Talk:Electronic cigarette

List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes

Another bold coat rack is on its way.--TMCk (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Gigs, your comment directly led to this edit. It is a good start. This list is similar to other lists like List of additives in cigarettes and List of cigarette smoke carcinogens. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Discussion for page move. See Talk:List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes#Requested move 19 June 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit-war without arguments...

Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.

In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.

So please discuss. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

An image of a vape shop adds tremendous value. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Which value? I could have bought your argument if there had been characteristics in the picture of a building that were different from any other business building. But if you want a picture of a vapeshop - then find one that shows a vapeshop from the inside or at the very least has some qualities that make it stand out as being a vapeshop. --Kim D. Petersen 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Or is your point with the picture that vapeshops look exactly like any other type of shop from the outside? Because that is the only "take away" message i get from it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the shop on the building shows it is clearly a vape shop. That what makes it special. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So it is the logo/"brand" sign of the shop that is the interesting part? Isn't that against our policies or at least our guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING)? --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name clarifies it is a unique shop. It is very interesting to see an actual vape shop. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Once more. Are you are stating that the logo/"brand" here is the reason that you picked this picture? And not any other characteristics? If that is the case, then it is advertising - even if you do not (which i do not suspect you to) have that intension. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It has all the characteristics of a vape shop. A building with a vape shop inside. It is a high-quality image. This is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the question i stated above. And "high-quality image" is not an argument in itself. A building with a "vape shop" inside, is not an argument either. The overwhelming thing here is that there is nothing outside of the logo/"brand" that is special about the image. Thus it becomes, albeit inadvertently, advertising... and WP:NOTADVERTISING is rather clear there: We shouldn't have such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a simple picture of a vape shop. The image represents what a typical vape shop looks like. The non-controversial thing here is that this is what a vape shop is. It is in a building like other businesses. The name on the shop is a generic name. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only typical characteristic of what a vape shop looks like is their sign/logo/"brand" on a building, then it doesn't have encyclopedic value. The only value then is to present the sign/logo/"brand". --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It adds value because now the reader knows what a vape shop looks like. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless our readers are dim-witted, they already know that shops are located in buildings. This image brings no encyclopedic value. The only thing that differentiates it from any other picture of a business is the sign/logo/"brand" - thus once more: It is advertising. --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A vape shop from the outside is not a fancy customized building like a movie theater. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! That is why it is only the sign/logo/"brand" that differentiates this from any other shop - and therefore an outside picture is nothing more than inadvertent marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"dim-witted" is what I thought when I (finally after it was introduced) removed the image. W/o caption, one would not even know what it is w/o blowing it up and I'm talking about a 22 inch screen with standard resolution. It's sooo sad that we even have to discuss such clear cut non issue nonsense but meat and false loyalties demand wasting time on such. What a pity mess and shame.--TMCk (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
But then again, brains don't mean shit and we're on the internet...--TMCk (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not in any way against a picture of a vape shop - it just has to have some characteristic outside of a logo/"brand" that presents to our readers that it is a vape shop. A picture from the inside of such a shop would be very good, and such a picture can be done without being overly promotional. Google image search on "vape shop" shows lots of that kind of images - we just need one that can be used within our copyright restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be easy to find such an image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If so, why don't you go for it or did so in the first place instead of picking a ready to use invaluable image?--TMCk (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We can also include an image from inside a vape shop. Both inside and outside is the best approach IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the reason specified above: No, it is not. At least not unless you present an outside photo that is not indistinguishable from marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have searched and looked at other images of vape shops. This is what they look like from the outside. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Then the outside of vape-shops is uninteresting, and nothing special => no encyclopedic value. On the other hand: The insides of a vape-shop differs quite alot - so that would be interesting => have encyclopedic value. --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You searched with your darkest sunglasses on, didn't you? Try again and look no further than commons. Note that 8 of them are even in the same city! Still think "that's how they look like"? And to Kim's observation, yes, the inside would be much more informative.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All of them suffer under being either non-descript, or the sign/logo/brand being the major aspect of the picture. We need something that is A) not confused with advertising/marketing B) sufficiently descriptive of a vape-shop. And as far as i can see, that would only be handled with a picture from the inside, with for instance focus on a vape-bar or the like. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any free and fitting images on a search I just did, I asked a Venezuelan photographer living in Brazil to give us a hand. A picture from a Brazilian store or lounge would also cancel out pretty much any potential advertising claims.--TMCk (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not worse either and the result of a misunderstanding of what we're looking for. I clarified at the editor's talk page on commons.--TMCk (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we looking for another image of a vape shop from the outside. Since the new image is somewhat of a distraction we should go back to the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no freakin' "distraction". The image is just as good or bad as the previous one. You really want to argue about that image now? There is no deadline here and "your personally picked image" back in would be nothing else but disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A big red sign is a "distraction". QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors restored the image that was deleted.[1][2] QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some meat joint the editwar. Are you calling for a continuation now?--TMCk (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "That is what WP:BRD tells us, and what WP:STATUSQUO informs us. The name Vapor Shack is also a big logo which is also distracting."
Your edits are not the status quo and if you go by BRD, then your edit was challenged in the first place. Banana my friend, banana. But don't worry, I'm sure meat is on it's way to make a silly pity revert.--TMCk (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure your position. Do you prefer the new image or the previous image or you have no preference? QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• There can't possibly be a copyright issue over two words used as a trading name. There might conceivably be a trademark issue if the logos are similar, but that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Editors should use whichever image they prefer in this case, or consider using no image at all on the grounds that a snapshot of an independent vape shop on a high street somewhere is only very tangentially related to the economics of e-cigarettes.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• A trademark issue is a concern. The company could be violating Radio shack's trademark. Wikipedia should not be propagating the possible issue. I also think the previous image is better. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• On comparing the logos I see there's no similarity and no cause for concern. Even if there was, Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that would require us to protect Radio Shack's trademarks.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted this [3]

