Talk:Electronic cigarette

Description of Cochrane review in body

The lead of this article states "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." This seems like an accurate representation of that review's conclusions, but I don't think the body describes it as well. Specifically, I think the sentence "A 2014 Cochrane review found that e-cigarettes can help people quit, but was based on a small number of studies" should be changed. This seems to be an oversimplification of this review's findings. Maybe something like "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes were effective for smoking cessation, but rated the confidence in their effectiveness for this purpose as "low"." Everymorning talk 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is too wordy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's somewhat ironic coming from you, QG! Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that there is not a problem with the wording. There are issues with the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wording for lede: "One review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid." Wording for body: "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." The wording was improved. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions authorised

This is to let everyone here know that I've just closed a discussion authorising general sanctions for the electronic-cigarette topic area. The precise wording of the sanctions is as follows:

The community authorizes general sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page bans, topic bans, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocks of up to one year for any editor so warned. Sanctions issued under this authority must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

If anyone has any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me about them either here or on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles for the archived discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

lede on this beast (arrived via an RfC and I already hate all of you ;) )

"is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking.[1]" -- somebody edit that please. It produces a something that creastes a sensation similar to that prroduced by cigarette smoke is presumably what is meant here but yes, that is an incredibly awkard sentence and that is what I didn't just go ahead and make the change. That and I see the talk page, which is apparently so active that all three of the RfCs I have received have scrolled off the page. Boy oh boy. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the source: "Electronic cigarettes look very similar to the conventional cigarette and are capable of emulating cigarette smoking..."[1] The word emulates was removed from the lede last year. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. The sentence in the source at least parses. My issue with this is language, by the way, you do get that, right? How can an object feel like an action? Meanwhile, nobody is screaming over last night's edits, so I suppose that's good, as far as it goes. What were the RfC's about, anyway? This is a horrible article right now, obviously the product of a committee, lol. I am not talking about the substance, just the writing. I have reading comprehension skills that are way above average and a tolerance for repetitive detail that was honed on software manuals, and I still can't get through it. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Current modified wording: An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar sensation to tobacco smoking.[1] The word "feel" was removed. I think is is much better now.

RfC's are all archived and forgotten. The last RfC can be found at Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_22#Ordering_of_sections_2. The closer wrote: "I'll venture to suggest that option 3 is the one that more editors seem to be able to get behind, and it's probably the most fruitful basis for future discussion". We can have that discussion. User:Elinruby, you can fix the section ordering. Let's get it done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. If the RfCs were resolved to the satisfaction of the current editors on the page then great. I was just asking out of morbid curiosity;I have no desire to re-open anything. As for section ordering, say what? Was thinking that right now wou guys might want to try for English. But that's just me. Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

re your lede change, maybe. It's an improvement. I am going to change "has" to "produces" -- is that ok with everybody? Meanwhile, for readability, I would rather not have that many parentheses in the first sentence, but in an article that appears to be contentious, one thing at a time. Yes, that is what you would do on first mention, true, but there is probably a more graceful way to do it. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone is satisfied with the article. We can agree it is just the writing. I wasn't sure which wording was better. The parentheses in the first sentence is for the synonyms. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I am FAR from satisfied with the article. I cannot read it and I repeat, I can read just about anything including Microsoft documentation. It's terrible, However your change plus my change make me happier about that particular sentence. Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I originally changed it to provides a similar sensation. I changed it back to has. You changed it to "provides". And then it was changes back to: 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.[1] The word "sensation" was not simple enough as "feel". Even a minor change can make a big improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research removed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654938142&oldid=654936852 I recommend editors read the sources before changing the meaning of the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• This once again brings up forcefully the four things that concern me about your editing, QuackGuru. The first is your tendency to use WP:V and WP:NOR not on concepts or ideas but on individual words. You have a habit of removing single words for "failing verification" which is concerning. The second is that I sometimes wonder whether you understand English in the same way I do (e.g. your statement that "A few is a synonym for many"). The third is your very highly active editing which makes it hard for other users to follow the changes you're making, and the fourth is you tendency to revert editors who want to improve the horrible prose in the article and to dismiss the concerns they raise, as you have done in most of the sections started by ElinRuby. Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is not concerning to remove WP:OR according to WP:V. The wording "a few" can be used a synonym for "many". In my absence would you want to delete more text from the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:S Marshall claims "Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence."[2] That is not a content dispute. Therefore, I am removing the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No real explanation for restoring the tag was given. This is the same editor who deleted numerous sources, including several MEDRS compliant reviews without a valid reason. So what is disputed? QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required. --Kim D. Petersen 03:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no serious dispute among legitimate long-term editors. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider that remark. --Kim D. Petersen 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You think several MEDRS compliant reviews are inappropriate for Wikipedia? Was that a legitimate dispute to delete so many sources? QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that kind of comments are compatible with WP:CONDUCT? --Kim D. Petersen 05:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I asked what is disputed. Apparently you don't have an answer. You think your edit is appropriate for Wikipedia with deleting numerous sources? QuackGuru (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• I observe that you haven't acknowledged that there's any problem with your behaviour, and I think you haven't understood that there's a problem.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• It does not improve the lede to delete part of the summary. Your edit was not an improvement. Thus, it was reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• This page and this page may help you to understand my concerns about how frequently you edit this article and how much of its text was written by you (and also by AlbinoFerret). I don't know how to explain to you why the other things I mention are a problem. WP:Editorial judgment is, alas, a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A disposable e-cigarette image

