honestly believe the best way to tackle the medical claims at this point is claim by claim citing the levels of evidence for and against. eg. Harmful contents of vapour, Scientific analysis of vapour contents and tests on those chemicals. Highlighting that as no long term studies have been done no long term effects can be ruled out Short term effects of vaping, simple statements of conclusions drawn such as changes in heart rate etc with relevant comparisons to non-use and tobacco smoking. Gateway to tobacco, no scientific evidence for weak evidence against Smoking Cessation and Reduction, Conflicting evidence as to efficacy, small mention of controversy over generational differences. Adverse events Batteries, Liquid safety and poison control, flavours and the appeal to children.

All excellent points but can I just add that - leaving aside for a second the issue of whether the entire article is over-medicalised - it may be over-stressing (in WEIGHT terms) some health issues and underplaying others. The notable one that comes to mind is the "gateway effect". Whether or not there is any evidence to support its existence, this is a huge issue in that it is arguably the main driver (or at any rate, purported driver...) of e-cigarette regulation. As I think I've said before on this page, influential ideas are important even if erroneous. I'm not taking an adamant position here but let me just suggest the idea that in terms of its actual effect on the world out there, the gateway hypothesis is every bit as important as toxicology, SHS, particles etc., quite possibly more so, yet it gets comparatively sketchy coverage in the article compared to these. Barnabypage (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that it needs to be in there but I'm not certain I'd call the coverage in the article "sketchy". It appears under Canada, Australia and Others, addiction, and Usage. I also wouldn't say from my reading of it that it's a highly influential idea. The idea that "you just don't know what's in them" is far more influential. However it sounds like we largely agree and this page needs two people in agreement arguing over minutiae like it needs [something else it doesn't need].SPACKlick (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I spend most of the day looking at e-cig regulation (for my sins) and I'd say protecting "the children" from trying e-cigs and then taking up tobacco is raised as an issue far more often than anything to do with the products themselves. (Which is why if a jurisdiction has just one e-cig law in place, it's usually an age restriction.) I stress that this is the regulatory and public health debate I'm talking about - not scientific investigation. But as you say, it's not a huge deal compared with the issue of the article's overall tone. Barnabypage (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes. My personal opinion is we should make selling any tobacco products, including e-cigarettes a crime everywhere, with a mandatory life sentance without the possibility of parole. Kids are not able to make the reasoned decisions most adults can. They are best used by current smokers as a way of quitting or as a harm reduction device. But evidence of the effectiveness of them used in quitting is still coming in and needs to be looked at more to be proven. Smart regulation is the way to go, age restriction, labelling of content of eliquid, and better quality control in eliquid and hardware. The age restriction has to be done by laws, but the others are starting to be addressed by trade associations. Some mention of self regulation might be useful to the article. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes. Er, well, no - nor do I! Barnabypage (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: its more like death by a thousand cuts. Discounting the little problems is ok if its one or two, but the little problems can, if not addressed, add up to a big problem. The whole article is one mass of little problems. AlbinoFerret 01:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, I think this article is one where the little problems would be treated as tiny if it wasn't already full of the massive problem of Bloat, Redundancy and undue weight. 8 references to speculation about gateway effects even more to people saying "we don't know enough yet". If all that was trimmed and the health effects were handled sensibly, the little problems would be a breeze. SPACKlick (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Phrasing of the RFC

New version to address concerns:Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Previous versions
Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or a consumer product like all other types of cigarettes? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Should a consumer product, in which the article itself is not in the medical category, follow the page order for a medical device AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is completely inappropriate as the original wording neutrally asks the question as to what type of article is it without prejudicial language. You wouldn't like it if I added an alternative phrasing of "should a drug delivery device used to administer a pharmacologically active substance follow the section order for a medical device", but your own rephrasing is equally prejudicial. I'd urge you to revert this edit, after which I will revert this one. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But by that criteria a beer glass is also a medical device! E-cigarettes aren't medical devices. They don't treat any medical condition. They are not prescribed by doctors. They are sold & used as consumer products, & that's what producers, distributors & users insist they are.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

CheesyAppleFlake, this is not true. A "prescription" is whatever your doctor tells you to do. It is not limited to writing a pharmaceutical prescription that you take to a pharmacist to get a regulated drug. Doctors "prescribe" diets and exercise. I know of one who "prescribed" whiskey sours as a muscle relaxant. If your doctor tells you to switch to e-cigs (e.g., for harm reduction), then e-cigs have been prescribed to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:I think that this is dependent on where in the world you come from. Here in Denmark, a Doctor can't prescribe anything that isn't a government approved medication. He can advice you to take a non-medical product, but not prescribe it to you. --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that every Danish doctor that has ever written orders for a stroke patient to be given a low-sodium meal in hospital—and that's probably all of them, given the way medical training works—will disagree with you. The dictionary isn't too hard to understand on this point. If a physician or surgeon orders anything for the purpose of addressing a health condition, then he's "prescribing" it. I doubt that the Danish government is going around "approving" low-sodium foods and calling them "medications". If you want to continue this claim, then I suggest that you back up your claim with reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See BEK nr 1671 af 12/12/2013 §1 of "Bekendtgørelse for recepter" (law regarding ordination/prescription")[14] --Kim D. Petersen 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As an example can be given the legality/non-legality of prescribing excersise, which has only within the last 10 years been a possibility, and has been tried in test-runs[15], so No. Doctors can't simply decide on their own what they want to prescribe in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A parallel situation has to do with medical cannabis in the U.S. The federal government prohibits the physician from "prescribing" marijuana; so they make an "oral recommendation" per free speech, and by extension a "written recommendation" which may end up being required for a special state (not federal) ID license card for marijuana, then there's a crackdown on doctors writing recommendations without seeing patients or meeting various other standards... no doubt a third term will eventually be invented. You might say the English language is always the first casualty of law. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The original wording suggests its a medical device by asking if its medical in nature, not if its medical or consumer, that shows a bias. The original wording also points out the creators own suggested outcome. Another problem is that the creator only placed the question about medical classification in the medical category when its a consumer device and medical editors are not the only consumers. Its a subtle form of canvasing WP:CANVAS called votebanking, asking medical editors if they should keep the article in the medical category. Its like asking mice if they want to keep cheese. This whole rfc is flawed. If the original statement stands then the rephrasing stands imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The original RfC was neutrally worded and has got a good response. This is an attempt to reword it in a non-neutral way. Let it run. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that AlbinoFerret posted the alternate wording to the village pump; I came here because I thought it weird that an RfC would have "alternate phrasing". Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the original wording is biased because it only mentions one option and does not correctly summarize the issue. I have edited the alternate phrasing slightly to only ask the question of its formatting. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, the advice given at WP:RFC is that if you are unhappy with the wording then you should ask the originator to rephrase it. But be aware that although the original was slightly suggestive (perhaps inadvertently), sticking "like all other types of cigarettes" in there is mixing question with answer. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure that there is any "page order for consumer products", I think this probably falls under the general WP:MOS. So the best you could hope for might be "Should the e-cigarette article follow general Wikipedia page order guidelines or the medical guidelines?"Levelledout (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will adjust it a little more to address your concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Workable proposals

In my opinion, the discussions above have mostly been about "Is this a medical topic or not?" with people voting yes or no. There is a manual of style for section ordering for medicine, but there is no manual of style other than article precedent for products. It seems apparent to me that the results of the poll above are not leading to a compromise, other than to confirm that complete adoption of the medical model is problematic.

I am presenting here various options for section ordering. If anyone wishes to give comments on using any of these, or to propose their own reform for section ordering, then I think that might be more likely to lead to consensus than abstractly talking about how to order this without proposing an order. I think the medical order is a good start even if it is not the best fit for this article, just because it is an well-developed model.

1. Here is the current section order.

   Current problematic option

   • Health effects
   • Smoking cessation
     • Harm reduction
     • Safety
     • Aerosol
     • Addiction
   • Construction
     • Atomizer
     • Power
     • E-liquid
   • Usage
   • History
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Related technologies
2. Here is the standard order for medical products.

