Talk:Electronic cigarette

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sailorbo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Skyguythor.

Nicotine and Passive vaping sections

Should we delete both the nicotine section and passive vaping section? QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The Electronic cigarette#Nicotine content on this page is not a summary of any subpage. The Electronic cigarette#Passive vaping is also not a summary of any subpage. There is more than 10 paragraphs about nicotine content in the Safety of electronic cigarettes page. All content from the main e-cig page on nicotine was rewritten and moved to the safety and adverse effects subpages. This article is getting a bit long. We don't need additional content about nicotine and passive vaping. The summary of the Safety of electronic cigarettes page does contain content about nicotine and passive vaping. The nicotine section and passive vaping section are a violation of WP:WEIGHT, especially when they are not a summary of any subpage. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Nicotine and Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Carcinogenicity for content about nicotine. See Adverse_effects_of_electronic_cigarettes#Risks_related_to_e-liquid for content about nicotine e-liquid. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Exposure for content about passive vaping. The subpages are for the additional content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• yes agree w/ QuackGuru--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• yes agree, better organization Cloudjpk (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• yes JonRichfield (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• No (summoned by bot) The sections need a bit of work, many unreliable sources are tagged, and they could be trimmed. But the material, or a good summary of it, needs to stay at the main page, not (re)moved and sent to a subpage or related page, which results in hiding information (albeit unintentionally to be sure). This article is by no means "too long". petrarchan47คุก 22:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes acknowledging unnecessary overlapping content. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remove Nicotine altogether but Reduce/Rewrite Passive Vaping per WP:SYNC/SUMMARY as brought up by the quack. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• OR also strongly supporting the sections concerned be replaced by An Informing Image as proposed by the quack. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, this would be an extreme response; consider reducing content instead: To begin with, WP:WEIGHT is not established as a function of what our other articles say about a topic, even as an indirect matter: it's is determined exclusively by the coverage given by WP:reliable sources to a given aspect of the article's subject matter. Now, clearly the topic of this article receives so much coverage that WP:DUE weight paid to particular aspects is a relative matter and hard to nail down without reviewing very large numbers of sources (which, given they opened this RfC, I will give QuackGuru the benefit of the doubt and assume they've spent a fair amount of time doing just that. However, insofar as the Nicotine section utilizes dozens of sources, including a number of WP:MEDRS, I think it is clear that the issue of accidental exposure is not a non-issue to health and safety experts. Therefore I think that options presented by this RfC (remove the section entirely or leave it in a bloated state) are clearly a false choice; there is at least one other (and I believe probably the appropriate) option: simply reduce the profile of the section some. It's worth noting that while this isn't the shortest article on the project, neither is it near the length of some of our other articles on topics that are large in scope and high on controversy. Furthermore, fully 50% of the page length is occupied by the massive notes and reflist sections, a result of the large amount of sources needed to resolve verification disputes and annotations. All factors considered, I'm seeing more than enough evidence of WP:WEIGHT to cover the topic of nicotine exposure in this article, but believe this summary could probably be achieved in half the space. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, QuackGuru, you might want to consider re-working your !vote above, insofar as it immediately follows the prompt and thus serves as strong advocacy for one side of the dispute: you have somewhat conflated/misused the terms "subpage", "page", "subsection" and "subarticle" repeatedly in that post (made all the more confusing by the fact that you piped a link to a subsection of this article and labelled it as it if it was a different "page" altogether). For clarity: a "subpage" (as the term is used on this project) is when someone hosts a page within the namespace of another page. It is almost never used in article space. What you apparently meant to say is "subarticle": that is when one article represents coverage of one aspect of a topic covered by another article. A "subsection" is a section within a section (in any article or workspace page) and a "page" is any distinct namespace on the project (an article or work/project space). I don't mention all of this just to be pedantic: it actually took me several minutes to figure out the nature of your argument due to the mis-usages here (and one of them could also be considered outright misleading, though I'm quite certain it was just an error); I think new users probably would have any even more difficult time parsing the meaning. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I added extra details to the Safety section in this article about nicotine and passive vaping. There is content about nicotine exposure as well as second-hand exposure to vaping in the safety section. The safety section in this article is a summary of Safety of electronic cigarettes, Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes, and Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol. See Electronic_cigarette#Safety. Those other sections are not a summary of any subarticle. Random content is a violation of WP:SYNC. If more coverage of nicotine and passive vaping is required then the safety section would be expanded rather than have other sections. I was careful to avoiding turning this article into an anti-e-cig article. I meant to say subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru Reviewing the sections again with your most recent comments in mind, I understand your argument better. However, if you do ultimately end up removing the section, can I suggest that a very small amount of the content removed probably should be rolled into the 'Safety' section as well? I think it's probably reasonable to address the accidental exposure to nicotine issues with just the one statement and reference currently in the main 'Safety' section; while such exposure can of course be toxic at very low thresholds, I imagine these events are relatively rare and that the sources reflect as much (but you'd know better than me, being much more familiar with the sourcing). However, I do think the possible developmental effects of nicotine are a salient subject in their own right and it maybe makes sense to add a sentence or two on that subject to the 'Safety' section if the 'Nicotine' section is removed. Similarly, a small amount of discussion of the second-hand exposure risks (that is, a vastly reduced version of the content currently in the 'Passive vaping' subsection) could be reasonably included in the 'Safety' section, since that topic is almost completely absent from the rest of the article, as best I can determine. In other words, if you do end up deleting the 'Nicotine' and 'Passive vaping' sections, I think 5-10% of the content currently in those sections is probably ripe for minor re-wording and insertion into the 'Safety' section. That's jsut my quick assessment on the situation--I appreciate that you are eager to avoid this article becoming a cache-all for every negative consequence of using these devices, since there is another article reserved for the purpose. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. If the detailed article changes considerably without updating the parent article, the summary section will need to be rewritten to do it justice. See Wikipedia:Summary style#Synchronization.