What you think? Maybe the image could be improved without the box. See Electronic cigarette#Construction. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I found an image without the box. Is there a way to remove the logo from the image? QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

re-inserted bloat

Here is a sentence which I removed and CFCF re-inserted which I feel adds practically no information to the article and merely adds bloat.

As of 2015, there is no information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women.<ref name=Orellana-Barrios2015/>

Asking for consensus to remove it SPACKlick (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For the usage section, this is the only sentence about the prevalence of use for pregnant women. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• It contains no information. If we wanted sentences without information I can come up with hundreds. Nothing is known about the frequency of e-cigarette use among fruit-bats. No studies on the frequency of e-cigarette use among wallabies have been conducted. Nothing is known about the effect of e-cigarette smoke on wallpaper paste. Don't include content that doesn't add anything to the reader's knowledge, that's another poor editorial decision. It's also part of our verifiability policy: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not this again, I reverted your edit with the comment "bloat?" because I don't see how you identified it as such. Now that I understand I think we have to clear up a logical fallacy some people here are engaging in. The sentence most certainly adds information in that it is a known unknown that is both relevant to the topic and reported by a credible source. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've said this before, but it seems highly relevant so I'll repeat it. I think the actual problem we have here is methodological. I think the editing process at work on this article is:- (1) Find a source that includes a new factlet; (2) Paraphrase it closely and cite it carefully; (3) Stick it in the article; and then (4) Group the sentences that seem to be related. The factlet we're considering here adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic.

  However, I'm acutely conscious that we're giving CFCF a hard time over one single factlet when QuackGuru is introducing bucketloads of them every day. We're not tackling the main offender here.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

My aim is not to give CFCF a hard time, I engaged CFCF because I figured discussion could be productive. @CFCF: I understand the concept of known unknowns but you have to be selective in which known unknowns you include in an article. Not every verifiable known unknown should be included. The reader doesn't benefit from specifically knowing that research into the frequency of use among pregnant women hasn't been done yet, especially since the article repeatedly says that there's been little research into the effects of e-cigarettes yet. SPACKlick (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Little research into the effects of e-cigarettes is very different from no information is currently available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the reader of the article will be of the impression research has not been done in most respects. In all honesty what is the benefit to the reader of this sentence? SPACKlick (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The reader will get the understanding that there is no research on the prevalence of use for pregnant women. It does add information that it is not known as of 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. We've all agreed there is a small token of information there. The question I asked was what is the benefit to the reader of including that information? There are millions of pieces of information like that and they cannot all be in the article. Some small facts must be left out to avoid a bloated unreadable article. I believe this should be one of them. SPACKlick (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Explaining what is the latest information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women is giving relevant information for that section. There is not any other specific information in that section on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women. On Wikipedia we do report the known unknowns. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No we don't. What a strange thing to say.—S Marshall T/C 02:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we do discuss what is "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", "limited evidence", "variable evidence" and so on according to credible sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't include every factlet that can be verified about knowns and unknowns. That isn't how articles are written. IT is howeer how you are writing this article and it's almost impossible to clean up while you keep adding snippets worthy of no weight to the article. SPACKlick (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I already explained we don't have any other information about the prevalence of use for pregnant women. No valid explanation was given to exclude information about pregnant women use. We include information for men using e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk)