   Medical order for products

   • Medical uses
   • Contraindications
   • Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
   • Overdose (including toxicity)
   • Interactions
   • Mechanism of action
   • Physical and chemical properties
   • Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
   • Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
   • History
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
     • Recreational use
     • Economics
   • Research
   • Veterinary use
3. Here is a version which deletes the distinctly medical sections and pet use of e-cigarettes, but otherwise retains the order.

   Medical order for products - shortened variation

   • Medical uses
   • Contraindications
   • Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
   • Overdose (including toxicity)
   • Interactions
   • Mechanism of action
   • Physical and chemical properties
   • Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
   • Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
   • History
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
     • Recreational use
     • Economics
   • Research
   • Veterinary use
4. The most common complaint about the medical order is that it does not quickly present the product mechanism. Here is a version which uses that short order, but moves mechanism to the top:

   Medical order for products - shortened variation, emphasizing mechanism

   • Mechanism of action
   • Medical uses
   • Contraindications
   • Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
   • Overdose (including toxicity)
   • Interactions
   • Physical and chemical properties
   • Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
   • Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
   • History
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
     • Recreational use
     • Economics
   • Research
   • Veterinary use
5. Here is my attempt to merge the medical order with the existing order. I like this ordering system.

   Medical order for products - shortened variation, merge with current problematic order

   • Uses
   • Contraindications
   • Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
   • Construction
     • Atomizer
     • Power
     • E-liquid
   • History
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Research
   • Related technologies

Does anyone else have any ideas for ordering this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the above maintain the challenged notion that these devices are "medical", whereas they are currently regarded legally, by the scientific literature, and by the public as general consumer products. "Contraindications"? Really?

I suggest we stop trying to cram a square peg into a round hole and recognize the reality that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology ([16], [17]) that does not fit the definition of either tobacco product or medical product. Let's develop a structure to this article that acknowledges this verifiable fact rather than attempt to shoehorn this distinct category into existing ill-fitting frameworks. Mihaister (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has anything to say that is not a workable proposal then put it somewhere else. All of the above options that I shared are horrible and problematic but at least they exist. This is not a section for discussing theoretical non-existent proposals but for presenting existing ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The above proposals dismiss the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RFC. None above are satisfactory and are all medical listings. The article is not listed as a medical device.

1. Standard order for other cigarettes Consumer product
   • History
   • Construction
   • Health effects
   • Usage
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Related technologies

1. Modified order for other cigarettes Consumer product taking into account support responses
   • History
   • Health effects
   • Construction
   • Usage
   • Society and culture
     • Legal status
     • Economics
   • Related technologies

AlbinoFerret 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not? We could probably pull content fitting that outline directly from here. Would save us all the trouble of developing new content. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion isnt about the content, but the order of the content.Taking everything from one source as you suggest isnt good. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret You used the word "Standard order". Where did you get the standard? So far as I know, one does not exist. Did you design this yourself? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the standard order of its type of consumer product, cigarettes, as found on the articles. None start out with Health effects or have the other medical sections. I have modified the title a little. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I have looked for a standard on products and even proposed one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Home_Living#Manual_of_style_-_section_order, but I think none exists. The medical manual of style does not start with health effects either, but rather with uses. I am not seeing the the opposition to the medical proposal a call for greater attention to the history section, and I wondered if you found some standard somewhere which says that history comes first before uses and function. Is it also your personal view that history is more important than usage or mechanism/construction? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at all the cigarette articles, they all start with history, as do all of consumer products I have seen on Wikipedia. While a "standard" isnt listed in a guideline, there is a default standard by common use. More than half the responses disagree with a medical listing. Starting from a medical listing is imho the wrong starting point, but I understand the need to start somewhere. I recommend the order set forth in the lede as a starting point. It is also the default order a lot of journal articles set, History, what it consists of, and then the effects. They dont jump to health issues. In fact Grana the most sited source uses this order. I understand the concerns of the supporters about pushing down the Health section, so perhaps we can compromise and place history first. Its a small section and does give a tiny bit on components. Its unlikely to change or expand as other sections and will not continually push the other sections down. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing I didnt answer is the lack of opposition. Over half of the responses were against the medical order and preferred one like a consumer device. They acknowledged a defacto one exists because of common use. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret One defining characteristic of the "health option" is that it starts with a description of what the product is and how it is made. In my view, information on the use of the product is more important and the history of the product is rather low in importance. Yes, I know that many people put history first and I have often opposed it. I could be mistaken but I think you yourself have said that usage was most important, and I do not recall you defending history anywhere. This is not a medical/non-medical issue. Even for products I am wondering if you really believe that the history comes before describing what the product is and how it is used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

During a massive amount of editing late at night I did forget to put history first. But the page as it was didnt last long enough to place history first when I woke up. My opinion is that the order of the lede should be followed, it is the same as the defacto standard of page order of consumer devices. I think we should use the order of other consumer products of its kind if not every other consumer product. Its not "many" people that prefer a defacto standard of a consumer product, its more than half and growing.

But our starting point is wrong, it is placing the opinions in the minority first. Granted the medical questions are important, but the lede places that information at the top as the largest paragraph in the lede. Dont get me wrong, some compromise is needed, but sticking with the medical order and making adjustments from there is the wrong way to go. E-cigarettes are not a medical product, they are not in a medical category. That medical group adopted the article as something they are interested in and placed banners at the top of the talk page does not change those facts.

If the order you are suggesting is

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

We may have the start of a compromise. But please lose the rest of the medical order. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to say anything about medical order because no two people imagine the same thing when talking about that. I support the order that you proposed here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I too support the order proposed by AlbinoFerret immediately above. Mihaister (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that AlbinoFerret's first option is the most appropriate, it matches the typical order in the review articles that we have in the medical section (like for instance in Grana). It makes more sense to explain what it is and how it came about, before going into the effects of it, with the final part being the political and sociological aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen Previously you have said that uses and construction/design/product description come first, like for example when I wanted the same thing by voting to support the medical option. I wondered why you said that because it seemed like we wanted the same thing. Is it really your intent now to say that history comes before uses and design? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

During the discussion of sections and page order Quack has been busy adding "medical" section to the page without consensus. Toxicology and Adverse effects were added. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Do you feel strongly that this is a problem which conflicts with the outline proposal? QuackGuru posted some low-level headings. This outline is for top-level headings. I do not have any opinion on low level headings at this time, other than I think that some will probably be allowed. I do not want to dismiss your concern but I was hoping that for now the discussion could focus on top level heading until the article could be rearranged a bit. Would it change your mind about these section orders of the health section had lower level toxicology and adverse effect sections during a rearrange? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry The issues I see with the low level headings is that they are the names of medical sections listed in the WP:MEDMOS and that its not written in stone that low level sections will stay low level sections. Its easily remidied by using a non medical section header for the name. Adverse Effects can become Complaints as an example. But Quack has a habit of becoming fixed on a specific wording, in fact I deleted the sections, he added them back, I edited the names, he added them back. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical device according to MEDRS

This is a medical device in certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, in certain countries if the device uses nicotine it is, but if it uses no nicotine the same device is a consumer product. So no, its not a medical device, some uses may be medical in nature in some countries. That would be calling a Walking stick a medical device. It would also me discounting the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC. AlbinoFerret 14:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

But the source says "...e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."[18]