The effects of nicotine and e-cigs are not a salient subject in their own right. There is no dedicated article on that specific topic. The composition of electronic cigarette aerosol is a salient subject in their own right, yet the 'Safety' section has only sentence for a summary for all of this content.

How is this specific content in 'Nicotine' and 'Passive' vaping better than using other content from the subarticles? Do you think the 'Nicotine' section and 'Passive' vaping section is a summary of any subarticle? If it is not a summary of the 'Nicotine' risks and 'Passive' vaping risks then what justification would there for keeping content that is not a summary of any subarticle? How could it be ripe for minor re-wording and insertion into the 'Safety' section when I do believe it is not a summary of the subarticles? The 'Passive' vaping section are all quotes. Quotes do not have an encyclopedic feel. I was thinking the 'Passive' vaping section could be replaced with an image about the second-hand aerosol and e-cig blasts.

There is another problem with the content in the 'Nicotine' section in this article. A lot it is bias and misleading like this date of 1991. It took me a lot of time to rewrite all of it. You can read both 'Nicotine' and 'Passive vaping' sections and determine what could be useful for the safety section and then I can find the similar content in the subarticles. You could also copy the 'Nicotine' and 'Passive vaping' sections to your sandbox and work on it and check if anything is worth keeping. I did do that before. I don't think I missed anything essential. The content in those other sections was re-written and merged into the subarticles and parts were inserted into the lede of Safety of electronic cigarette as well as the 'Safety' section. What you are telling me to do I already did. Before content is added here I would have to add content to the lede of the safety article per WP:SYNC. See Safety of electronic cigarettes and other subarticles. What content on those articles do you want in the lede of Safety of electronic cigarette. 4 paragraphs is the limit. There is 8 paragraphs on safety in this article. No editor suggests there should be 8 paragraphs in the lede for the Safety of electronic cigarette article. This is a serious violation of WP:SYNC. It looks like you support keeping the content in this article and as an afterthought consider reducing content instead. I can't support reducing it instead when there has not been a specific proposal for specific sentences. The topic of nicotine exposure in this article is covered in the 'Safety' section. The topic of second-hand exposure risks is covered in the 'Safety' section. The 'Passive vaping' section is essentially duplication. It is unreasonable to add duplication to the 'Safety' section. If you don't support 8 paragraphs in the lede of the Safety of electronic cigarette article then there is no justification for continuing to violate WP:SYNC. This is not about a compromise. This is about following WP:SYNC. Additional content added to the lede of the Safety of electronic cigarette article is supposed to be a summary of that article. The 'Nicotine' and 'Passive vaping' sections are not a summary of any subarticle. Therefore, this content should not be incorporated into the lede of the Safety of electronic cigarette article. If you want additional content in this 'Safety' section it would first be added to the safety article that summarizes the body. The 4 extra paragraphs in this article don't summarize any subarticle. Therefore, the 4 extra paragraphs in this article about safety is violating Wikipedia:Summary style#Synchronization. Should we delete both the 'Nicotine' section and 'Passive' vaping section in accordance with WP:SYNC? QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, before looking at the particular issues here, I will say this as to WP:SYNC concerns. It's a fine principle and something that should reasonably be striven for at all times, but as a matter of policy and pragmatism, it yields to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. What I mean by this is that, if there is a consensus to include content in a main article and for a topic, and yet, for whatever reason, you could not secure support for inclusion in the relevant sub-article, then the two articles would each still default to their own consensus as to whether or not to include said information. But I'm going to guess in this case that this is not going to be a huge issue, because I'm figuring that there's going to be significant overlap between the editors working at both pages? If that's so, there should be no trouble squaring the two consensuses. Which is good, because wherever you can have SYNC, you should have it.