No you didn't explain you stated. We shouldn't list everything that there hasn't been research into in the article dotted about amid paragraphs it's not worthy of the weight. WP:V While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The objection is that this information does not improve the article. SPACKlick (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But we do list the known unknowns. This is good editing on Wikipedia to include the unknowns. This data the same as other data about the unknowns does improve this article like other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is not appropriate to list EVERY unknown. Your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, does you a disservice. To list all unknowns does not create a good quality article. SPACKlick (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While I hate to actually make a point which doesn't refer to the arcana of Wikipedia's internal policies :), can I just suggest: while effects of e-cigarettes on pregnant women might obviously be a topic of interest (and if I recall correctly there's been some very recent work on it), it's difficult to see why a novice to the subject should care hugely about prevalence among this specific group, unless of course the effects were disastrous and the prevalence high. So it's not only absent information, it's absent not-very-interesting information. Barnabypage (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree it adds little information as written. I was planning on rewriting it, anyhow. I will use another review that does go into more detail. We should also include information about women in general rather than focus on men and youth. The section is (was) unbalanced without specific information on women. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Economics section and globalize/US tag

The reason the tag is put there, is because it is impossible for the reader to determine whether information is global or US centric, as well as the case that a large majority of the information is US figures or information, without attribution to it being exclusively for the US. Other problems include statements such as "a national advertising campaing..." without explaining that it is the US. Therefore it is not just necessary to add a few items from other countries to resolve it.

Solutions to this could be:

• section it into country subsections, so that the reader can determine that the info is centric to a specific country.
• Exchange the US figures/information with global figures/information, and where needed attribute figures/information to countries.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

With minor tweaks to the text the reader will know if the information is global or US centric. However, some sources do not state if is global or US centric. For additional global figures/information you would need to find the sources first. If no sources exist then the section can't be expanded. The wording is now "US advertising campaigning...", which does explain that it is the US. The same was done for the other sentences where applicable. I also organised some of the text for readability. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that "minor tweaks" are enough to resolve the problem. Large parts of the economics section consists of information that is US centric, and written up as if globally applicable. And that is the problem in a nut-shell. It is not expansion that is needed, if we only have US information, then it should be made clear that the information is only applicable to the US. The problem is that readers of the article have no way to decipher whether information is global or US only, without going to the references. --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets be more specific - almost the entire the third and fourth paragraph are based on US only information, but written in a tone and style that presents it as being globally applicable. For instance the whole market analysis information is entirely based on the US market. --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I already explained when the sources says it is US centric it can be stated it is the US. Nevertheless, I did clarify the text in the third and fourth paragraphs. I cannot expand the section using non-existance sources but I did include more information pertaining to other countries. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No serious dispute