We should discount the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC or better yet redo the RFC because they have not read this information that was only very recently added to this article. Or all the responders can be notified of this new information. See Electronic cigarette#Legal status. QuackGuru (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it. Leave the RFC run its course. AlbinoFerret 01:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The current text says: "E-cigarettes have been listed as "drug delivery devices" in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[83] E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some countries, but are not permitted to be used as a cessation aid to help smokers quit.[115]" Therefore, e-cigarettes are a medical device. Previous responders are not aware of this new information that was recently added to the article. That invalidates this RFC IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How many countries? 3? 5? 7? and are they english speaking countries this is the english wikipedia. What about the majority of them that dont? Do you seriously think that a hand full of countries are going to make any difference to those who edit wikipedia seeing it as a commercial product? If you stressed "several" thinking it was going to make a difference you are mistaken, several to a native english speaker means a low number. I tell you what, hold an RFC on if this RFC should be restarted to see where consensus lies. It should only take 2 or 3 weeks. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The edit at [19] replaces statements appearing most prominently in the conclusions as well as in the abstracts of two authoritative WP:MEDRS research reviews which have both been cited in the article for months in support of other statements which the MEDRSs' authors did not state in their summary or conclusions, in favor of statements from other inconclusive sources contradicting the prescriptive conclusions of the more thorough reviews. The conclusive reviews are discussed at [20] and [21]. Should the conclusive statements be restored to the article? EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decisions/statements like that really have to be made on a source by source basis; just because you don't have any in mind doesn't mean they can't be found by a diligent editor. I have a feeling of original research about a statement like that. To make an OR counter-argument (no, I'm not saying to add this to the article unless you find a ref) my main concern is whether N-Nitrosonornicotine can be produced by the degradation of hot nicotine solution by a poorly designed E-cigarette. I looked this up a while back and found there was only a minor amount in the refill liquid [22] but I didn't find data for the level in urine or in exhaled smoke. Probably should have looked harder because there must be something somewhere. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome any such data you can cite, but the ref I cited above [23] actually said the bottles were generally accurate, so you have some convincing to do. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses

• Support reverting [24] to replace the summaries of the conclusive sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support AlbinoFerret 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No, we do not place in Wikipedia's voice material that is contradicted by other MEDRS source, we do not replace material in text just because it is "uncertain" (uncertainty is a part of science), and we certainly do not value more reviews that come to a "certain" conclusion when the vast majority of sources do not do so. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ultrafine Particles, the name of the section is inaccurate

The Ultrafine particles subsection does not just talk about ultrafine particles. It also talks about Fine, and larger particles. Ultrafine particles are less than 100nm. A name change should be made. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's change it to "Speculation about particles".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#OR_template_needs_moving_and.2For_changing_to_.22section.22. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion before you added more sizes to the section. If you add things to change things, it is discussed again. AlbinoFerret 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It does discuss ultrafine particles. Read what User:Formerly 98 wrote; "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[25] QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while it does discuss Ultrafine particles, that isnt all it includes. There are now three sizes discussed in the section because of an edit you added after the previous discussion ended. I propose taking nothing from the section if its renamed in some way to reflect its talking about more than Ultrafine particles. We are not talking about Original Research if that happens, we are talking about factual accuracy in the sections name. This needs to be fixed. Please suggest a name that covers all three types of particles in the section. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fine particles in the section = Fine particles can be chemically intricate and not uniform, and what a particle is made of, the exact harmful elements, and the importance of the size of the particle is mostly unknown. Because these things are uncertain, it is not clear whether the particles in e-cigarette mist have health effects similar to those produced by traditional cigarettes
• Ultrafine particles in the section. = Though, the particle size composition and sum of particles emitted by e-cigarettes are like traditional cigarettes, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).[1]
• Larger particles in the section = A 2014 ASHRAE publication stated the word "vaping" is not technically accurate when applied to e-cigarettes and concluded that users of these devices are rather "aerosolizing," which is a dense visible mist consisting of liquid sub-micron droplets.

Three diffrent sizes, yet the section name only says one. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, why did you revert the move of the sentence based on "shows an e-cigarette user exhaling a dense visible aerosol into the surrounding air." back to Ultrafine section, create Original Research by linking statements sections apart apart, and put a claim that is specifically about Second Hand into the first hand section with this edit? AlbinoFerret 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The section makes it clear it is mostly ultrafine particles and I added text that is a description of the aerosol. The text shows it is sub-micron and all the text is sourced. The current section name is simple. We should not make it longer. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend something easy and short, Particles. That way you can add as many sizes as MEDRS mention. You could use "Ultrafine, Fine, and Submicron particles" or those in any order but each future addition of size will make the name longer. You have not addressed the revert. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "Particles" is inaccurate and I did explain it was a description of the aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be ok if the section was only about Ultrafine particles, but you are talking about 3 kinds. Ultrafine particles is an incomplete and inaccurate way to describe Aerosol. If the one word description isnt good for you then just list all of them. Address the revert mentioned two replies above where you created Original Research, or fix it. AlbinoFerret 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the majority are utrafine it is an accurate way to describe the section. I summarised "E-cigarettes do not produce a vapor (gas), but rather a dense visible aerosol of liquid sub-micron droplets..."[26] This added a description about the aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before. The reason these claims are in this section is because they are first hand examples of vapor. You cant take claims in the source that are about second hand vapor, and add them to this section. Thats why I moved them, and I wrote in the notes exactly why I moved it. Remove it please.

Ultrafine Particles may initially make up the vapor at first, but it looks like all the sources are saying that the state and size of the particles change. Therefore Ultrafine Particles is an inaccurate description of vapor. Find another name for the section that covers most if not all that is in it. Arguing why it was named what it was named in the past is not a good reason to keep the name on the section as what it covers changed. Just as the Safety section is short and covers everything about safety. The name of the section isnt Chemical Safety as that would exclude kids swallowing stuff. AlbinoFerret 13:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made all the changes discussed in this section, no good reason existed to keep factual errors and inaccuracies in the article. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the wording for both sections. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that, but the section name still needs changed. Cloudjpk changed it back, it should not stay as it is, so pick a name that covers what the section includes, and change it. AlbinoFerret 02:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is awkward to have a long section name and the section name does describe what is in the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Then find one that is short and change it. Unless you know a policy that allows inaccuracies it should not stay inaccurate. Im pretty sure I can find one that says to fix inaccuracies or that articles should be accurate. AlbinoFerret 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"..., with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).[1]" The text and section name are accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The name of the sector isnt Vapour or Aerosol, its Ultrafine Particles. If it was Vapor you could claim that, but your talking about three different particles. It is inaccurate. Would a uninvolved third party change your mind?AlbinoFerret 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing will change his mind, and if you try to get an administrative resolution his sugar daddy will interrupt the process by giving Quack another barnstar. As long as the MED coven are hovering over this article it's only going to get more negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@CheesyAppleFlake: The only way this gets better is using the tools Wikipedia gives us. Even offering things that are either ignored or refused is useful. WP:IDHT AlbinoFerret 01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems a little silly but several times above QG referred to the section as describing the aerosol or composition of the aerosol. So why not make the section title composition of the aerosol? SPACKlick (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SPACKlick. Moreover, it's time for editors of this article to demonstrate some WP:COMPETENCE and critically review the discussion of "particles" put forward by certain sources. Much of the "particles" nonsense currently littering the article is based on misdirection and conjecture that ignores the nature and composition of so-called "particles" and rather conflates e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke based on particle size alone. By that measure, one would find the risk of taking a hot shower above that of smoking [27]. The discussions presented in the following commentaries should be helpful for anyone wishing to understand the difference between solid particles and liquid droplets, as well as the fact respirable particles only pose a health risk if they actually contain toxic stuff, not simply by virtue of being small: [28], [29], [30]. Mihaister (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "composition" was inaccurate and was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultrafine Particles is a reasonable and accurate title: the majority of the particles are in the ultrafine range. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC

There has not been consensus on usage of the terms Vapor, Mist, and Aerosol as to the best word to use for what comes out of an e-cigarette. This disagreement has the words being changed all the time. The common term used by most average people and the media to describe the inhalable product of E-cigarettes is Vapor. A number of Medical journals describe it as Aerosol, but there are also a lot of uses of Vapor in journal articles. No one to my knowledge except for this article describes it as Mist. There is a discussion now on the page discussing this issue.[31] There is also one in the archives[32] that ended in a limited agreement for the start of the lede only. Some editors of this page have suggested that in the interest of being accurate we should use Aerosol over the common term Vapor.