And look, if you feel that the content should be removed wholesale, I'm not going to argue the point into the ground--that's pretty much why I was clear to format my commentary as a suggestion, rather than an !vote or similarly oppositional language. I stand by that suggestion, by the way: retaining two or three sentences from those deleted paragraphs about the increased risks of nicotine poisoning and second hand exposure does make sense to me. I'm not looking to dictate exact content to you though, because you're in a far better position to make the call, and you clearly have strong opinions about some of the content with regard to bias--apparently even after you've edited the section once, if I read you correctly. I just can't imagine that there's not a single source or statement there that you don't find to be biased as to the issues of nicotine poisoning (rare as it may be) and second hand exposure. But if I'm blunt, I don't want to keep rehashing the issue of the wording in increasingly minute detail. I'd much rather defer to your familiarity with the content. If you absolutely feel you are put between a rock and a hard place by my !vote and genuinely want me to look further into the sources and draft specific statements myself, I suppose the communal thing to do would be to do so, but, are you very certain you can't see anything in particular in those sections pertaining to those two topics that you don't think is worth saving, that is supported by the balance of the sources, as you understand them? Snow ^{let's rap} 10:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

See "Aside from toxicity exposure in normal use, there are also risks from misuse or accidents[234] such as nicotine poisoning (especially among small children[96]),[148] contact with liquid nicotine,[239] fires caused by vaporizer malfunction,[1] and explosions resulting from extended charging, unsuitable chargers, or design flaws.[234]"

See "E-cigarettes create vapor that consists of fine and ultrafine particles of particulate matter, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range.[1] The vapor have been found to contain propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, flavors, tiny amounts of toxicants,[1] carcinogens,[96] heavy metals, and metal nanoparticles, and other substances.[1]"

See "But workplace safety standards do not recognize exposure to certain vulnerable groups such as people with medical ailments, children, and infants who may be exposed to second-hand vapor.[1] Concern exists that some of the mainstream vapor exhaled by e-cigarette users may be inhaled by bystanders, particularly indoors.[98] E-cigarette use by a parent might lead to inadvertent health risks to offspring.[77]"

The summary section contains content on nicotine poisoning as well as second hand exposure. It has been given its due weight. I do not want to overemphasize nicotine poisoning or second hand exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, let me ask this then: you're happy to dump all of the first paragraph of the 'Nicotine' section? Because it comes sourced by work published in two fairly well respected journals within the top few percent of journals and ranked by impact factor. They are primary, but given the quality of the publications and the MEDRS context, that's not necessarily a negative. I don't know that it need four sentences to convey the gist when probably one would suffice, but doesn't some mention of the neurological impacts bear at least brief mention. Similarly, what about the first sentence in last paragraph of the 'Nicotine' section, noting a fourteen-fold increase in cases of accidental nicotine poisoning? I'm not sure how that source got tagged with a MEDRS tag, but it's the official publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics--it's a reliable source for medical topics lol. I wouldn't be surprised if its the biggest journal in its field after JAMA Pediatrics in most bibliometric indexes. And the underlying fact seems pretty relevant. And the source itself makes the connection between the rise of the product and the cases, so there's no issue with synthesis. Of course a large percentage increase doesn't necessarily equate to a huge number of individual cases, but that's why we cite source (and we can always add the raw figures if we feel that extra dimension is necessary for the average reader to appreciate the scale of the issue). Thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 11:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any quality content was lost when it was rewritten and moved to the subarticles. The first paragraph of the 'Nicotine' section *is* covered in Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Nicotine and Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Carcinogenicity. It is not about the publication. It is about the content. What you have cited about nicotine are not a good overall summary. The Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes subarticle has content about the nicotine poisoning increases and decreases. A summary would be more general content.