See Template:POV:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

I specifically asked what is disputed? The reply was "I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required." KimDabelsteinPetersen, nothing in you response indicates that there is a serious dispute. No major content was disputed to suggest there is a serious dispute. Apparently there is no serious dispute among editors. No relevant discussion can be found on the talk page for a serious dispute according to WP:PAG. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no drive-by tagging here, since the tag currently is status quo. What instead is happening is that one editor insists that the tag shouldn't be there, despite all of the discussions in the archives that discuss the tag and the reasons for it. The template is here, amongst many other reasons, because we need more people to look at the article. That there isn't a consensus to remove the tag, can amongst other things be seen from the fact that the tag currently is status quo. --Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't even need to go to the archives - there is a discussion still here Talk:Electronic cigarette#POV tag being repeatedly removed from article, and yet you still editwar to remove it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've exchange the tag with the proposal Marshall made above. And for a bit of explanation... The section Electronic cigarette#Motivation for use should be about motivations for using electronic cigarettes, but quite frankly i can't determine what those motivations might be, because the whole section is a mishmash of discussions on how some think the motivations are wrong. It is hard to even parse that one paragraph of factlets. And that is symptomatic of the whole article - it seems to consist mostly of factlets that aren't stringed together to make a readable whole. And quite often these factlets contradict one another, without a guiding indicator as to what view is most abundent or relevant. --Kim D. Petersen 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the POV tag for reasons that I have already stated in the previous section on this issue before it was edit-warred out of the article again countless times without consensus. The issue of the Ambox/coherence tag is a separate one.Levelledout (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• My proposed tag was meant as a joke. I don't feel that we need to devise a custom tag for the many problems with this article. I also agree that POV is not the best tag ---- it just happened to be the last stable one that we could actually make stick. A better way of explaining what's wrong with this article would be a combined header with {{repetition}}, {{verbosity}}, {{technical}} and {{overly detailed}}.—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Any neutral observer can tell by the above comments there was no specific reason for keeping the POV tag. Making vague objections about the article confirms there is no serious dispute. The "status quo" is not a reason to keep a POV tag. According to Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The burden for keeping the POV tag has not been met. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you aren't a neutral observer, it is not your call... But the neutral observer would notice that an article that is stuffed/a collection of soundbites/factless with repetitive information, without any regards for WP:WEIGHT, by default is POV. That is what weight is all about. --Kim D. Petersen 05:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a neutral observer? So far you (like others) are just making vague objections. Do you seriously think you are being helpful in this discussion? QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, 2 things. 1) you're not neutral, you WP:OWN this article. 2) The reason you don't see these objections as specific is that they're overarching. The whole article is full of factoids that don't deserve weight, almost every paaragraph contains sentences written in barely comprehensible English and paragraphs is a disjointed term for the strings of factlets put together. I agree with S.Marshall's suggested tags apart from technical. Although they may overall be covered in {{Cleanup-rewrite}}SPACKlick (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, making vague objections shows there is no serious dispute. The dispute appears to be against WP:PAG when nothing specific was shown to be wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been several specific objections Quack

• The article is badly written
• The article is a collection of disjointed factlets
• Several facts are presented with undue weight against e-ciagrettes or worded to suggest more negative towards e-cigarettes than sci consensus

Nobody is particularly seeking your consent Quack but every other contributor to this discussion agrees that this article needs something to draw in uninvolved editors because it needs serious help and most of us are too burned out to do it. The only dispute is what template best sums up the issues and will draw the right editors and I agree {{pov}} is not the right tag.SPACKlick (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you think this article is negative "against e-cigarettes" but we are using high-quality sources. You deleted sourced information claiming it was unsourced. Your previous edit to the lede was largely counterproductive. You thought an improvement was turning the lede from 4 paragraphs to two paragraphs. I was an uninvolved editor and I did notice the issues with this page. Improving this article helps me brush up my editing. QuackGuru (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm "Vague objections?" Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, there are several facts here placed in a context to spin them as negatives special to e-cigarettes. The long lists of "we don't know a and we don't know b and c has been shown in a small number of studies to have an effect. Is presented to make it seem like there is the suggestion of higher risk from a and b than the consensus of academic sources actually presents. Your opinion, I am aware, won't change. You like the article this way. But dozens of editors disagree with you and have been warded off by your blunt style. You're not improving the article, although you are finding a lot of useful sources, the consensus so far in this, albeit young, talk section is that outside editors need to come and save this article drowning in your gibberish and bloat. While other editors might not phrase it that way I will. Many of the contributions to this article decrease the readability, decrease the article's ability to provide information to the average reader and decrease the accuracy with which it reflects academic consensus. It needs a re-write and it probably needs an outside editor to do it. The purpose of whatever tag ends up being chosen as appropriate is just that. As I've said above, I don't think the POV issue is the biggest issue in the article, although it's there in small ways. The biggest issue is that this article isn't written, facts have been put in a shotgun and fired at the page. Once the article is readable the POV will either be blatant at which point it's an easy fix or will fall away because facts will be read in context. I suspect the latter.SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be 4 paragraphs which it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The tag isn't aimed at the lede, it's aimed at the whole article. I do have issues with how the lead is written but as I say I think wants the article is cleaned up the lede will naturally fall into a better style for delivering a summary because it will be summarising something comprehensible. I would also not leadlength is a guidline that specifies it may not be appropriate in all cases. Certainly I disagree with the current leadlength for the current article but I accept I'm in the minority on that so haven't pushed it since. SPACKlick (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not in the minority, SPACKlick. It's just the disproportionate amount of activity that makes it seem so. Editors who feel as you do are less vocal, but I don't think we're fewer in number.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Last lead paragraph