Questions:

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

Wikipedia Guidelines

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

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

Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals

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

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

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

Answers

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

A. Should we use Mist?

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

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

• No Mist never made sense. It is called vapor in general parlance and in a significant number of reviews, and aerosol in the rest, with a few using both terms. I can't recall anyone ever calling it "mist". --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Mist is the neutral wording. The terminology "vapor" is used in the marketing strategy for these products."[33] According to NPOV, we should write from a neutral point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Do you understand that mist is a synonym for vapor[34][35] and the text must be written from a WP:NPOV? QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I quote another source that is part of the discussion section? The answer is Yes. Please read the quote. Thanks. "Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[36] QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

"These are likely to be due to exposure to propylene glycol mist generated by the electronic cigarette's atomizer. Exposure to propylene glycol mist may occur..."[37] QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes but it should be the case in every usage in the article. In the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe One term should be used consistently throughout the article. I expect that medical sources define the right term, but whatever happens, after all close terms are reviewed in one place then only one term should be used throughout the article regardless of the original source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• 'Weak No It would be preferable to have one term throughout. Whatever the source says (as long as we're talking about the same thing). Where a source distinguishes the emissions in a vapor form and in aerosolised form then we may need to refer to sourced words but in general a consensus word throughout would be preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, stick with one term, specifically Aerosol as that is the most accurate term. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No agree with Damotclese Cloudjpk (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia does not need to carry ambiguity into this article. One term for the concept should be used in this article regardless of variation in the original sources. If various terms are used then they should be used while distinguishing various concepts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak No as above. Single term is preferable. SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Other editors disagree with you. User:Cloudjpk disagreed with your changes.[38] User:Johnuniq disagreed with your changes.[39] User:Yobol prefers to use the term aerosol because that is what the sources says.[40] More explanations about what is behind all of this can be found here. More details about the term aerosol are explained in the body. The article says "The aerosol produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you want to delete this sentence from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• Vapor should be used, except possibly in a section describing the intricates of how it is both an aerosol and a vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 01:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Vapor should be used exclusively throughout the article, as it is the correct English word per OED: [41]. I do think it's important to have a brief technical discussion about the exact nature of vapor as an aerosol/mist, but it should be confined to a small section. Mihaister (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Mist can be used in this article rather than the vapor. Mist is neutral and a synonym for vapor.[42][43] Editors can read the section Ultrafine particles which clearly explains vapor is inaccurate. Aerosol can be used where the sources use the term aerosol or we can sometimes use mist. The section name can be mist. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the majority of WP:MEDRS sources use the "inaccurate" term vapo[u]r [44] as opposed to the "accurate" aerosol[45]. (and if you use the filter for "review"s only - then you get the same result). --Kim D. Petersen 18:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes in the absence of clear consensus on a specific term the best and least subjective approach is prefered. This will limit bias as much as possible and let the source be the guide will not favour one side or the other in a dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• No A consensus must be reached here. Only one word should be used in this article to describe the concept being discussed. If multiple terms are used, then each term should be tied to a distinct concept. All sources discussing the same concept will have their term of choice translated into the Wikipedia term of choice when their information comes here. There should not be multiple terms used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• No The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" The lede clarifies this matter with the different synonyms. It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. There was obviously a previous consensus for the term aerosol because there was no prior dispute until this recent edit in October. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, please also make a comment under the questions above

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

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

AlbinoFerret previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." At the time he agreed to wikilinking to aerosol and did not have a problem with mist in the lede. Now he wants to change things back to vapor and delete the wikilink to aerosol? Please read the source: "Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas".[46] We already had a discussion on this. Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Other editors disagreed with you.[47][48][49] QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Uninvolved editors can read the section Ultrafine particles. This article clearly explains vapor is the incorrect terminology. AlbinoFerret continues to disagree with what reliable sources say. A 2014 review found "At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products."[50] Repeating what is promoted in the marketing here on Wikipedia that e-cigarettes are "vapor" is bordering on WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to carry on ideological WP:BATTLES. QuackGuru (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Quack,

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

AlbinoFerret 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting: "Oxford Dictionaries has chosen their 2014 word of the year, and it’s vape." [51] -- Mihaister (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents (Figure 1) invented in their current form by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in the early 2000s.1"[52]

"Nicotine and other additives like flavorings and glycerol (purified vegetable glycerine) may be added in various concentrations to the liquid. No combustion is involved in the process and the ‘smoke' produced is an aerosol of liquid particles, a ‘mist' [1]."[53]

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus in the past?

Consensus.

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

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

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

I'm sorry but you are presenting a narrative here that is at odds with reality. The change[54] that you claim to be the "origins" of this, has nothing at all to do with the conflict over mist/aerosol/vapor.. but was instead a problem with direct copy/paste of sentences from sources. It is the the wholesale change of vapor into mist (or aerosol) that lies at the bottom of this conflict. --Kim D. Petersen 08:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent change[55] was disputed. I provided strong evidence for the previous consensus for the word aerosol before there was any content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change[56] you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change aerosol to vapor (or mist) and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bait and switch. You are saying again that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you.diff[57] But you dont here it WP:IDHT The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. This diff has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". This diff has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.AlbinoFerret 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed we are using another source to correct another source. You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be WP:OR."[58] However, this diff shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments made by QuackGuru were inappropriately moved here from another section above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede says "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol (mist),[1][2] which is commonly but inaccurately referred to as vapor.[2]" It would seem silly to knowingly use the inaccurate term vapor throughout the body of the article when the reader may know it is inaccurate according to the best available evidence. Inaccurate or WP:POVNAMES are not neutral. This was not a content dispute until AlbinoFerret disagreed with using the term aerosol. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor.QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Your post was moved here to Discussions because it was off topic in a section about closing, please keep all comments in discussion areas. I will remove the section header so the closing comment becomes part of the RFC question area so you dont think its an area to post in. AlbinoFerret 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus historically?

Comments made by QuackGuru were inappropriately moved here from another section above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was a previous consensus for some text. AlbinoFerret was changing the wording back on 13 October 2014. I and User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the change to vapor. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11#Vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont think its a good idea to be naming subsections of a RFC with the name "Consensus". It is untruthful. You have posted this dishonesty in a number of places in the RFC and it has got to stop. You have had your say on the matter. This RFC will not be withdrawn, it will be closed by an admin from the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure" when the person who started it (me) requests it. They, not an editor who is involved, will decide the consensus of the RFC. I have changed the subsection to a section. I have renamed it to the factual account of the matter.

The facts are:

• There was a limited consensus. The limit of the consensus was only on one sentence. Link
• The consensus was that the word used was in place of both "aerosol" and "vapor" diff#2
• Consensus can change.
• You broke the agreement by selectively replacing "vapor" and leaving "aerosol" alone in other selective areas that you normally dont edit. diff#3

You broke the agreement that formed the limited consensus. That changed the limited consensus to no consensus. AlbinoFerret 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of "Health effects" section

As per WP:BRD I renamed the Health Effects section to "Speculation on health effects", which is more appropriate because there are no actual health effects described. I'll WP:AGF that when Doc James called this silliness and reverted it he really can't see the difference between speculation and real effects, but I think we should consider this renaming seriously. No health effects of e-cigs have been detected by any research, so all we have is speculation. The section heading should make that clear, and not imply something that on current evidence just isn't there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Section titles do not contain an editorial message. It is obvious that e-cig users are particularly interested in health effects, and the section has to be present and has to say what sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cig users are not particularly interested in health effects at all. As long as they're healthier than actual cigarettes that's good enough. My issue here is that the section is called "Health effects" when no health effects have been found. It should be called "Speculation on health effects", because that's all that's in it - speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James and Johnuniq, "Health effects" is concise, informative and neutral. Random editorializing does not make a neutral encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Health effects" is a great title - for a section about health effects. Problem is, right now we have a huge section under that title but there are no health effects in it. All the cited sources are very clear that they're talking about speculative health effects. If any real ones have been detected I'm sure someone will let me know, but until some are known that title needs to be changed. It's like having a section in the Jupiter article called "Goats", just because someone speculates there might be goats there.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Health effects section certainly doesn't contain only speculation and it would be inappropriate to label all the content as such. There's no reason to rename the section from its more concise, general title. Zad68 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, what actual health effects of vaping does it describe?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "there is not enough evidence to determine whether they have Benefit X and Risk Y" and "they may have Benefit X and might have Risk Y"? If so please demonstrate. If not there's no point in continuing this further. Zad68 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And if there's not enough evidence to say they have X and Y then X and Y are not health effects. They are speculation about health effects.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and because I think further attempts to explain would be equally fruitless I'll stop now. Zad68 19:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical article, and when the general reader sees a section called "Health effects" they're going to think health effects have been identified. Then they're going to get lost in a Wall Of Text riddled with "A study concluded" and "The Patagonian Homeopathic Venereal Disease Committee states..." that makes no sense at all. As it stands the section is misleading, because it implies health effects when none have been identified.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example. The "Health effects" section has EIGHT separate references to concerns about the so-called "gateway effect", the idea that e-cig use will encourage people to start smoking. However there is no evidence that this is happening. There is convincing evidence from multiple studies that it isn't happening. There has been no credible attempt to explain why it even might happen, because it's basically a stupid idea that was already used against Swedish snus and turned out to be completely wrong. But it's still listed repeatedly under "Health effects" when it's nothing more than unfounded, biased speculation.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Health effects is the correct section heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Who died and left you in charge? That's only your opinion. Mine is different.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a Hint:

Cite: "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known. Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke. There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from tobacco smoke or air pollution can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death. (emphasis added) – Grana, Benowitz, Glantz, Circulation 2014."

I'm not interested in Glantz's manufactured crap about particles because it's junk science and intellectually dishonest.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of bullet points in a list and renaming the section

It appears Quack has been busy editing the "generation" section of the Power section. At first he got rid of the subsections that separated the generations. This made one paragraph. The problem though is it lumped together all the generations in one paragraph making it harder for the General reader to find information about a specific generation of device if thats all they want. I am in the midst of expanding the section and gathering citations for what I am going to put in. But taking out the subsections wasnt a big deal because it was a little small at the time.

I separated the paragraph a little more to make it easier for someone looking for information on a specific generation. At first using bold, but I removed it as its clearly a list, and added bullet points. I shortened the unnecessary long section name, and removed what some may consider promotional language. Quack removed them and language to show that what came after was basically a list. Again making it harder for someone interested in finding specific information.

This morning I added more language to show that the section contained a list ending in a colon, and added the bullets again. Quack then changed the name of the section again and removed the bullets from the list. The section name was inaccurate as all generations are still being made. I changed the name of the section to something simple but accurate. I have started this section so that Quack can give a good reason for these changes as he did not start a talk section on them even after changing the section twice. I would like to know why he is also changing the section to make it harder on the reader to find specific information. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just try changing any of Quack's wording and see how quickly he yelps "Why was this changed without explanation?" But he can change anything he likes. Serious WP:OWN issues here and if he doesn't stop I'm taking it to ANI.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The changes seem very worthwhile. They add an encyclopedic tone that is required. In general (WP:PROSE), lists are not desirable, and I don't see why more on the "generations" topic would be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because this article needs more info on electronic cigarettes - check the title - and less on hypothetical risks and scaremongering?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the words "First generation", "Second generation" and "Third generation", eventually resulting in one big section called "Progression" does not improve the article, it is simply more evidence of widespread WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that means the article is even more confusing and removed from the general reader. Sources such as [Public Health England] call them "First/Second Generation devices". But seemingly it doesn't matter what reliable sources say because apparently the words "First generation devices" are ["promotional"]. "First generation device" is a statement of fact used for the pure reason of distinguishing them from "Second generation" which are substantially different. If these words are promotional, then so are most other words in the article such as "electronic cigarette".Levelledout (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: The subsections may be coming back soon. An even bigger issue is that there is no distinguishing of findings in the medical section between the generations. The majority if not all of the findings in the medical section are on first generation devices. Without the generational information, its all just Original Research in my opinion. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to have multiple subsections and bullet points are not the standard on Wikipedia. You added ref duplications and extra spaces. Why did you do that? There is no reason to add the same ref full citation twice. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell there was no reason to remove the words "First/Second/Third Generation" from the article in the first place and an explanation not been provided. The words themselves are a completely neutral statement of fact that simply categorizes different types of e-cigarette product.Levelledout (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the repetitive text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please address why you removed the subsections originally. AlbinoFerret 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine well I have reinserted the sections in a non-repetitive way, I take it you will have no problem with that since that seems to be the only issue of concern to you. I would however add that a vast majority of Wikipedia sections and articles start, naturally, by discussing the subject. Such as "Electronic cigarette" - "an electronic cigarette is..."Levelledout (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:It was the goofy Visual Editor, I used it to move the section, thats where the long citation appears. I normally edit source to add citations. The spaces were there because I wasn't done with the section, I just took a little break. It is necessary to have the subsections in place for organization. A bigger section needs organization. AlbinoFerret 03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the differences between device generations are immensely important. Most of the research done so far has been on crude Gen 1 cigalikes, which have a declining market share. However preliminary research indicates that Gen 2 devices are far more effective for smokers who want to switch, with Polosa's new study achieving 36% smoking cessation among unmotivated subjects. There are also safety implications. The heavy metal contamination found by old studies is produced by Gen 1 cartos which use nichrome wire (nickel) with soldered joints (lead and tin). Gen 2 and 3 atomizers use kanthal wire and don't have solder, so this contamination, which is already at very low levels, will be completely absent. If this article is supposed to be informative it should contain much more info about electronic cigarettes and much less of Quack's irrelevant bullshit about diesel exhaust and atmospheric pollution particles.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this discuss still about the use of bullet points? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's about the repeated removal of information that actually covers the subject of this article - Electronic cigarettes, remember? - by an editor who insists on filling it up with irrelevant trivia about secondhand smoke and vehicle exhaust particulates.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: It was never ment to be just about bullet points. I was more concerned with the ability to organize the information to make it easier to read and navigate to an area the reader might be interested in. Be it subsections, or bullets, it really doesnt matter to me. AlbinoFerret 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:USEPROSE, prose is preferred over bullet points. Zad68 03:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that from above, but the need to organize and separate so information can be found still exists. AlbinoFerret 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the sourcing supports organizing the content into 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation, just compose a series of well-written, impeccably-sourced prose paragraphs. Decoration is unnecessary, and isn't preferred. Zad68 03:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and we will remove them from the next medical section that adds subsections, right? AlbinoFerret 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss the organization of medical content in another section, this is not a tit-for-tat or zero-sum game. I just looked at Construction and the sourcing is terrible. THAT is the #1 problem with that section right now, and there's way too little well-sourced content there to even consider breaking it up into subsections at this point. Can you help with the sourcing? Zad68 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I know more work needs to be done on the whole components section. But the generations were not a subsection of components, but of the Progressions section, which has a lot more citations, to medical journals. Secondly, there is no consensus to remove the sub-subsections. Therefore they should revert to the first addition of the section as they were before they were removed. As for tit-for tat, no its not that, but you would be setting president which I will copy into any discussion in the future. AlbinoFerret 04:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

All this constant chatter and delete this or that because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is just slowing work on the article. AlbinoFerret 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For subsections, it all comes down to the sourcing and some judgment regarding how distinct the subtopics actually are. If the excellent-quality sourcing shows that the differences between the "generations" are so significant that each generation is its own topic with enough content to fill out multiple paragraphs of well-sourced content, then subsections make sense. In fact the Health effects section is exactly that. You should aspire to develop the Construction content to be as solid as what's in Health effects, you shouldn't be looking to remove subsections from Health effects as a finger in the eye to other editors. Setting up for a "Zad said I couldn't have subsections here so you can't have subsections there" is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND, please don't do it. Zad68 04:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about looking to remove subsections from the health section? Not me. There is already well sourced information to fill the sub sub sections, with more to come. But I learn from what people say. If there is a small subsection opened I will look at it and raise the same arguments you did here and link to your statements. But getting back to consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The bold edit was Quack removing them because they had been in the article for at least a week prior to them being removed. AlbinoFerret