Do you agree any content in the 'Passive vaping' is essentially duplication and already discussed in the 'Safety' section? I copied some of the content from the 'Safety' section and posted it above. I don't think I missed anything essential. I also added an image that covers second hand exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes cut out I am here through general WikiProject Medicine alerts. This article is already long and should either be focused on the e-cigarette devices or summarize related subjects which have their own articles. This top-level e-cigarette article is not the place to centralize the complicated subjects of either "nicotine" or "passive smoking". I can support either minimal coverage of those topics here linking to other articles or outright deletion on the assumption that mentions and wikilinks elsewhere in the article will help users navigate to the main articles. English Wikipedia is not currently differentiating between e-cigarette nicotine and conventional nicotine, or e-cigarette passive consumption and conventional passive consumption. If those articles ever got established then that could make a case for linking them from here, but right now the weight of the publication seems to be that should be only one term for nicotine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh no its the legendary blueraspberry --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussions on Nicotine and Passive vaping sections

The article is currently at 267,427 bytes. It is longer than any e-cig-related page. The Nicotine and Passive vaping sections are not a summary of any subpage. It is random content. I rewrote it to fix the problems in my sandbox and moved it to the subpages. See this discussion on the Safety of electronic cigarettes talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Safer than tobacco claim

See lede and body: "... e-cigarettes are generally seen as safer than combusted tobacco products.[90][91]" Is this wording neutral? QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The wording is neutral, according to the WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews. See discussion below for verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It is as neutral as physically possible as it is just a statement of fact. It does not claim that they are safer. Neutrality is not censorship. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on safer than tobacco claim

See Electronic cigarette#cite ref-KnorstBenedetto2014 91-0

See "Given that ECs do not generate the smoke that is associated with the combustion of tobacco, EC use is generally considered safer than tobacco use."[1]

References

See Electronic cigarette#cite ref-Burstyn2014 92-0

Also see "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are generally recognized as a safer alternative to combusted tobacco products, but there are conflicting claims about the degree to which these products warrant concern for the health of the vapers (e-cigarette users)."[2]

References

Both sources are making a broad claim that e-cigarettes are generally considered/recognized safer than tobacco. If it were changed to tobacco cigarettes rather than tobacco in general that would be a more narrow claim. In this case, both citations verify the same claim. Another source states "Importantly, they are often viewed as safer than tobacco cigarettes, meaning that at-risk populations, including pregnant women, might be more inclined to use them."[3] This is a more narrow claim because it was only tobacco cigarettes rather than tobacco in general.

Both are MEDRS-compliant reviews. J BRAS PNEUMOL[90] has an impact factor of 1.496, as of 2016.[4] BMC PUBLIC HEALTH[91] has an impact factor of 2.42, as of 2017/2018.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The narrower claim seems particularly uncontroversial. Benjamin (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Both reviews are making a broader claim it was tobacco products in general rather than only cigarettes. It would be inaccurate to claim it was just cigarettes. The other source was just used to show it was making more narrow claim for only cigarettes. It is not a review.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They mention "combusted tobacco products". I'm not too familiar with all the different types of tobacco products, but I assume that's things like cigarettes and cigars, and not things like chewing tobacco? Benjamin (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. I added the word "combusted'. QuackGuru (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this all about? I have only skimmed a couple of articles and talk pages relating to this topic and am not aware whether there was a dispute over the wording in question. The article includes the following relating to "safer" (and more, not listed):

e-cigarettes are generally seen as safer than combusted tobacco products

misbelief that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes

no evidence that ECIGs are safer than tobacco in the long term

appear to be safer than traditional cigarettes

These statements appear to conflict with each other. Is that the issue in the RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this all about? The dispute over the wording goes back over 5 years. Almost all editors have moved on or have left Wikipedia. I think I finally found the wording that is most neutral for the "safer claim".

"appear to be safer than traditional cigarettes" has been shortened to "E-cigarettes cannot be considered safe because there is no safe level for carcinogens."