Currently, the last paragraph details mainly country-level issues and begins with "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common..." It might be better to put the stances of global organizations there instead, like WHO, International Union of Toxicology, World Lung Foundation, etc and move local issues to relevant section. Brandmeister^talk 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph could certainly be improved but we already have two paragraphs in the lead on health effects which is more than enough. I would advise that we remove some of the overly technical nonsense that nobody actually understands like the stuff about "aroma transporters" and such and insert the positions of global organisations there.Levelledout (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If one looks at the size of medical organizations the NIH is largest followed by the CDC and than WHO. Thus the US has better data than most places and thus why we often given data on usage there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom Case Request

A case request has been submitted to ArbCom that concerns a regular contributor to this article and may be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that this article has multiple issues

The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See Template:POV: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

The serious dispute must be with WP:PAG not among editors making vague objections. No evidence has been presented on the talk page that this article has multiple issues. Please show not assert what are the "multiple issues". So far editors have not shown what are the multiple issues. The are several vague objections, such as the article is "badly written". Claiming there are multiple issues without showing there are multiple issues is counterproductive. The article has been improved over the last year, which includes documenting the "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", and "limited evidence" according to high-quality sources. This is not speculation. The bat signal was a joke. Not everyone is happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is largely supported by high-quality sources so it is obviously better than many articles. It is a contentious topic but the Wikipedia article should not be contentious. The real world debate should not spill over into Wikipedia. Do you understand that adding 3 maintenance tags at the top of the article without showing there is a serious problem on the talk page is not helpful? The 3 tags appears to be added to "warn" readers rather than discuss legitimate concerns for improving the article. Putting 3 tags to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes solves nothing. Repeating that this article is "badly written" or continuing to make vague complaints won't attract outside editors to make wild changes against WP:LEADLENGTH. Copy editors won't delete sourced text claiming it is unsourced. At WT:MED project there are uninvolved editors who are interested in improving articles. That's how I found this article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 48#I actually hate it here and I.27m leaving. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, plenty of ediotrs have detailed their issues with the writing, with the way paragraphs are formed, with the content selection. You just don't hear them. Several ediotrs have called for this sort of tag to bring new eyes to the article. Your objection doesn't outweigh that consensus even if you don't understand it. SPACKlick (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide the evidence in this thread to merit 3 tags. Please provide the evidence or move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided in repeated sections, you show no ability to comprehend the issues. That's fine, several other editors do understand the issues and are working to fix them. I won't move on because despite what you think you don't own this article. SPACKlick (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide one specific example in this thread and you restored the new tag against consensus. I am not the only editor who disagrees with the new tag. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, I fully accept that you're "interested in improving articles". It's not your good faith that I question, it's your editorial judgment. I also find it extremely hard to talk to you because you don't hear things. Please allow the tag to remain in place for the duration of the discussion.

  The {{multipleissues}} tag related to the three main problems the article has:-

1. Repetition. The article contains many sentences that are semantically equivalent. For example:-
   1. The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain... The role of electronic cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear... The long-term effects of e-cigarette use are unknown.
   2. The limited evidence does suggest that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes... E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke,[4] and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders.
   3. E-cigarette use is rising among females of childbearing age. Among females, e-cigarette use is rising sharply. In some countries, e-cigarette use has rapidly increased recently in women.
2. Verbosity. Related to the first problem, the article is unnecessarily verbose. For example:-
   1. Ethical concerns exist about e-cigarettes use among minors and their potential to weaken efforts to reduce the use of traditional cigarettes.
   2. E-cigarette use among never-smoking youth in the U.S is correlated with an elevated desire to use traditional cigarettes.
3. Overly detailed. The article contains an inappropriate level of technical detail. For example:-
   1. The lede lists seven categories of chemical constituents of the smoke. In the equivalent and much better-written article cigarette, the only chemical constituent mentioned in the lede is "nicotine".
   2. The lede contains six precise statistical statements. In cigarette, there are none, and much fewer in the body text.
   3. The article lists the common battery sizes, atomizer resistances, and other utterly trivial details.

