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)

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)

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."[2] 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)

those edits remove information that is in the linked daughter articles. I thought the removed portions were chaff as they didn't add significant information. "They cannot be considered completely harmless" was removed because there is already significant discussion of potential harm so there's no suggestion they are harmless. Same reason for water

vapour. On reconsidering the ENDS posing risk to adolescents and fetuses should probably be re-inserted although I'm not sure where. The WHO 2013 was removed as out of date as there is more discussion of studies performed since on smoking cessation effectiveness. and the WHO position changed about the recommendation from "strongly advised not to use" to "mokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting...[but]...e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods." SPACKlick (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cloudjpk, thanks for spotting that. I partially restored some text for balance. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Very well then. User:Cloudjpk said the edit removed information from WHOJuly2013. No specific reason was given in this thread to delete it. Therefore, I am restoring it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, ONUS is on providing reasons for inclusion and reasons were given for deletion. the WHO changed its recommendation in 2014 as we say in the article. Also 1 editor does not consensus make. Giving these discussions a week or so is not unreasonable. SPACKlick (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Another editor also disagreed with you. The text is part of a WP:SUMMARY of the safety lede. The safety section is only two short paragraphs. It can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 15 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)

We are already using that image. See Electronic_cigarette#Device_generations. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 14 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."[3] 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)

Now we got information about appeals for young people in the motivation section. Would editors prefer I or another editor rewrite the text in WP voice or do editors prefer the quote. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 14 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)

User:SPACKlick, do you have a proposal that would not be considered SYN or OR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of both as uninformative bloat is my first choice. However following that Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, others thought this was a drawback.<ref name=Pepper2013/> would do. SPACKlick (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Current wording: "Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, whereas others thought this was a drawback.[25]" The only difference with that one sentence would be the removal of the word "whereas". The other sentence is clearly different when it is saying the benefit or a drawback is in regard to the way they feel or taste. Resembled traditional cigarettes is about appearance. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

resemble is not exclusive to looks and therefore covers the information in both. You still haven't justified including these sentences by the way. Because frankly "A group of people are not unanimous in whether a property of a thing is good or bad" is pretty useless info. SPACKlick (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

These are relevant to the section for motivations of users. It is interesting information for short stubby section. The sentence about resemble/looks is different than that of feel and taste. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 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 that 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)

I've never used an e-cigarette, but I do have experience with NRT. I gave up smoking about four years ago using patches and gum. The thing with NRT is that there are three letters for a reason. I'm sure e-cigs can deliver the nicotine replacement, but they aren't a therapy ---- or at least, not here in the UK. A therapy is a treatment recommended by a medical professional and as far as I know, there aren't any medical professionals who recommend e-cigarettes to their patients. I think it's absolutely essential that we don't describe e-cigarettes as NRT in the article. They aren't therapies: they're devices for delivering a nicotine hit which could potentially, if they get past NIHCE's careful scrutiny, form part of a therapy in future.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

True and I should have said "for nicotine replacement showing potential for future use as an NRT" rather than just "as an NRT" although sidebar: I always thought the t stood for treatment. That said I wouldn't use either phrasing in the articleSPACKlick (talk) 22:22, 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."[4] 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)