"misbelief that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes" is according to a 2016 review. There is in-text attribution and it says misbelief that e-cigarettes "are safer". That is not in conflict with they are "generally seen as safer".

no evidence that ECIGs are safer is a quote from a medical organization. It says no evidence that ECIGs "are safer". That is not in conflict with stating it in WP's voice that e-cigarettes are "generally seen" as safer. These other statements are not part of the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Electric cigarettes potential association with fog machine studies with controversial findings

I believe this to have some relevance depending on carrier fluid and other compounds used in some products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.93.183.193 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fog machine - Wikipedia Electric cigarettes potential association with fog machine studies with controversial findings

"In May 2005, a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine,[7] conducted by the School of Environment and Health at the University of British Columbia, looked at adverse respiratory effects in crew members on a wide variety of entertainment venues ranging from live theaters, concerts, television and film productions to a video arcade. This study determined that cumulative exposure to mineral oil and glycol-based fogs were associated with acute and chronic adverse effects on respiratory health. This study found that short-term exposure to glycol fog was associated with coughing, dry throat, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and tiredness. This study also found long-term exposure to smoke and fog was associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory problems such as chest tightness and wheezing. Personnel working closest to the fog machines had reduced lung function results." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.93.183.193 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes for detailed information on safety content. QuackGuru (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fruit flavor marketing to youth

I added the following to the marketing section: One common claim is that the inclusion of sweet and fruity flavors in e-liquids is primarily for marketing E-cigarettes to children, but studies show that fruit and other candy flavored e-liquids are by-far the most popular flavors among adults.

References

Just looking for consensus or opinions. I believe it's pertinent because this claim is made very often, but with 9 million american adults vaping on a regular basis, and most of them preferring something, it only makes sense that companies would produce that product for them. It seems to be a huge example of correlation doesn't equal causation to say that since children like fruity flavors, and e-juice has fruity flavors, then they make e-juice because of children. I believe it's useful information, but will happily remove it if consensus is that it's not useful. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph until consensus is reached SpoonLuv (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The first source is low quality. The second is a study. The second part of the sentence is a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Heavy metals

A recent edit was reverted saying that heavy metals are from the devices and not from the liquid. Is there any source that metals are in the liquid? It is well documented that there is heavy metals released. It doesn't appear as though it's been determined whether it's a chemical exchange inside the chamber between the coils and the liquid, or whether it's a vapor being emitted when the coils are heated. Either way, there's little argument that it's not coming from the device itself. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There is not an article for that. This article is meant to be a summary of the subarticle. I just added content to anther article using a 2019 review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Which states the metals are because of "degradation from the metal coil used to heat the solution", not the solution itself. I'll make a further edit that I think you'll be happy with. That will clarify that the metals are in the resulting vapor that's being consumed. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding more off-topic content makes it more off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The original way it was written made it sound like the e-liquid contained the heavy metals, which they don't. Sources (including ones provided by you) have clearly shown that the metals come from the devices (notably the coils). This isn't off topic, it's clarification. Please explain to me how that's off topic? SpoonLuv (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It illustrates the point that although the marketing says that it only contains those things, what you're inhaling is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not clarification and the marketing section is not about general content about the emissions. The liquids do contain metals. A 2017 review states, "One study found traces of chromium, manganese, nickel, and lead in the e-liquids of five brands of cig-a-like devices (59)."[7] See "...researchers have found differing amounts of heavy metals in the vapor." That's not the liquid. That's the vapor. When adding a source to the 'Marketing' section it should be about marketing. Random sources that do not discuss claims or marketing are off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "The linked sources say nothing about marketing cigarettes to youth, nor any involvement by "big tobacco"[8] The source does verify the claim. You are clicking on a deadlink. You have to read the original source from 2015 to verify the claim. See "The tobacco industry aggressively markets e-cigarettes to youth, glamorizing e-cigarette use in advertisements and offering e-cigarettes in candy flavors such as bubble gum and gummy bears."[9] QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The source has updated their information to more current information. You are cherry picking old information, that they themselves have changed. The source that you cited does not contain that information, I've looked. If you are unable to cite a current and accurate source, then the information isn't current and accurate and should be removed. SpoonLuv (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, and this is getting exhausting, manufacturers don't put heavy metals in e-liquids. The liquid "In the device" contained the heavy metals. If I pour water into a glass with red food coloring in it, I can't make the claim that the water contained red food coloring. I do agree with the edits you made though and accept that part of the section in its current form. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with your assertion that sweet flavors are specifically for marketing to children. Your source has changed their information about there, therefore I don't really think it's accurate anymore. Nor that tobacco companies are the ones agressively marketing, as by a number of sources on this same page, there is many different companies manufacturing devices, the biggest of which (juul) is unrelated to the cigarette industry. I think this is another attempt at equating e-cigarettes with tobacco products, which is an outdated theory. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not my claim. It is the sourced claim of the citation. It does contain that information. Many times there are deadlinks. I fixed the issue. Metals are found in e-liquids. But that is not relevant to this discussion. Please don't try to replace on-topic content with off-topic content. QuackGuru (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