The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The nicotyrine hypothesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So What? SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Image of Cloud chasing

Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The image is a large plume of vapor (and part of the name of the image has cloud chasing in it). The source is for context for the readers. It is better to discuss other potential images rather than deleting this useful image first IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"A large plume of vapor" != Cloudchasing. Deleting the image is appropriate because it is not an image of cloudchasing. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your other "potential image" is not cloudchasing either... The wording "useful image" is completely inappropriate in this context, since it is not useful for the purpose. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This potential image is even a larger plume of vapor. This is an image cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk)

No, it is not an image of cloudchasing. It is not the size of the plume that defines cloudchasing, but the context within which it is being done. And sitting on a staircase on just vaping with alot of VG is not such a context. It would generally be nice if you took the time to actually inform yourself about the topic, instead of guessing. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud-chasing is also done at an amateur level. Not everyone is a professional. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, did you come up with that yourself? There is just a bit of a problem here, even when it is done on an amateur level, it is still done within a context. Cloudchasing is the contest of creating the biggest clouds possible, bigger than the last you made, not just the act of blowing out big clouds.

Btw. which reliable source are you referring to when making these assertions/claims? --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vapers preferring this variety, many of whom refer to themselves as “cloud chasers,” sometimes participate in cloud-blowing contests for cash."[4] There are contents but...