I restored the NRTs. Grana 2014 is not outdated. Different sources say different things. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Current wording I restored: "A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[89]" QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Grana was published before a significant number of tests had even been designed, before people realised that traditional autosmokers don't work with e-cigarettes. It concludes e-cigarette use in the real world is associated with significantly lower odds of quitting smoking cigarettes. which is clearly false now. I mean I have a laundry list of issues with that particular study, like it being based on 5 studies which don't study the rate of smoking cessation among smokers trying to quit with e-cigs and drawing conclusions about e-cig effectiveness for cessation. But thats all by the by. SPACKlick (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to who it is clearly false now? QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note correction of quoted sentence, still had an old clipboard stored Pretty much every paper on cessation via e-cigs since and several before Grana came out. Pretty much every 2015 source in the article. General consensus among scientists studying e-cigarettes. SPACKlick (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources that are just a year old are not dated because you think there is consensus among scientists that the one year old sources are wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when scientific consensus is moving as quickly as it does with a new consumer product with a lot of interest sources can become outdated very quickly. When any paper draws conclusions which are now seen as not in line with current consensus it's appropriate to refer to them as dated or outdated. Grana is an example of that. Consensus is now against mosta lot of what is said in Grana. This is ignoring the fact that several people published responses calling it a hatchet job and tearing its methodology apart from the date of publication. SPACKlick (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown the recent reviews are outdated or a minority view or even unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm not going to try and convince you Quack, you're dogmtic with limited comprehension of english. I have better things to do with my time. I'll wait for competent editors to show up. SPACKlick (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is surprised you think the recent 2014 review is not reliable or is somehow wrong. It has not been withdrawn from pubmed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's quite simple Quack, I think it's outdated because many of its claims are contradicted by multiple studies with better methodologies published since. I think it's not reliable because the method was flawed and it reads like it was written with a preconceived conclusion. It's a bad paper. Now it's unreliability I wouldn't use to stop its inclusion on wikipedia, there isn't a general consensus among scientists that it's a bad paper (it's not Andrew Wakefield levels of bad) but the fact that more recent better sources disagree with it means any claim sourced to it needs thorough checking against a wider consensus prior to inclusion. Plenty of bad or outdated science stays on pubmed BMJ well beyond its time or even permanently, they have no incentive to remove things unless they are fraudulently bad. SPACKlick (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE the 2014 review is reliable. Your personal opinion of the review does not trump MEDRS. Sources often disagree. We don't pick and choose which source is "better". QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And I quote it's unreliability I wouldn't use to stop its inclusion on wikipedia, there isn't a general consensus among scientists that it's a bad paper Did you miss that point? Now as to whether or not we pick and choose which point is better. WP:Weight, WP:redflag and WP:ONUS say we do. We decide how much weight the content deserves based on the consensus of sources. We need to check sources that make claims that go against consensus very carefully. We need to establish that the source and the contents warrant inclusion. That's how wiki works. SPACKlick (talk) 00:14, 14 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)

It is better to try to avoid quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Because...?—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Using quotes instead of paraphrasing the sources does not have an encyclopedic feel. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to what or whom?Levelledout (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to how most articles on Wikipedia are written. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended use of quotations: "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example, when dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be from Wikipedia."

It is good editorial judgment to make use of quotations in this case.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is in-text attribution. See "A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking.[15]" That's how most of the sentences are written throughout the article without quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That in itself is part of the problem. The article in places is 5 or six sentences in a row beginning "A 2014 review said..." "As of 2013 this group found..." so that needs to be reduced, quoting is a way to do that if used wisely. Direct contradictions in current findings is an appropriate situation for that. SPACKlick (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You see it is possible to provide WP:PAG rationale and S Marshall's post is what it looks like. The fact that you have chosen to ignore that WP:PAG by asserting how "most of the sentences are written" QG, is irrelevant. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV clearly states that we should use direct quotes for controversial ideas and subjects.Levelledout (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When sources disagree such as in the lede we don't use quotes instead. Quoting decreases the quality of the article. A bunch of quotes is unnecessary when we are already using in-text attribution. I disagree with replacing summaries with quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to vote to go against policy Quack. I'd be careful there. SPACKlick (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Unfortunately your disagreements do not seem to be based on any WP:PAG, certainly once again you don't mention any, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in fact instructs us to use direct quotes in this situation. I suggest that disagreements with this policy be raised at the WP:NPOV talk page and not here, we don't have the authority to over-rule it here.Levelledout (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the entire be replaced with quotes every time sources disagree? QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No I am suggesting that you please stop being so obstructive, stop filibustering, stop trying to circumvent WP:NPOV and rejecting the guidance at WP:QUOTE and stop making objections that aren't based on WP:PAG.Levelledout (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, Quack, I need to correct a misapprehension here. In-text attribution is defined at WP:INTEXT. "A 2014 review found" is not in-text attribution, even if the reference is otherwise well-cited, because nothing in the text is attributed to anyone in particular. "According to Drummond and Upson (2014)" is in-text attribution. Therefore the article does not currently contain much in the way of in-text attribution.