How is metals not being in e-liquid not relevant in a discussion about whether or not e-liquid contains metals? Just because a fact doesn't agree with your personal view, doesn't make it off topic or irrelevant. Also, if you need to use the wayback machine to cite something that the authors chose to remove and update with more current information, maybe the first question should be whether you should use that information, or update it to the more current information. You're reaching, and it's becoming patently obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 13:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What does metals in the e-liquid have to do with a claim? It is off-topic. A discussion about whether or not e-liquid contains metals is not relevant to this specific claim. In any event, they do contain metals. See "Another study found detectable levels of arsenic, nickel, and other metals in e-liquids, with additional traces of lead in the devices themselves (96)."[10] QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And when you read the study it's cites, it only speaks of metals found in the aerosols, and specifically talks about how those metals are transferred from the coils. The quote says that it's in the e-liquid, but it does not say whether those metals come from the manufacturing of the e-liquid, or leaching from the device. To avoid taking that out of context, it would be appropriate to look at the subject of the article that the claim cites, where you would find that the cited work never made the claim that the liquids contained metals from the manufacturer, but in it's conclusion, specifically stated that the metals were transferred to the aerosol. This is either MEDRS, or you taking something out of context. Either way the claim is that e-liquids contain metals, of course whether or not e-liquids contain metals are relevant to the claim. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

For the metals being in the e-liquid, I cited a review rather that a study. This content is off-topic for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's not off topic to mention that it is the most popular flavor among adults. The claim is that the use of sweet flavors is specifically targeting to youth. The fact that the majority of their biggest demographic also prefers that is a counterpoint and important information to know when making that type of claim. It would be like saying that racist people like strawberries, therefore grocery stores mainly target racist people. The context that the majority of other people like strawberries would be important information to include in order to keep with a neutral point of view. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It is off-topic to state what are the most popular flavor among adults for the marketing section. See Construction of electronic cigarettes under contents: "Adults in general also preferred sweet flavors (though smokers like tobacco flavor the most) and disliked flavors that elicit bitterness or harshness.[134] Young adults overall preferred sweet, menthol, and cherry flavors, while non-smokers in particular preferred coffee and menthol flavors.[134]" That is cited to a review.

There are problems with the content you restored. The WHO claim was moved to the subarticle. This article is meant to be a summary. Same problem with the other sentence added. But it is also a WP:MEDRS violation. It is a study rather than a review. See WP:MEDRS. The part about the "candy and other sweet flavors are also the most popular among adult smokers" is off-topic to a marketing claim and it is a primary source. Stating "American Lung Association has removed this information from their website" is unencyclopedic. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You moved the content. That content was added to that section because it pertains to THAT section. Trying to hide it by moving it to a sub-article does nothing to add to the article that I was editing. Please stop edit warring. This is well sourced and cited information that pertains directly to the article at hand, and it's importance of maintaining a neutral point of view. Please review the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and please stop editing to push your narrative. SpoonLuv (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The section is getting to long. See WP:SUMMARY. Also see WP:MEDRS. You restored a primary source again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If the section is getting too long, I will work to remove some of the other repetitive information. The first thing should go is information that's already been made clear, not information that's new and different from the information already there. Also, I don't know what you're saying is a primary source, but one is a review published in a journal, and another is finding from a collaboration of doctors at a convention based on multiple medical studies. Neither of those are considered primary. SpoonLuv (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The content you added made it too long. There was no problem before with the section. You removed the tag but PubMed does not indicate it is a review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Both the fact that it's getting too long, and that it was fine before is your opinion. There are multiple other sections under the same heading that are considerably longer. It wasn't fine before, as clearly it was incomplete. SpoonLuv (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You have not shown the source you restored is MEDRS compliant. Please remove it. Also please remove the dated content.

You restored content about "the absence of longitudinal data" from 2014, but there is content about the longitudinal data in 2016 cited to a 2016 review on the longitudinal data and gateway. See Chatterjee, Kshitij; Alzghoul, Bashar; Innabi, Ayoub; Meena, Nikhil (2016). "Is vaping a gateway to smoking: a review of the longitudinal studies". International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 0 (3). doi:10.1515/ijamh-2016-0033. ISSN 2191-0278. PMID 27505084. Therefore, I removed the dated content from the subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And here's a review from 2017 pointing out the flaws and limitations of those reviews.