So in my view the evidence to support the tag is clear and plain. It should remain and I ask you please to desist from your edit-warring attempts to remove it.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please note that my statement of the problems with the article is not meant to be exhaustive, and fixing those specific examples would not be sufficient to remove the tag.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Repetition: The lede is not repetitive. Verbosity: There is no problem with having that text in the article about minors and youth. Overly detailed. Those are the chemical constituents of the vapor that does improve the lede. The lede contains six precise statistical statements. That's good. The lede for the cigarette page is poorly written. The article lists the common battery sizes, and atomizer resistances which is good. What trivial details? No examples were given for the other trivial details. It appears you want to drastically shorten the lede when that proposal was previously rejected. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And we're here again. I've shown the problems, and your response (eleven minutes later, which shows you didn't even consider what I said) was to deny that they exist and make accusations about my motives. I find you impossible to deal with. You don't convince your opponents in reasoned debate, you just exhaust them with sheer persistence.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your motives are very clear. If we follow your proposals and edits the result will be an ambiguous incoherent lede. I respectively disagree with deleting many sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbulb Moment

I've worked out what's wrong with this page. This page reads like "A history of scientific studies on e-cigarettes" for the most part. I've started editing various sections so that they summarise the findings of the various studies rather than reporting every single study. This lightbulb moment has given me a significant second wind and I share it in the hopes of giving that second wind to you guys as well.

In terms of my actual edits. Can someone less enthused with e-cigs than me check that the first paragraph accurately summarises the position. What I'm trying to say with it (and what I interpret the sources to say) is that "There are studies that show very little cessation success for e-cigarettes, esp with dual users. There are other studies coming out that suggest e-cigs may actually help quitting smoking. There's a tiny suggestion they might be better than NRT. The data is not even in the ballpark of conclusive yet so no strong claim can be made and high caution should be exercised" SPACKlick (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, these data suggest that e-cigarettes may deliver nicotine at levels that are sufficient to substitute, at least partially, for cigarettes."[3] Your deleting a lot of text that is not redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and await eagerly input from other editors. SPACKlick (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I find some edits remove chaff and some remove wheat :) E.g. this edit removes relevant material sourced to Pisinger2014 and WHO that is not redundant. this edit removes relevant material sourced to WHOJuly2013 which I do not see elsewhere. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific edits for consensus

Lede Image

I'm not tied to this one, I'm just not a fan of an image at the top of the page with a reasonably prominent logo in it. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current image is fine. It is an image of an e-cigarette resembling a tobacco cigarette. I didn't notice a logo. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The white bit clearly says volt. I'd also suggest a 2nd gen e-cig will be more recognisable but as I said, I'll await other editor input I'm not over-fussed either way SPACKlick (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest File:Lava_size_02.jpg which shows various forms of e-cig.—S Marshall T/C 21:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Youth trying to quit

Electronic cigarettes were not regularly associated with trying to quit tobacco among young people.<ref name=Car2014/> I believe this sentence is specifically about motivation for use among young people, moreso than about the effect on cessation so I moved it there. Opinions? SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about usage not motivation or cessation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote is that the MOTIVATION for YOUTH was not TRYING TO QUIT. Care to reconsider? Also, that still means it oughtn't be in cessation section.SPACKlick (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote from the source is "E-cigarette use was not consistently associated with attempting to quit tobacco among young adults."[4] I don't think that is about motivation. The title is "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison." That is clearly about the usage. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"attempting to quit" is a purpose, reason or motivation for usage. Not attempting to quit is about the motivations for usage. It's plain as day in english Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not about a motivation for starting or quitting the use of e-cigs. This is about the prevalence of attempting to quit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarette use was not consistently associated with attempting to quit tobacco among young adults. The young adults were not consistently using the e-cigarettes in order to attempt to quit tobacco. Their motivation for using e-cigarettes was not consistently trying to quit tobacco. Honestly Quack I don't understand how you don't see this. The sentence is clearly about why the young adults were using e-cigarettes and draws the negative conclusion that it was not consistently to attempt to quit tobacco.