  My proposal is not to introduce large numbers of quotes into the article. It is simply to deal with this extremely contentious point: Do e-cigarettes have a role in helping people to stop smoking? There are two opposing views. I propose to insert two specific quotes with in-text attribution, each giving a phrase from the conclusion of a recent scholarly study, with one phrase to support each view.—S Marshall T/C 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• We are paraphrasing the sources rather than using quote for better readability for the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... which is the wrong call. Precise quotes are the best way to deal with this. Stop being obstructive please.—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We should not use large numbers of direct quotes. We should paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 15 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)

Not everyone agrees with deleting the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people do, and you haven't justified the inclusion of any of them, But over time it will be trimmed. Hopefully some of the editors your wP:Tendentious editing has driven away will come back as well and then more eyes will see more things and the article will read much better. SPACKlick (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem Quack is that as SPACKlick and S Marshall say you oppose and obstruct almost every single productive change that is attempted. You make proclamations and assertions but rarely WP:PAG based detailed explanations. You revert in the middle of discussions trying to work towards consensus. This drives many editors away and the article remains in its current state. Worst of all, no matter how many other editors tell you this, you won't listen and take on board what's said.Levelledout (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cloudjpk wrote "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."[5] I must agree. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes those later edits removed some information which is properly included in the daughter articles to neten up the stubs. The information removed is in part duplicated, in part superceded and either way is in the daughter articles. And it has been partially restored with no reasonable justification. SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The section does not need to be a stub according to WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Stub/Summary Potato/Potahto. They were overlong, and contained excess non-applicable information. I trimmed them. Do you have any specific exceptions to the trimmed sentences beyond WP:OWN? SPACKlick (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I mean QG. You have completely ignored and likely disregarded what I said and quoted a single editor who made a single point about a single edit, which barely has any relevance to what I said.Levelledout (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the edits to two different sections and gave reasonable explanations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he made a comment on the removal and saw fit to discuss it rather than revert it because cloudjpk is an editor here to improve wikipedia. SPACKlick (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You deleting it without discussion for a section that is already short. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that comment relates to something Quack but it sure as hell isn't a reply to any of the comments above.

To circumvent smoke-free laws

Not sure about this change. How was it a correction? QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Vaping isn't banned in areas covered by smoke free laws. No law is being circumvented. It is therefore false to imply people use e-cigarettes to dishonestly avoid being stopped smoking. SPACKlick (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

1. The source says "circumvent". 2. boy oh boy have we had this discussion Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_20#Proposed_removal_of_POV_text The result: "circumvent" as accurate to the source and not implying dishonesty, just a way around. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There are significant WP:NPOV issues here. Whether somebody is "circumventing" smoke-free laws or "obeying" them by using an e-cigarette where smoking is outlawed is entirely a matter of opinion. I have no objections to using the words that a source uses, but if we are going to do that then as of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it should be a direct quote of the source and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.Levelledout (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-controversial claim. They are even advertised to e-cig users as away to circumvent smoke-free laws. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, Citation fucking needed. SPACKlick (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