You have not given a logical reason why you added a long citation and changed the ref names that could give the appearance it was a different ref when it was the same ref. You added duplicate long citations before while changing the ref names. There should not be multiple subsections for the same topic for first generation to new-generation devices. Sourcing is an issue with the section. Please find better sources. The bold edit was a short time ago by adding the multiple sections in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The long reference makes little difference. It doesn’t show up in the readable text. What sourcing issue in the Progression section? Be specific. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You changes the ref names while creating a separate long citation for the same reference that is already in the article. It did show up as a separate reference. I don't think you want me to tag or delete every unreliable source in the construction section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Make your own arguments. Linking to something someone else wrote somewhere else isn't demonstration of your own understanding or working collaboratively for the benefit of the Encyclopedia, it's game-playing. As I wrote, you need to use judgment, which depends on the sourcing available and related content. Zad68 04:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasnt just something someone else wrote, like an essay, but WP policy. The sub sub sections were added on November 6th Quack removed them on November 16th. 10 days later. AlbinoFerret 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the article "settled" since then, would you? Zad68 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was in that area (components). AlbinoFerret 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the quality of the sourcing in the Construction section, I will explain with point-by-point detail my concerns regarding that. The section uses anonymous bloggers company promotional material, these are generally unacceptable sources for the kinds of statements being made. Zad68 04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So what do you want, a paper from Professor (of mechanical engineering) Glantz on e-cig generations? This is the problem with trying to force MED rules onto this article. Any e-cig user can tell you about the generations of device, but because the cabal insists on MEDRS we can't put any actual relevant information in the article. Meanwhile the opinion of air conditioning engineers has Godlike status. Will you people please grow up?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that using anonymous bloggers and company's promotional material is unacceptable, that is an entirely separate issue. Also, I agree that WP:MEDRS is neither appropriate nor necessary for describing construction, there is certainly no consensus to use it in this context and WP:V is perfectly adequate.Levelledout (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats shifting the discussion and "tit for tat" AlbinoFerret

In classic Wikipedia e-cigarette page style the changes have [now been re-inserted] back into the article without WP:CONSENSUS.Levelledout (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, AF, review my responses here, my focus has been on the sourcing for the section, and whether the build-out of the content warrants subsections. I had tried to resolve the sourcing issues about a week ago and I was reverted. The sourcing issue hasn't been resolved. It needs to be addressed. Zad68 04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

All this silly, and I mean silly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problems slows work, I finally get back to it, and more erupts. How about just letting it be as it was on the 15th, before Quack's edits and letting me get back to work on the article? AlbinoFerret 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to the sourcing issue above. However the fact still remains that there is no consensus for the original changes so they should still be removed and not reinserted until if/when there is a consensus.Levelledout (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AF if you can improve the sourcing as described and build out the content using that sourcing into significant, well-developed paragraphs, I will absolutely support subsections! Zad68 05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first generation is pretty done, the second, close, the third I was interrupted. I am not asking you to support in the future, but to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. If not you are going to set a precedent that may create more problems in the future. That isnt a threat, but a reaslistic looking ahead, and knowing lots of people will read these words. It will give Quack carte blanche. AlbinoFerret 05:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that Zad but whether you personally support it or not does not amount to consensus, hence my posts here stating that the article should remain in its original state until consensus is achieved. By the way what does "AF" mean?Levelledout (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do believe Zad got tired of typing out Albino Ferret. :) AlbinoFerret 09:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought this to DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette.23Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section AlbinoFerret 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's get this article locked and properly reviewed by someone sane

Collapse material from indef-blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is supposed to be an article about a consumer product. Thanks to the efforts of a small group of zealots it's been turned into a litany of speculative health claims, with any information about the actual topic - electronic cigarettes - cut to a minimum or completely excluded. THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL ARTICLE Get someone with a sense of perspective to review this mess, then let's make a sustained effort to add actual real information. And by the way, let's also make an effort to write it in something that resembles coherent English. Right now the "Health effects" section looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks, because the main zealots at work there no speaka da eenglish so good.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Claims sourced to the wrong journal articles switched back

After trying to verify two claims , one of which QuackGuru moved I found that the claims had the references backwards. So I swapped them. With this edit QuackGuru switched the refrences back even citing a line from the source "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers". The problem is it doesnt exist in Kanae Bekki 2014. It can be found in Cervellin 2013 AlbinoFerret 00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See Kanae Bekki 2014 review: "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers,..."[59] QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it, I may have been mistaken, sorry about that. AlbinoFerret 00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing of claims

The source says "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries, and their marketing has been temporarily limited or even suspended until safety profile and efficacy will be finally established in clinical trials."[60] See the section Electronic cigarette#Legal status. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It says "a few" not that they were few., the definition of several is "more than one or two but not many" that’s a few. The deffination of "few" is "not many but more than one". This is another language comprehension problem. As for discounting the responses to the RFC, I think we should discount all the support responses because the media says its a consumer product. Do you see whats wrong with subjective discounting of opinions? It isnt allowed. AlbinoFerret 23:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I provided verification that it was several according to V. The source did not say it was "a few"? The term "a few" is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Its a synonym Link AlbinoFerret 00:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "a few" can be confused with "few". It is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition of few is "not many", its the same thing. AlbinoFerret 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you switch it back calling it WP:OR?

"Few" is hardly the same thing as "a few". E.g. compare "there are few problems with that" with "There are a few problems with that". The fact that you thought it was the same, however, illustrates how it can be confusing, and argues for use of a clearer term. "Some" is accurate but not very precise. "Several" works better. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all synonyms. AlbinoFerret 01:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh please; "guy" and "man" are synonyms. Does "the three wise men" mean the same thing as the "three wise guys"? Some synonyms work great; others not so great. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Either way all this continuous, generally futile, bickering over whether it should be this word or that word is not doing Wikipedia or anybody else any favours.Levelledout (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it didnt come out in my posts, but I have the same thoughts. Im wondering why it needed to be changed. Currently it uses a weasel word. AlbinoFerret 14:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support use of what the source uses If there is a dispute for once instance of one word choice then use what the source says. I support the use of "several" as what the cited source says over the use of "few" because this is the word the author thought was best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Today I rewrote the two claims for readability, making the section look like a paragraph instead of a bunch of claims tossed in a bad and copied as they are pulled out. I also changed several to some as Cloudjpk suggested. So that it is the same. I did add "likewise, referring to the fact that they are regulated as medical devices like the previous previous sentence. QuackGuru changed it all back diff, this one step forward and one step back has got to stop. Perhaps likewise could have been taken out, but to basically revert for no good reason is stupid when it makes the article harder to read. What was the reason for placing a tag and then immediately changing things? This has happened more than once. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your making poor edits that do not match the citations given. Please don't replace sourced text with OR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt have to match the exact words, order of words, or have the same flow, just the same point. This appears to be an ongoing problem with paraphrasing on your part. AlbinoFerret 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not sugggest changing "several to some". I said: "Some" is accurate but not very precise. "Several" works better. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

They all mean the same thing. AlbinoFerret 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not paraphrasing, again

QuackGuru added yet another almost exact copy of a like from a journal article here.

The line can be found in Bekki 2014.

"Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product"

The line added by QuackGuru

Some countries do not allow e-cigarettes to be used as a cessation aid for smokers but still regulate it as a medical device

This is a copyright issue. I edited the sentence to rephrase it. This has got to stop because it puts WP at risk. AlbinoFerret 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is problematic anyway because I am sure there are no countries that do not allow e-cigarettes to be used as a cessation tool. What they don't allow is for them to be recommended, marketed, etc. for that purpose. (I would have rephrased it yesterday but didn't have time to check through the sourcing, which as noted is a little confusing.) Maybe if the passage is being redone anyway this slightly misleading assertion could be rephrased. Barnabypage (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had edited it yesterday, its current form is "E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some countries, but are not permitted to be used as an aid to help smokers quit". But I question if this should be moved to the Legal status page. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It sounds more like regulation that health to me. SPACKlick (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had moved it after the diff to Legal status section, but I dont want to bloat it up. AlbinoFerret 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Example of Bloat

I have copied this over to the Safety of Electronic cigarettes talk page because the section this discussion is about is currently on that page. Please continue comments there.

copied over text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Environmental impact section, Relates to one source saying there is a gap in our knowledge. This doesn't need to be in the article, it's practically crystal ball. As yet we don't know the effects of e-cigarettes on the environment we also don't know their impact on souffles and space dust. A source saying "We don't know anything" doesn't mean the article needs a new section. Someone with a different position from me on e-cigs should turn up with some shears and trim this into a reasonable article. If I did it I'm sure some MED folks would claim bias towards e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is way to much speculation and we dont need embellishments and small sections on speculative information. The article is already swimming in speculative information with the same speculation being repeated. How many times do you need to repeat something in different locations? Environmental impact sounds like its talking about hazardous waste. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There was another claim from that same literary review, it was placed in Toxicology when it was clear from the source that it was talking about environmental impact of how its made. Its really not a health effect topic. I wasnt sure where to put it, so I put it in that environmental area until its discussed. This appears to be a fringe area, with very little weight.AlbinoFerret 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty confident that at some point it will be an area with enough information to deserve a section. E-cigs involve the manufacture of additional lithium batteries, disposable wicks and coils, production of the juice etc. However there's really been very little study of it so far. SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) More than likely there will be down the road. This literary review didnt come to any conclusions other than the more study is needed. Someone might do it down the road, but it could be years. Its just way to premature, speculative, and has little weight at this point. AlbinoFerret 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: Today, QuackGuru, thinking that it was only a problem because of only a few sentence filled up the section with claims from that one study and made it viable. The problem isnt that it only has a few sentences, the problem is weight WP:WEIGHT and pure speculation WP:CBALL with no other studies talking about it. The reason other speculation is allowed is because there is more than one review on the topic, so it has weight of some degree. The current version of the environmental impact section cites this source: Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. The source is presumed to be useful because it was published by experts in the field. I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with Bluerasberry. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) WP:PS Says it's wrong to base an entire article on primary sources. An awful lot of this article is direct from primary sources. We have no idea of the impact of this paper, or if the comment that the current status of environmental effects is largely unknown will amount to anything. This article needs to focus more on meta-analyses and collective reviews and get away from posting every statement from every interest group and every piece of speculation in every published paper is my point. One scientific paper speculating that there may be an environmental impact especially when couching that speculation in the distinct lack of evidence in either direction is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article, let alone a section. SPACKlick (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Per WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. One journal article is a tiny minority, it shouldnt be included at all. Perhaps a one line that says something like "A review by Cheng raised concerns about environmental impact from e-cigaretts" But a but a whole section places it in a position of prominence and gives way to much coverage for a single article on the subject. Find 4 or 5 and maybe it can be expanded. This isnt silencing a reliable source, this is giving it the appropriate weight when compared to all the other points of view with larger number of reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT specifically addresses this. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. There isnt even a opposite viewpoint to make a controversy that needs to be addressed. Adding all that from one source is just premature. We have had this same discussion on McNeil, it didnt have the weight, neither does this one. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

To address this concern I have tried to summarize and move some material to subpages. Nothing was deleted or added in these edits. Additionally a bot will fix the refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving those sections to their own pages Doc. The article was 65kb of prose before the move and its currently 43kb. I was thinking that a split was going to be the next major discussion. Your moving the sections saved a lot of posts. But it doesnt solve the issue of one section being based on one journal article that was very speculative, with very little weight. AlbinoFerret 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus vs One Report Says

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

Phil Busardo's self-published WordPress blog as a source

There are at current count seven references to Phil Busardo's self-published WordPress blog site "tasteyourjuice.com" used in the article. This appears to be a run-of-the mill self-published blog and so would fail WP:BLOGS, see WP:V. There's an exception in there for "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I have found no evidence that Busardo has been in any way significantly republished by reputable third party sources as an expert, he gets next to nothing on Google News and absolutely ZERO on both Google Scholar and Google Books.

As this site appears to fail the core policy WP:V its uses should be removed from the article. Am I missing something? If not I will make the edits to remove the uses of this apparently non-reliable source. If there's an open question we can take it to WP:RSN. Zad68 04:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Thans for posting first. Phil Busardo is probably the best most objective expert on vaping hardware at present. He holds a degree in computer engineering. His work has appeared in Spinfuel Magazine. link His site is the least commercial of those I could use, and I try my best to use sites that are not commercial in nature. I plan on using his site if this not a problem to bring out the dangerous wattage race that is currently happening. AlbinoFerret 05:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The blog fails RS. It should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not if its a blog of an expert who's work has been published by a reliable source. The things its used as citations are really just definitions, that the hardware exists. I have been careful in its use, adding to things a quick google search can produce 20 pages on, but those will all be sites with news and a sales page with big banners and advertisements. At least Im not bringing in an air conditioning and heating site. AlbinoFerret 06:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AF I agree that PBusardo is a well respected reviewer, quite the expert on mods and the vape world, however in order to justify the use as the source, rather than some other source for these definitions we'd need to see PB published in some reliable third party sources with a history of fact checking. I can't find any although I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few existed. SPACKlick (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a fact checking statement on Spinfuel. His work is published there. That should be enough for limited use on hardware. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AF, although I have no doubt you believe your statements Phil Busardo is probably the best most objective expert on vaping hardware at present. and He holds a degree in computer engineering., we do not give any weight to the unsupported opinions of anonymous Wikipedia editors. You haven't provided any serious independent WP:RS support for your statements, and it's unclear why a degree in computer engineering would have any bearing on someone's authority on e-cigs anyway.

The only statement in your response that actually attempts to connect to Wikipedia WP:V policy is His work has appeared in Spinfuel Magazine. Is Spinfuel itself an authoritative reliable source? This website is so advertising- and promotion-heavy it's hard to navigate. According to its own About page, Spinfuel is a pro e-cig advocacy site that exists to promote the use of e-cigs, right there under "Our Goal" it says "We maintain a pro-vaping position in all matters" (emphasis in original) for the purpose of smoking replacement, which (if you review this article's Health effects section) is a highly controversial position. It doesn't even produce its own "News", if you follow the asterisk on their page it takes you down to the bottom where it says they simply copy-and-paste article content they found created elsewhere. Certainly Busardo enjoys celebrity "in-universe" in the e-cig world but you haven't produced sourcing that meets Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia isn't Wikia. Zad68 13:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Every source has a bias, if the facts support it thats not an issue. There is a fact statement on the site. I could also use this site link that also has an editorial staff link As to how a computer engineer relates to e-cigarettes is he is overqualified. Computer engineering is how to design electronic components. The electronic cigarette is a very basic electronic device. This also shows in the tests he runs on the hardware. I am not using it for wild or even difficult claims, but that something exists and what basically it is. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AF, It's not about bias, it's about being reliable for verification purposes. There are several claims tied to the site

1. Common connection types are 510, 901, 808 and 801 with the 510 being the most common.
2. The coil and wicks are typically inside a prefabricated assembly or "head" that is replaceable by the user and can contain either single or dual coils. [double sourced]
3. They [RBA's] are generally considered advanced devices.
4. atomizers are divided into three main categories; rebuildable tank atomizers (RTAs),...
5. Rebuildable tank atomizers (RTAs) are similar to clearomizers in that they use a tank or container to hold and bring liquid to the coil.
6. Rebuildable dripping atomizers (RDAs) are atomizers where the ejuice is dripped directly onto the coil and wick.
7. Some atomizers have heat sink fins to help dissipate the heat from the coil before it reaches the mouth piece or "drip tip".
8. The DNA 40 is a control board can be used in devices that control variable wattage and voltage was released in October 2014.
9. Controlling temperature is important to limit charring of the wicking material and reduce the breakdown of flavoring and base liquid ingredients [triple sourced]