• If you rephrase it into better English you get something to the effect that most young people aren't using e-cigarettes to help them quit. That information belongs in the section about young people.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"not consistently associated with" could well mean that there is no established pattern, i.e. some studies show an association, but others don't. One thing that's problematic about this particular citation is that it appears to be sourced purely from the abstract which is bad practice and not recommended. I'd be interested to see what the full text actually says and also whether this sentence applies globally. In any case I would agree that Cessation would be an appropriate place but that it could also fit into the Motivation for Use section. I don't think we have a Young People section do we?Levelledout (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have a youth section, but I prefer motivation to cessation because the cessation section is about the effectiveness of e-cigs not about whether or not people us them for cessation (except in as far as motivation impacts efficacy)SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is now it the young people section under usage. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate sentence about feel

The users of e-cigarettes disagree whether it was a benefit or a drawback regarding the way they feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes.<ref name=Pepper20> was deleted as a direct duplication of half of Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, whereas others thought this was a drawback.<ref name=Pepper2013/> I don't think we need to say it twice in the same paragraphSPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"The users of e-cigarettes disagree whether it was a benefit or a drawback regarding the way they feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes.[25]" The current wording was shortened from the previous version to avoid duplication. The part feel or taste is different than resemble. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They need to be combined into 1 sentence, they're almost exact duplicates from the same source. SPACKlick (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you combine them it would be SYN because one says "Some traditional cigarette users..." while the other says "The users of e-cigarettes disagree..." The sentence are making different points. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be Syn quack because it says some of both. Get over yourself man. The users of e-cigarettes disagree = some users feel one way and some another. Also it's hardly controversial that cigarette smokers disagree over whether the similarity to cigarettes is good or bad and e-cig users disagree. I'll be honest, the sentence says several people disagree over an opinion and should likely be removed as irrelevant but I'm taking baby steps with you here. SPACKlick (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Both sentences should be deleted. Neither sentence adds anything to the reader's understanding of the subject.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the article is currently bloated and these sentences add almost nothing to inform the reader.Levelledout (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Partially substitute

The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can at least partially supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. (emphasis added) These three words were removed because the source says

these data suggest that e-cigarettes may deliver nicotine at levels that are sufficient to substitute, at least partially, for cigarettes.

Which is talking about partial substition of cigarettes for e-cigarette use not nicotine for nicotine but it also says

current e-cigarette smokers are able to achieve systemic nicotine and/or cotinine concentrations similar to those produced from traditional cigarettes.

I believe the removal more accurately reflects the source especially as the retention of dual use is also within the paragraphSPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I slightly changed the wording to make it more clear. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I still think it now highlights the less important point made. We have many sources and several sentences saying that they're used to replace or only partially replace cigarettes. That fact doesn't need to be in the article again. This source makes the claim that the e-cigarette can replicate the blood cotinine of the cigarette. That fact should be in the article. That fact is relevant to an intro to cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Could replicate the blood cotinine of the cigarette is making a different point that is in the safety article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If we already state the first bit in the article then no need to duplicate it, just add the reference as another source where appropriate. And yes I do think it is informative to the reader to remark that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine at similar levels to tobacco cigarettes.Levelledout (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarettes deliver nicotine at similar levels to tobacco cigarettes in the blood is not smoking cessation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Except it is, the reason that fact is relevant to the audience is tht NRT is used for smoking cessation and this shows it can be used as an NRT because it can substitute for cigarettes at delivering blood nicotine. SPACKlick (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Rahman 2015