"Some cloud chasers flaunt it, showing off their cloud-making ability where anyone and everyone can see."[5] ...some like to flaunt it in public. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The first image is a large plume of aerosol. The second image is even a larger plume of aerosol. This is non-controversial. We don't need to include a "professional vapor" blowing extremely large plumes of e-smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"a large plume of" vapor doesn't necessarily indicate cloud chasing. Cloud chasing is about seeking a large plume of vapor intentionally. Some set ups produce a large cloud under certain circumstances, such as in humid environments. Also neither of the plumes shown are the size or shape of a typical cloud chasing plume which is a long tight cone. The firt isn't even a particularly large exhale and would be typical to most high glycerin users with a tank. The second might indicate a slightly higher than average wattage as well but to call either of them cloud chasing is merely opinion. Seek a sourced picture and back away from claiming any plume of vapor is cloud chasing.SPACKlick (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The original image is categorised under "Cloud Chasing". See under tags for the categorisation. See here too. Therefore, it is a confirmed image of cloud-chasing. Imagine that! QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If a non-expert tags his image "plasma" that's not evidence it's plasma. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My point being opinion from the creator of the image is not verifiable. There is clearly dispute that this shows cloud chasing, you do need to cite the sky is blue. A minority of editors in this discussion agree with you. Do the right thing, remove the image and find a verfiable or non controversial image of cloud chasing. SPACKlick (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Most editors agree the image is useful. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Of those editors discussing it 2 have said it isn't, you have said it is. If we add an editor who'se reverted edit warring thats 2 and 2 it's clearly disputed not consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Three different editors restored the same image that was confirmed to be an image of cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by what source? It's not cloud chasing. It's like you've got a picture of a dog and you're insisting it's a wolf. This is ludicrous Quack and you fucking know it. You are Mr. get everything direct from reputable sources but you can't find one fucking reliable source that will describe this image as cloud chasing because it is not clearly an image of cloud chasing it is YOUR OPINION.SPACKlick (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to use the image from an amateur rather than a professional vaper since most cloud-chasers are amateurs. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Who's talking about amateur vs pro? I'm talking about an image showing the defining features of cloud chasing, which is verifiably an image of cloud chasing vs an image of someone vaping normally. Just because the guy in the picture thinks using a subtank on an eleaf istick and blowing a tiny cloud is cloud chasing doesn't mean that act is what would normally be considered cloud chasing by most people aware of the term. The image should be informative, to be informative it should be representative. To be representative it should have the typical qualities of cloud chasing rather than being indistinguishable from vaping. To be convinced otherwise I would need a verifiable image depicting cloud chasing. Your issue Quack is that you don't know what vaping looks like, or what cloud chasing looks like so you can't assess this. I have now asked at a few cloud chasing resources for some people there to post images of themselves cloudchasing to wikimedia. Hopefully we'll see something from one of those that's less controversial. SPACKlick (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Silence can I ask editors to consider whether it would be appropriate to remove the "this activity is called cloud chasing" from the caption at this point? There's been no justification for calling this image cloud chasing. I'd do it myself but it's a little close to the line for my current image related sanction and I'd rather not start another fight with Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Known unknowns

There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a 2014 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that both inserting and removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Who "highly value[s]" that text? --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's really CFCF who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.

However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We had a RfC on this very issue. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_14#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The consensus is to use such information on the article. This is normal practice across Wikipedia to include the known unknowns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it really isn't, QG. It's relatively normal to include significant known unknowns. We don't know how to replicate spider silk, and that fact is rightly mentioned in spider silk because it's significant for engineering and textiles. We don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is correct, and that fact is rightly mentioned in the article because it's one of the most significant unsolved mathematical problems for the 21st century. But it's not at all normal to mention all the known unknowns in articles about medical and semi-medical devices. The word "unknown" does not appear anywhere in syringe, eye drop, pill (pharmacy), or tablet (pharmacy). It does appear once in toothpaste. But this article includes it seven times, including one place where we say it in three successive sentences. And they're bizarrely specific sentences as well.

What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.

I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Wikipedia being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

After reading the source again I tweaked the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While I see there is a point past where it is not useful, discussion of "known unknowns" is an important part of an encyclopedia article, when it is established by high quality secondary sources. If high quality secondary sources feels it is important to mention, I think it is relevant here. Yobol (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, the disagreement here is not all known unknowns but those which are extremely speciic and of little value but emotional scaremongering and or cannot be put into good english. The three claims under dispute are exactly that.

"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." "The impact of e-cigarette use by children on substance dependence is unknown." There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. SPACKlick (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It no longer says that because yet again, QuackGuru has grasped part of what we're saying and taken it on himself to unilaterally change the article partway through the discussion.

  Please note carefully that CFCF does not choose to revert QG's changes, even when he's removing a sentence about known unknowns. This is, of course, because QG is in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club. These two editors are not deliberately acting as a tag team to prevent the wrong people from making any changes; but the practical effect of their behaviour is exactly this.

  Note also CFCF's instinctive use of Twinkle's anti-vandalism tools on edits made within policy by established editors. I say "instinctive" because he's so quick with it: it takes him only a few seconds. There's no thought going into that at all.