I'm pretty sure most of these could be sourced to more reliable sources if needs be so I'm going to start hunting sources for them. 2 and 9 already exist in multiple sources so they're sorted. 1 adds very little without going into excess detail about the various connectors. The only area I'm a little worried about finding in depth discussion in WP:RS is the detail of RDA and RTA SPACKlick (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: If you want to trim a little and find citations, Im all for it to end this problem. I dont think you will go overboard. I have been searching for citations, and have found some. I have been hunting citations awhile, not just for this article, its one the areas of interest for me on WP. The thing is, the top media sites dont do a lot of hardware stories. The best sources so far are mostly gadget sites. #9 may be an issue., its been brought up before. If you come across any mention of the "wattage race" please let me know. Its the most dangerous thing going on at present as relates to hardware imho. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Many of these are WP:WEIGHT issues, again. Let's look at the statement "The DNA 40 is a control board can be used in devices that control variable wattage and voltage was released in October 2014." sourced to this self-published WordPress blog post by Busardo. Busardo's blog post is driving traffic to his own YouTube video channel. "DNA-40" is one commercial product manufacturer's marketing term for their product they're selling. This is all "in-universe" self- and cross-promotion and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. If there isn't clear agreement here that this needs to come out of the article, we will take it to an appropriate noticeboard to get the views of uninvolved, experienced outside editors. Zad68 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The DNA40 is mentioned because it got a fair whack of press on release as the first control system to regulate Temperature. Temperature having been linked to some of the chemical impurity issues that is a big deal. Whether we name the product itself or not, that a commercial control board focused on temperature exists, is something that should be in the hardware section of the article. That said I genuinely couldn't defend the first two sources for its inclusion. I haven't read the interview at the third source though.SPACKlick (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If all we need to do is find a source to support the statement that some e-cigs devices allow the user to control the temperature, we do not need to use Busardo's self-published blog post or the product manufacturer's promotional website. You appear to be agreeing this sourcing is inappropriate, glad for that. If there's a noteworthy health consequence regarding temperature it should be easy to find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that. Zad68 15:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Temperature control, being the first, is important to have, I will remove the source until I find out more on reliability and what is needed for a expert. AlbinoFerret 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What reliable source indicates that temperature control is important? Zad68 17:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I just found a source that will need to be accredited. link. AlbinoFerret 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's even worse than Busardo's site. It's the self-published website of a hobbyist named Blake Brown, see the About page, and he doesn't have any kind of detectable footprint of authority at all. Zad68 17:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret seriously have you read WP:SELFPUBLISHED? Zad68 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Im kind of searching between work, Im not on my free time, so detailed looking into the site just isnt possible at this moment. How about this one link. AlbinoFerret 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a poor source and its use violates several core policies, it needs to be removed. It amazes me that anybody can argue otherwise. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your a little late, the source this section is on has been removed, by me. 18:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is still in the article using a different ref name. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Must have missed it the first time through, its gone now. AlbinoFerret 18:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the Electronic_cigarette#Construction section littered with unreliable or promotional sources? See Electronic_cigarette#cite_note-eGo_VV_Battery-52. We can start checking other sources in the section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yhat isnt a promotional site, but I will look to replace it. AlbinoFerret 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not support the use of blogs but we need to use some common sense here for the benefit of building an encyclopedia. The article is called "electronic cigarette", a good encyclopedia article must describe the subject in detail. The majority of the construction section appears to be fairly accurate and well sourced to academic research/documents and main stream media articles. This is perfectly acceptable for WP:V and WP:V is perfectly adequate for describing the construction of the product. There may be the odd source in there that technically does not fulfil the requirements for WP:V but every attempt should be made to find alternative sources and to show appropriate discretion and common sense before removing large chunks of the description of the subject of the article. If you disagree with any of this, please state your issue specifically and we can talk it through.Levelledout (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Caponnetto quote verification

This edit placed a citation tag.diff After reading the cited source it does contain the information, its rephrased.

"The data noted above suggests that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes [28] and comparable in terms of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) levels to conventional nicotine replacement products [37]. Despite these important results, large and well conducted long-term studies will be required before a complete answer regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes can be formulated [20]. In fact, this tool appears to be much safer than traditional cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products [28]."

So its correctly sited and if its not found in the article it should be added. AlbinoFerret

Without fixing the problem you restored the original research and you removed the failed verification tag when the text was still misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not misleading Quack, its paraphrased. You know, that thing you shroud do to avoid copyright issues? Look at the italics. AlbinoFerret 06:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The current text is not misleading/original research. Did you read what the source said later? QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That was at the end of that section. It is in the safety section, "They are similar in toxicity to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions.[8]" AlbinoFerret 06:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you're talking in Ambiguities. QG precisely what claim do you claim is not in the source? AF, once he's posted that can you point to exactly where in the source the claim is? SPACKlick (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I did above, the claim in the WP article is "They are similar in toxicity to other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions." The copied in section of the review clearly shows thats in there. AlbinoFerret 13:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Evolv DNA

I do not contest the fact the evolvapor are one of most innovative company in the industry but I think that mentioning their name or devices (darwin, dna) here goes against every WP rules. We do not talk about particular vendors or manufacturer regardless of their influence (joyetech, kanger, provape and so on) without proper sources, and http://vaping.com without a doubt does not fall under WP:RS. Just saying TheNorlo (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A search for a better source is under way. AlbinoFerret

I took out the companies name in that little paragraph, and the mention of the Darwin. The name wasn’t really necessary. I did leave in the DNA40 as thats a little more central to board being talked about. AlbinoFerret 05:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Failed Verification

There is a claim from Drummond in Safety. "No long-term studies have shown that e-cigarettes are a "healthier alternative."[7]" It quotes the words healthier alternative, but I have only found one sentance using the words "healthier alternative" in the review " Surveys of e-cigarette users have found that they perceive e-cigarettes as a less harmful, less addictive, and healthier alternative to conventional cigarettes (22–26)." I am placing a tag on it so it can be fixed. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Read page 240 second paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats strange, evince didnt find it in a search for healthier alternative, but it is there. It looks like the tag was removed, no harm, the claim stayed in the article, or at least I didnt take it out. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is "Position of medical organizations" first under "Health effects"?

How can the survey of several medical organizations' opinions on the full diversity of topics prior to the discussion of those specific topics possibly help the reader? Are there any reasons that readers will not be better served if those organizations' opinions are merged into the specific topic headings? Are there any reasons that readers will not be better served if the medical organizations' consolidated opinions follow the discussion of specific health effect topics instead of precede them? EllenCT (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV the emphasis in the article needs to reflect the emphasis found in the sourcing. By far, the strongest sourcing available concerning the topic of e-cigs is medical, and there's a ton of it, from authoritative bodies around the world, so per the emphasis found in the sourcing we feature medical topics. Within that, starting off with an overview of the positions before delving into individual subtopics makes organizational sense. Zad68 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Zad, while I agree with the initial comment that the bulk of reliable sources currently are medical I disagree that it makes organisational sense as it stands. I think it would convey information more effectively if actual health issues were to be discussed with the positions of organisations within the text and then detailed national positions following. SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Drummond in the Harm reduction section

Drummond says this

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

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

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

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

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

BBC article

No time to review right now for where this could or even if this could be relevant but BBC news article today on ecigs. [ Previous BBC articles 4 on the topic of e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the MEDRS publication by the UK office of National Statistics to which the BBC article refers. We should probably amend the Usage section with these updated data. Mihaister (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sources

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

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

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

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

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

First vs Second generation effect on cessation

This paper's abstract claims to have concluded that "First and second generation electronic cigarettes appear to be similarly effective in reducing urges to smoke during abstinence but second generation devices appear to be more satisfying to users." I don't have access to the library. Anything in it worth referencing in the generations section?SPACKlick (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is primary research using a fairly small sample size. Has a secondary source picked this up? Zad68 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't looking at using its conclusions in the article, but I would presume if it claims to have found a difference between first and second generation devices it will have defined that somewhere, and that those definitions will reference other sources. My thinking was it might give a better source for some of the distinctions in that section between generations. As I said, I don't have access so I don't know for sure. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK got it... Generally I am wary about using the "backgrounder" section in a primary research article as a secondary source because usually it gives an incomplete picture (it's only going to cover the part of the topic relevant to the study) or it over-emphasizes topics to support the reason the research was done. Not sure about this particular case, but it would probably be ok for straight-forward statements about what the differences are between the generations. I found a presentation given by the researcher on this topic and she makes a COI declaration that gave me pause, you can use your favorite search tools. Zad68 14:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

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