But if QG says it's true then it must be. Seriously, "circumvent" is judgemental and/or has negative connotations to any reasonable person, therefore it should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. WP:NPOV is a core non-negotiable policy that we should not be trying to circumvent (!) in any way shape or form, so even to be on the safe side it can't do any harm not to quote something in Wikipedia's voice and to quote it directly. In this instance I think it's pretty clear cut that needs to happen.Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation provided for mundane claim. See my last edits. I have other sources that say a lot more. Would you like me to provide more citations to confirm it is a mundane claim? The word "circumvent" is clearly accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Quack, given that the content is clearly controversial, please provide several sources on the talk page before re-inserting. Await consensus before re-inserting. You know, follow SOP for wikipedia. SPACKlick (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Had missed that previous discussion. I do think there is a legitimate claim of impartial here. Since other sources use other words like Publich health england "replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited", and I disagree that the previous discussion reached the consensus you claim and nor did the NPOV notice board. Both conversations were leaning to finding a more neutral term when they petered out. There were several calls for more neutral wording than either circumvent or comply. (i also agree that comply puts a wrong spin on it) I'm open to suggestions but I do think circumvent, even if not always implying negative connotations, does have a slightly negative slant to it. SPACKlick (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturers are heavily marketing "use anywhere" in the face of smokefree laws and policies; a way to get around those policies. "Circumvent" is "get around" (just in fancy latinized form :) The previous discussion had many other terms proposed, but none gained consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that "smoke anywhere" and "avoid smoking ban restrictions" are reasons why users use and that marketers sell on. That is uncontroversial. The only controversy with the original text was the language. Several users (at least 6) felt that circumvent was a POV term before. Add me and levelled and that's 8. Surely we can find a different word which doesn't even slightly suggest nefarious/deceptive connotations? I've made my suggestions in the article by using the longer phrasing.SPACKlick (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources can't be POV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

sources can indeed be pov and biased in language. There are about 5 policies that apply. Wording in WP voice needs to be careful of POV. Since there are several ways of phrasing the content desired to be included and the term clearly carries some POV connotations the sensible thing to do is discuss a paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So you think editors can override what the sources says? QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So you think paraphrasing in neutral language is over-riding? Quack, have a discussion or move on. Wikipedia is not for you. SPACKlick (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but from some of this discussion you could get the idea that the source said "use in smokefree places" and an editor changed that to "circumvent". Which would indeed be NPOV. But that's not what happened. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cloud: You mistyped your signature there, I left it for you to sign. However nobody is claiming the source doesn't say circumvent. Some sources say circumvent, some sources use other wording "Smoke Anywhere" is the one I see most often. circumvent has several negative connotations for many readers.SPACKlick (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a high quality source. I see no reason to exclude it here, or to prefer other sources Cloudjpk (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated by multiple editors, because "circumvent" does not read NPOV and there are paraphrases, as used in other sources, which do not suffer from the same issue. Do you feel the current wording misleads or misrepresents the claim in the original source? SPACKlick (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you could elaborate on how so, I'd happily try to offer some more accurate wording. SPACKlick (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the source's word. Given how long this discussion has gone on without finding a better term, I doubt we are about to stumble across one now. Please restore the word the source uses. If you want to have a discussion after that and can gain consensus on an accurate paraphrase, fine. Cloudjpk

I'm not happy to give up that easily given that it violates NPOV, half or more editors in all three discussions have thought so and only 4 editors have seen this discussion. I note you still haven't elaborated on how you feel the current wording falls short. SPACKlick (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I see now. You deleted this because you thought it was violating NPOV. At least you could of rewritten it. It is notable because almost all websites make the claims. The word "circumvent" is often used. I can add more information about it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No you don't see, you are again conflating two discussions. The text I changed was changed over NPOV concerns. The text I removed was removed because it was not relevant to the section it was added to, not discussed for consensus and I didn't believe it was relevant. Please discuss that in the section below about it. SPACKlick (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors disagreed with you the last time we has this discussion and long after the discussion you change it.