  Still, we need to drop this for the moment, having made more progress than I thought would be achievable. It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You claim " It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around." If you don't have cosnesusu now than I think you should not try to delete at a later date. In the long run it will probably be known the unknowns. It has been established that the known unknowns is informative, especially when a MEDRS compliant source is discussing it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm reverting your changes is because they are blatant and remove well sourced secondary opinion. Whether QG has removed similar statements is beside the point: regardless of whether I've missed such changes or not the fact remains none of QGs edits have removed the same amount of information. As for my reluctance to reply in this discussion, I find it a waste of time and unlikely to be productive. We've already extensively covered the topic of known unknowns. Please refrain from reverting what is strongly supported by consensus, so that we don't have to waste more time on time-consuming RfCs and whatnot. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep referring to "Stong consensus" CFCF but there isn't. There's dispute. Dispute can only be resolved by discussion which you admit you're not keen to be involved in, showing your not here to improve the article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did not exactly delete any sentence. I read the source again and merged the two sentences together. The wording is "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to addiction or substance dependence in youth is unknown.[85]" I did the same for another sentence early this year. See "In the US, as of 2014 some states tax e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and some state and regional governments have broadened their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes.[45]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good, rat now how does that get us beyond the actual point of disagreement, over whether the bare fact that this is unknown is relevant? There is likely some relevance in the fact that there is concern that there may be effects or concern that the effect is unknown but you haven't shown that or convinced people of that. You really need to learn to consensus build rather than just assuming it. SPACKlick (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"In North Wales, girls who use e-cigarettes consider them appealing."

I invite your comments on this sentence.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well written sentence and obviously relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A well-written sentence would be clear. This one is ambiguous. It could mean "Some North Welsh girls who vape do so because e-cigarettes appeal to them", or it could mean "Some North Welsh girls who vape do so because they think vaping makes themselves appealing".—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. The sentence now reads: In North Wales, girls who use e-cigarettes find the devices appealing. What the source actually says is that Kelly Evans, the Director of Social Change UK, suggests that the flavours are designed to appeal to youngsters. Social Change UK is a trading name of Social Change Ltd., 1 Checkpoint Court, Sadler Road, Lincoln LN6 3PW. It lists a number of large corporations among its clients and has a slick-looking website. Kelly Evans is a marketing expert (Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (Chartered Status), Market Research Society (Affiliate) and the Social Marketers Global Network) but no authority on e-cigarettes. By profession she designs and leads lobbying campaigns to government and in normal circumstances I would want to know who was paying her to say a thing before I took her word for it. The source is, arguably, challengeable.

  But only a fool would actually challenge it in this context, because it's a statement of the incredibly obvious. Of course girls in North Wales who vape find that e-cigarettes appeal to them! The bloody things are addictive!

  The real problem with the sentence is that it's far too specific. It's not just North Welsh girls who find that e-cigarettes appeal to them. It's pretty much all living nicotine addicts. But how in Heaven's name does it add to the reader's knowledge to say this? If they've got through the thousands of words of turgid factlets and statistics that precede this sentence, then they're well aware that e-cigarette users find them appealing and they fully understand why.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, perfect example of the sort of listing of specific subsets of knowns an unknowns that bloats this article. Should be removed/merged into more general fact(oid/let)

Yes, PR person, whose website says "Social Change UK have been working with Public Health Wales for 18 months on tobacco control and preventing young people from taking up smoking. Social Change UK have also gathered evidence on usage and appeal of tobacco and e-cigarettes in young people in other areas including Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire and conducted a study with 72 schools across England. All studies found that young people are trying and buying e-cigarettes." Use more authoritative sources, & drop this. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The text is sourced and it was widely publicized this fact. We should keep it without the WP:ASSERT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The OR was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has reintroduced the OR. I would appreciate if another user would remove it.SPACKlick (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF also restored good text that had no consensus to remove. The other text that was recently introduced I removed that was misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the "designed to". As for the other text. Consensus is needed for its inclusion Quack. You having BOLDLY added it, S Marshall having REVERTED it it is your job to DISCUSS it prior to inclusion. Remember it is your job to build consensus for any disputed entries you wish to add to the article. SPACKlick (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the sentence to clarify the wording. I agree with CFCF's edit to restore the text that has been in the article for a long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I might of made a mistake. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The text has not been in the article "for a long time" and the first issue with including it, in the current wording is that it days companies are designing flavours to appeal to 11 year old girls.

The second issue with including it is that it is a POV source claiming intentions of others so it would need attribution at the very least. SPACKlick (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a POV source. This article has been duplicated by numerous outlets. There is no serious dispute. Do you have a specific proposal without including an WP:ASSERT violation? QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not me making the assert violation. The SOURCE attributes the view that companies design these products for youngsters, distancing the claim from its own voice, solely to Miss Evans. As her suggestion. My proposal would be for it to say something like

Kelly Evans, Director of Social Change UK, says that the flavours offered are designed to appeal to youngsters. E-cigarettes have been shown to be appealing to girls as young as 11.