This one I have the most strong feelings about A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with smoking cessation and reduction from a limited number of studies.<ref name=Rahman2015> The finding in Rahman not already discussed in the paragraph is

studies reported that the 12-month quit rate achieved using NRTs was approximately 10%, and would not exceed this level in the longer term.[3, 4] Our meta-analyses demonstrated a higher smoking cessation rate of 20% achieved with e-cigarettes

Hence I wrote a 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of NRT. I also combined this sentence with the previous as they follow on about developing data on cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The text was written according to the conclusions. I'm going to read the source again for comparing the difference with NRT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote is right there from the conclusion. As I say, we have plenty of statements about e-cigarettes being used for cessation the fact in this review that's not replicated is the improved cessation over NRT. SPACKlick (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Conclusions begins with "This systematic review and meta-analyses assessed the findings of six studies which reported smoking cessation after using e-cigarettes. We found an association between nicotine-enriched e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, suggesting that the devices may be an effective alternative smoking cessation method."[5] Where is the statement you are quoting? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies it's in the discussions, not the conclusions. Which you'd know if you could use Ctrl-F. I don't see why I should have to do your digging for you as well as cleaning up your mess. SPACKlick (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've read this carefully and tried my best to understand what the objection is, but it just makes no sense to me at all. What's the problem with this proposal?—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The study reveals, among other things two conclusions. 1) e-cigs with nicotine may be an effective quitting method. 2) e-cigs are more effective for cessation than NRT's. I believe 2) is the more informative and relevant conclusion to put in especially as 1) is implied by it and stated elsewhere. SPACKlick (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I get that part. I don't understand the objection to putting it in. Obviously it needs a dose of editorial judgment. Rahman is one isolated study and it shouldn't be given prominence over the scholarly views that say otherwise, but this conclusion is pertinent and should certainly appear in the article.—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 2) is indeed more informative and does indeed imply 1).Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't need to be overstated however it's the most recent metaanalysis of more recent reviews and the numbers are pretty significant. I believe it is due a fair amount of weight over say the likes of Grana which is out of date and full of red flags. SPACKlick (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of redundancies

Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement treatments for smoking cessation. Previous paragraph mentions studies found no evidence although that phrasing could be strengthened. One of these reviews stated that to encourage e-cigarette use as a cessation aid in cigarette users is premature. This is not information about cessation, it's about legislative and medical-professional advice Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation. Ignoring the fact that this is no longer correct, it doesn't need repeating. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note: if I removed A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore called for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. I apologise, it was an accident. I had considered moving some more things around but had to leave the computer for a while. I don't have any strong feelings on these as yet.SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to assume good faith it was an "accident". Previous paragraph are not comparing e-cigarettes to other products. Theretofore, it is not redundant. I deleted the premature sentence and I deleted another sentence from harm reduction that did not add much. I disagree with deleting the sentence because an editor may think the source is wrong or incorrect. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing deleting it because I believe it is incorrect although I can find dozens of sources since that one that show that there are studies comparing e-cigs to NRT and showing them similar or better several of which are already in the article. However the issue is that we ALREADY have sentences on e-cigs and NRT.SPACKlick (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation." What other statement repeats this? QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A 2012 review found e-cigarettes could considerably reduce traditional cigarettes use and they likely could be used as a lower risk replacement for traditional cigarettes, but there is not enough data on the safety and efficacy to draw definite conclusions. for one. Besides which we also have, from a more recent review, Evidence that they are more effective. Hence why it would be better to use Rahman to compare e-cigs to NRT. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That statement is making a different conclusion and are contradicting each other somewhat. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• This goes to the heart of the contentiousness around this article. I think we should present the best source for both sides of this one. Rahman: "E-cigarettes may have some potential as smoking cessation aids." This sentence should appear as an exact quote with in-text attribution. Drummond: " ...there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation." This sentence should also appear as an exact quote with in-text attribution.—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell

SPACKlick proposes various edits, and QuackGuru objects to every single one of them.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll be fair to Quack, it wasn't all of them. Just most of them SPACKlick (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you able to make any edits without QG altering the wording?—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of minor ones, however the edits are now proposed above, I'm sure most of them can acquire consensus and become part of the article. SPACKlick (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)