You deleted "circumvent".[6]

You deleted "circumvention".[7]

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Electronic_Cigarette_-_.22circumvent_smoke-free_laws.22. Now you mentioned you missed those discussions? QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did forget that discussion ever happened and I don't remember making my one post in it. Analysing those two discussion numbers were slightly for on the talk page, numbers were overwhelmingly for change on the NPOV page, the contents still presented NPOV concerns and I didn't delete the content, I paraphrased. I'm still awaiting any specific objections to the paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The appeal is to use them to "circumvent" the smoke-free bans. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The appeal is to use them to enjoy the recreation (partly nicotine, partly behavioural) where it is prohibited with cigarettes. Circumvent is not an NPOV word for that. I still await specific objections to the paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations are needed. Do you still want more citations? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I say citations? No I said I wanted a reason the paraphrase was not considered to accurately reflect the source given we have sources using various different phrasings what is the justification for using the one that causes NPOV concerns? SPACKlick (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a controversial word. I was discussing a possible compromise on your talk page but you reformatted the section. They are heavily advertised to "circumvent" smoking bans. This is one of the main reasons people are using them. Last time around editors tried to delete it. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_20#Proposed_removal_of_POV_text. QuackGuru (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't reformat after discussion started. I paraphrased before any of this discussion started and didn't edit those two parts of the article again after. You're also now changing the claim. The users are motivated by a desire to engage in the recreation where smoking is banned is different from the users are motivated by being told they can engage in the recreation in areas where smoking is banned by advertisers. You seem to be conflating these two claims. SPACKlick (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You reformatted the discussion on your talk page. I think one of the sources conflates these claims. I'm not making this up. QuackGuru (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack you've been conflating it the whole time. And you weren't discussing a compromise, you were obstinately refusing to discuss anything. The discussion of what advertisers say and what people's reasons are were separate for everyone but you. It really smacks of a POV need to include a word the majority of editors who've commented feel is NPOV or raises some NPOV concerns. And you still have yet to give a concrete objection to the paraphrase. To explain what it doesn't say that it should or what it says that it shouldn't.SPACKlick (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I was discussing a possible compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You made that comment in an ENTIRELY unrelated section of the talk page. However in response to your "Compromise" one use of controversial wording isn't a compromise when the only objection is to the wording. That's making an unrelated, 'so-called' concession. I still await any actual objections to the paraphrase that aren't WP:DONTLIKEIT. SPACKlick (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm still waiting any objections to the source's word that aren't WP:DONTLIKEIT. One challenge to getting consensus for a paraphrase is likely the fact that there's nothing wrong with the source's word. C.f. What word does the reference use? It uses circumvent. "and as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 20 December 2014 I'm not saying it's impossible to find an acceptable paraphrase, that retains the meaning. I am saying it's difficult, and there's little reason to take up the task. That effort might be better spent improving the page. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then read the discussion. The word has negative connotations that raise NPOV concerns implying deceipt or illicit behaviour. A half dozen or so editors have said so, a couple of dictionary sources have said so. Many sources if not most refer to the "Vape anywhere" "Vape where smoking is banned" rather than this terminology. There is certainly reason to be cautious of using the word. SPACKlick (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've read the discussion. And not just this time, but also the discussion from months ago. So much discussion :) I seriously can't believe we're still discussing it. This is not complicated: the NPOV issue would apply if an editor had introduced the term. But the term is from the source. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mundane claim deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&curid=11996885&diff=656362456&oldid=656362329 Most websites make these claims. This is fact. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word circumvent is controversial, please seek consensus before including. It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page... huh. Just because a source has convince YOU doesn't mean it overrides the need to seek consensus.SPACKlick (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No attempt was made to change the wording. You just deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes per BRD I removed your ridiculous addition. Because you added the claim and edit marked it as a response to the ongoing discussion above about circumvention and you added it where circumvention was previously (making a ridiculously long caption by the way) I can only presume it was pointy, tendentious or ownership. The addition of a marketing claim in that caption was inappropriate and the re-addition of a claim about circumvention was downright inappropriate in the context. you do not own this article. Would you like to suggest a location for the given claim, and a wording? SPACKlick (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think there is a better place for it you should not of deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You arrogantly inserted without discussion which you've been warned about several times, the correct response was to revert and send you to talk. If you keep making undiscussed insertions, you'll find it happens a lot more often. SPACKlick (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You have not made a proposal yet. You just reverted without attempting to improve anything. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not include it is a proposal. I'm awaiting your justification for inclusion. The onus is on the addition SPACKlick (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a frequent claim by most websites. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

please provide a justification for inclusion. This would be some form of argument based on WP policy and the goals of wikipedia rather than just blanket statements. SPACKlick (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The source made this conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