It needs work but that's the vague idea. Note the news article from the wales online says "Miss Evans also suggests the flavours offered, including strawberry milkshake, gummy bear and bubble gum are designed to appeal to youngsters.". Miss evans is not an authority and is not an unbiased observer. Her opinion is not verification of the intent of e-cig developers. However the claim is notable and other notable people have made similar claims so we may find better attribution than Miss Evans. Conflating the two facts (Design to appeal and appealing to 11 year olds) is pure WP:SYN.

I provided another source for the claim and adjusted the wording to match the claim from the source. Now there are two sentences using two different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to in-text attribution there.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue is with the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The revised version is better. I'd still probably prefer in text attribution for claims of intention by uninvolved parties. But I'll wait for other editors thoughts on that point.SPACKlick (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution does not improve readability. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In some cases it does, but the trade off here is for accuracy and policy compliance. It is not uncontroversial to say that the purpose of flavours is to attract young smokers. Evidence shows that Adults prefer non-tobacco flavours as well and that e-juice manufacturers hace responded to that demand from existing adult customers. minor source SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You previously claimed Kelly Evans is not an authority and is not an unbiased observer. So I used a better source. Now your objection is the claim not the source but there is no serous dispute. We don't usually add in-text attribution for undisputed claims. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's undisputed. The people to whom the intent is attributed dispute it (admittedly there are huge COI issues there), the dispute was enough that a ban on flavours was overturned, It's disputed by CAASA in the IBT and no evidence is presented in any source to rebut that. The first source was the opinion of one individual, the second source claims that these products are marketed towards children, which is a separate claim not sourced, so it's a primary claim. It's the opinion of the author of that position statement albeit approved by the body that statement is released for. To claim intent of design you'd need far better evidence and I doubt it'll be there because while flavours may appeal to children and while flavours may attract children flavours were first introduced by adults for themselves. The fact is whether or not they appeal to the youth, attract children, increase the uptake of youngsters etc. The opinion, at this time, is whether that's by design or as a side effect. SPACKlick (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The new source is WP:MEDORG compliant and is better than the sources you presented. The flavors are aimed at youth (and adults). Young people buy e-cigs too. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny young people by e-cigs. Young people clearly do. Flavoured e-cigarette liquids are more attractive to them than unflavoured ones. That's also true of young adults, middle aged and older e-cigarette users. The issue here is the attribution of intent without evidence of intent. Whether it's a person or a company I'd always be wary of attributing intent in an encyclopedias voice without solid evidence or attribution. Flavours are aimed at all consumers. To say they are targeted at youth or aimed at you without mentioning aduts is a bit of a distortion of the picture. SPACKlick (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are not designed for youth than the e-cig companies (and vape shops) should stop selling them to youth. QuackGuru (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to North Wales next month, & will look out for these vaping girls. Here in London, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone who was clearly a minor vaping in public, it's normally middle-aged men, as the recent research suggests. The flavours available in the shops are very basic - cherry, apple, & tobacco typically, & I don't think can be seen as directed at "youth". Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Quack, that argument is spurious and irrelevant. What they were designed for and what they were used for are entirely separate issues.SPACKlick (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this

"An electronic cigarette (E-cig or E-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which produces a similar feel to tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke, which the user inhales. In general, E-cigarettes have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as E-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Some E-liquids are available without the nicotine. E-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is also available."[6]

"There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked. They may encourage users to delay quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting. Emissions from E-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders. No serious adverse effects from E-cigarettes have been reported in trials. Less serious adverse effects from E-cigarette use can occur however, including throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough."[7] Someone copied this page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-smoker addiction to e-cigs

The current source is a non reviewed paper from a non-academic source. The content should be trivial to source to MEDRS for those of you with access to better journals because it's pretty non-controversial. Do any Systematic Reviews make similar statements about non-nicotine users becoming addicted to e-cigarettes?