This article is referring to a gateway to smoking, which is actively becoming a smoker, but the metrics they used in the review was whether or not they tried a puff of tobacco smoke, and even then the review itself says the effect is limited at best. That is not relevant information to the context of this section. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This subject is clearly divisive among both researchers, and health professionals. As removing the whole section would likely be a mistake, I don't see what's wrong with having both sides of the debate represented. This is necessary in order to ensure a neutral point of view is maintained. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You still have not shown the source is a review.

Science Daily is not MEDRS compliant.

The claim is there is an "absence of longitudinal data", but that was from 2014. In 2016, there is data on longitudinal studies from a review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the source. Read the article. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it not MEDRS compliant? SpoonLuv (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is also the talk page, MEDRS compliance doesn't apply. It refered to a lack of longitudinal data about whether e-cigarette use would lead to smoking. The review that you referenced only looked at whether the subjects ever had a puff on a cigarette, and had "no indication of current use, frequency, or intensity", which would be needed in order to assert that e-cigarettes led to them becoming a tobacco smoker. An unrelated review doesn't make the original information wrong. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The information remains correct as there still is no longitudinal review that I can find showing that e-cigarettes lead to becoming a smoker. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it not MEDRS compliant? Because pubmed did not indicate it is a review.[11] We don't use poor sources to argue against reviews.

It refers to "the absence of longitudinal data". That is not a "lack" of longitudinal data. The review I cited is about the longitudinal data and gateway. We don't use content that claims there is no longitudinal data when there is a related review that shows there is content about the longitudinal data.

See Is vaping a gateway to smoking: a review of the longitudinal studies. "This review highlights the strong evidence that not only are ECs are not an effective tool for smoking cessation among adolescents, they actually are associated with higher incidence of combustible cigarette smoking. Policy makers need to recognize of the insidious nature of this campaign by the tobacco industry and design policies to regulate it."[12] QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are so clearly trying to eliminate any information that doesn't follow your personal frame of reference. These articles are supposed to be written in a neutral point of view, but you remove anything that doesn't follow your personal narrative. You found a review that talks about a study that says that it leads to higher incidences of cigarette smoking (which does not mean that the subjects actually became smokers), and I provided a newer article describing why that review is flawed and should not be considered representative of whether e-cigarettes are a gateway to active smoking. Your reasoning for it being old information, is bad information. The use of the word "insidious" also doesn't speak much to the impartiality of this particular review. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't base editing decisions on reviews that are biased and documented as flawed. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Your link stating that it's not a review with the search also shows the work I cited as the first result. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And if you don't like science daily as a source, here's a link to the original article [https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S0376871617300236?returnurl=https:%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0376871617300236%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&referrer=

My reasoning for removing it is not that old information, is bad information. The reviews cites longitudinal data in relation to the gateway effect. It does not talk about "a study". It was more than a few longitudinal studies.[13] Science Daily is not relevant to improving this article. It is not MEDRS and it should not be used for this article for MEDRs claims. These articles supposed to be written in accordance with MEDRS as well as being neutral. It is not neutral to use information that has been shown to be dated. The MEDRS tag was removed but so far there is no indication it is a review.[14] Same with the other article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown it to be dated. It refers to whether there's longitudinal data that shows that cigarettes lead to smoking. I included the article to which science daily was referring to here. MEDRS requires the use of valid and accurate secondary sources, which I've supplied. You're using sources that have been refuted in order to say that my sources are somehow not MEDRS compliant, and arguably those sources are off-topic anyway. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not MEDRS compliant. Just accept this and allow a little impartiality and neutral information on this page. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have demonstrated it to be dated because there is a recent review that does overview the longitudinal data. The WHO source claims there is no longitudinal data. There was true in 2014. That is longer true because there is a review that shows there is longitudinal data related to the gateway effect. The recent 2016 review is MEDRS compliant and it not been withdrawn from pubmed. You have ]not shown the source you restored is a review. See pubmed. It is not listed as a review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

By your own review search linked above in this post this is indeed a review right on top of your search result.--TMCk (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=28786147 It is at the top of the search result because I clicked on it to check if it was a review.