Addionally, in terms of wording I changed it to make it clearer that the addiction was to nicotine, not to e-cigarettes per the source and common sense. Not sure I did the best job of the reword. SPACKlick (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The current source is from WHO which is a reliable source in accordance with WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Per MEDORG The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. I'm just saying there's probably a better source than a public guide from WHO for a rather important claim. It's just a completionist thing. The tag was the wrong tag, fully admitted. SPACKlick (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is since WHO is one of the few sources that is as reliable as a top quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it's just me but I find actual reviews more reliable than position statments, even position statements of the most renowned organisations. There's just a different structure for how information gets included. It's no big deal and there are other, actual, problems to solve first.SPACKlick (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually while "there is a risk" is a hard statement to disagree with, this is one part of the hard-anti ec position that research is failing to confirm, so I wouldn't agree it is "pretty non-controversial" if the risk is to be taken as very significant. See the previous section: " Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction for those who do not smoke. There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked." - though that seems to be lifted from us. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of why I prefer this sort of thing to be linked to a review, that cites several articles, so people who use wikipedia for knowledge can follow the train of science back to the individual data points if they want to to see for themselves. We must of course be careful not to stray from Can/Could to Do/Will create new addicts without further data but there is certainly data of subcuticle injections of nictoine in monkey's at similiar mass concentrations leading to addiction (or the appearance of addiction). I'm confident there is a scientific paper out there somewhere that shows this and concludes it. MY access to MEDRS is quite limited though so I'm not too surprised I can't find it. I was hoping one or more of the med editors might know of one. SPACKlick (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This review Seems to suggest that e-cigarettes have less potential for addiction that cigarettes but I don't fully follow because they synonymise addiction with abuse liability which has a slightly wider meaning. But I'd like to see the review that led WHO to conclude their finding, so that there was a simple thing to point to when the question "how do we know?". As I said, it's nowhere near a big problem. A little bugbear.SPACKlick (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Nicotine, which is not a benign substance"

It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that often bedevils this page that a user would revert to retain this so-called "information". The source does say this on page 2 (actually "not a benign chemical"); it's a rhetorical technique, and the technical word for it is litotes. It's too informal for mainspace and not appropriate. It would be appropriate to address the reader in the simple declarative and say that nicotine is toxic, carcinogenic and addictive, as indeed we already do in several other places.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal, clear to those with access to the context(which you have) and an understanding of english is that the editorialising rhetoric is removed and the plain fact presented. In fact the edit S Marshal made as a Revert to your bold Addition before CFCF bulldozed through here.SPACKlick (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree or disagree for this proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes"

I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes". It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that plagues this page that a user would revert this.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal, clear to those with access to the context(which you have) and an understanding of english is that the redundant and clumsy language is removed and the plain fact presented. In fact the edit S Marshal made as a Revert to your bold Addition before CFCF bulldozed through here.SPACKlick (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes"

I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both". It's yet further evidence of poor editorial judgment that a user would revert this. I am growing increasingly unhappy about poor editorial standards and I'm starting to wonder whether an administrator will be prepared to intervene.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your specific proposal is. You are making complaints but I do not know what exactly you want to do. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• There are two purposes to my posts. First, I would like to have a discussion about why these edits were reverted, with a view to the possibility of restoring them. Second, I would like to have a wider discussion about the standards of editing on this page, which are low and declining. It should not be necessary for us to discuss the reasons why we excise needless words. Nor should it be necessary for us to discuss whether these words were needless. If it is necessary, then the educational task that's needed here is very large, and it would be a lot simpler and less time-consuming to deal with what is fundamentally a behavioural problem using administrative tools.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been the nub of a problem at this page for a long time. General Sanctions were put in place to see if that would limit the problem, it in fact just reduced the number of editors and made the slide into decay and the repair slower. Do you have any idea which Admin tools or venue is best to visit to try and resolve the issue? SPACKlick (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Which tools (if any) to use is a decision for an uninvolved administrator; they might prefer to start with a dialogue rather than pressing any buttons. Which venue is an easier question: it should be this talk page. If a note on this talk page doesn't attract an uninvolved administrator within a reasonable period of time, then that's evidence that the general sanctions are failing ---- in which case, ArbCom is where it will probably end up.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New Images

First, Thanks to CFCF for tracking down new images for the lede and other sections, most of them are great improvements. The one added to the Positions of medical organisations section though I feel has two issues. 1) It's quite large, could someone trim down the pixel width on it a bit, also stylistically since we have a lot of right aligned images would it be worth considering this one on the left. 2) It's very text heavy making it unclear what precisely we're illustrating and giving strong prominence to the factlet within it. SPACKlick (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)