Gateway effects and electronic cigarettes. is not a review according to pubmed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also see "A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette users." It is listed at the top.[15] but a longitudinal study is not a review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Gateway

How are you disputing the neutrality? The source itself says that this is a limitation, and this section is specifically about it being a gateway to regular tobacco smoking. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Therefore it is important to understand that when you've presented evidence that a review found a link to smoking, it didn't actually review studies that found a link to regular smoking, IE, the gateway effect, IE the title of this section. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, are we really going to start adding NPOV tags? Almost every review and study that you've referenced has listed selection bias as a "significant" issue in the studies reviewed. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated "Almost every review and study that you've referenced has listed selection bias as a "significant" issue in the studies reviewed." That's correct but for other reviews we don't state things link that. We usually stick to the evidence rather than explain about the studies they reviewed.

See "1) it was referring to "among adolescents and young adults" but there was no mention of that; the source does not mention gateway; although none of the studies reviewed... is not encyclopedic; it better to stick to the evidence rather than explain about the raw data 2) this content was moved to the subarticle 3) there is a youth section that has similar content 4) "Some argue" fails verification 5) no evidence the source is a review has been presented on the talk page"[16] QuackGuru (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and they didn't provide evidence about how many became regular smokers, which is the gateway effect. That is about the evidence. If a review lists a significant issue with the material as it pertains to the subject that you are talking about, then it is important to include it to maintain NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Gateway effects and electronic cigarettes." is a WP:MEDRS violation. See here. It does not indicate it is a review. Other sources state "Review". This one does not state it is a "Review".

"Adolescents and e-cigarettes: Objects of concern may appear larger than they are." is a MEDRS violation. See here. It does not indicate it is a review. Other sources state "Review". This one does not state it is a "Review". I added maintenance tags to address the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Does not have to be a revue to be MEDRS. Also doesn't have to agree with you to be MEDRS. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Using non-MEDRS sources to argue against MEDRS sources is not neutral content. The wording is not fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe instead of always just throwing MEDRS around, you should explain, using proper Wikipedia policies, how that information isn't MEDRS compliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is MEDRS compliant content explaining about the "common liability" and the concerns but the non-MEDRS content that was restored is being using to argue against the "common liability" and those concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

SpoonLuv: please stop adding non MEDRS content. Please learn what qualifies as MEDRS. Thanks. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, please kindly explain, using proper Wikipedia policies, how that information isn't MEDRS compliant. So far the only argument given that it's not MEDRS compliant is that you don't agree. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

They are not reviews. It's that simple. Have you shown they are MEDRS compliant? QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, and yes they are. Please please read the page on what determines MEDRS compliance. And yet again, using proper Wikipedia policies. SpoonLuv (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is kind of ridiculous when it comes to NPOV, and desperately needs to be fixed. There are multiple people that remove anything that doesn't go along with their personal views on the matter. It seems as though when new information is added that might conflict, they find every reason possible to remove it. Is NPOV actually important to Wikipedia? Is there any way to deal with bullying editors? I'm somewhat new here, is this just par for the course on Wikipedia? This is a health issue, and could literally lead to people dying, but it seems to be treated like a game by the editors. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The article contains numerous MEDRS compliant sources. The only issue I noticed is the non-MEDRS content is being restored to the article. That can be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what MEDRS means. It doesn't mean that anything you disagree with is an MEDRS violation. If you cared about keeping an NPOV, and honestly believe that these sources aren't MEDRS, then you would seek an MEDRS compliant (in your mind) source to back up the information. If you are purposely attempting to remove NPOV compliance, you would find a way to remove anything that disagrees with your point of view with no attempt to find out the information yourself, which is clear to all what's happening here. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See "...numerous longitudinal studies have confirmed their role as a gateway to more conventional tobacco products [88–91]."[17] I found evidence to settle the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you found something that agrees with your personal views doesn't make it NPOV. I've provided many sources that question the legitimacy (or even ability to perform) those studies, as well as information that's counterpoint. There's even some evidence that there's a reverse causal gateway effect, but that information is incredibly incomplete, so not included. Finding something that agrees with you doesn't settle a matter. Providing readers with all of the pertinent information, and references to those sources is what's important. It should include all of the information, and be neutral. Not just agree with you if it means including part of the story. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You restored content claiming there was an absence of longitudinal data. That is incorrect because "longitudinal studies have confirmed their role as a gateway to more conventional tobacco products."[18]

The MEDRS violation was removed but you restored the content against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus wasn't reached, but nice try. And I reverted that edit because you also removed other unrelated information. You did a blanket revert to remove 1 section, that removed a different one, with your reasoning being the removal of the one section. SpoonLuv (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)