2 things, 1) verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. 2) The wording of an inclusion is up to the cnsensus of editors as long as it is verifiable and doesn't misrepresent the source. Please make an argument and proposal for inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the main conclusion from the source. I propose we restore it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You have as yet provided no justification for inclusion, certainly no justification for inclusion in that caption or even that section. SPACKlick (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

See "Eighty-nine percent of websites claimed that e-cigarettes could be smoked anywhere, including smoke-free environments..."[8] That is a high number which makes it interesting. The source discussed it in detail. The experts believe it is notable. See "Marketing that emphasizes using the product “anywhere,” especially where tobacco smoking is restricted, could lead smokers to add on e-cigarettes and potentially increase the amount of nicotine consumed."[9] QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably notable somewhere in the economics section. Second or third paragraph maybe? And we need wording that fits.SPACKlick (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just add anything and editors can improve it. I am not stuck on any wording. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just say use in smoke-free areas? Nobody can disagree with that (can they...?) and it has none of the negative implications of circumvention or positive ones of compliance. Barnabypage (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "circumvent" the text from being deleted. Lol. QuackGuru (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory content and lack of explanation?

The article currently states, "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common; up to 10% of American high school students reported having ever used them at least once as of 2012, and around 3.4% of American adults as of 2011." How exactly is 10% and 3.4% "common"? 10% and 3.4% are small minorities. Also, it says "increasingly". Increasingly compared to what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

OR removed. QuackGuru (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been in the article for some time, and consists of weasel words followed by a breach of WP:NPOV. Basically it cherry-picks some of the highest usage figures available and tries to give a vague impression of as bigger increases as possible.

• It says "E-cigarette use has increased" but it doesn't say when it started increasing, by definition you can't have an increase with an indefinite start date therefore it's meaningless weasel words. We should be saying "E-cigarette increased since 2010" or at the very least "E-cigarette use has increased in the past few years leading up to 2014" for example.
• In true tabloid newspaper style it then cherry-picks the highest available figure for child use of e-cigarettes available from any source. This happens to be an ever-use figure that only applies to American high school students and is 10%. In the UK "Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use" but we don't put that in the lead alongside the 10% figure because it's not convenient and would actually mean we might comply with WP:NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that child ever-use is also 10% in the UK amongst the general population and apologise for not realising that. I still maintain ever-use is the least-most useful statistic and we should be quoting other statistics in order not to create a distorted impression, for instance "In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%".

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to include ever use it is definitely weasely to tie increased Ever Use to increased prevalence of Use. SPACKlick (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify I don't think it wrong to include ever-use, but I think it's wrong to only include ever-use in the lead or any other statistic that creates a lies, damned lies and statistics distortion.Levelledout (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of e-cigarettes?

What's the point of e-cigarettes? I read the first few paragraphs and the article doesn't seem to explain this. Why would anyone want to use these? Is it supposed to be fun? Is it supposed to be a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes? Is it supposed to help people quit smoking? What about second-hand vapor (or whatever it's called)? It seems like this should be explained early on. Perhaps it's buried somewhere in the article, but it seems to me that the basics should be covered first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The section on why people use them is in the section "Motivations for use". Many people use them to quit or reduce smoking. For some people it is a recreation in addition to or instead of smoking. It is seen as a cheaper, healthier alternative to smoking. I think maybe some of that motivations section should be summarised in the lede. SPACKlick (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Done.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you should not keep "doing" things prematurely before a consensus has formed. The insertion of "Most users' reasons for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, yet a considerable proportion of their use is recreational" is insufficient and A Quest For Knowledge has a good point. They also touch on the general point that the article in general has very poor readability, does not explain the basic essential facts adequately, is too technical, uses language that is too technical and generally is nowhere near as informative as it should be considering the shear size of it. I think that we should explain clearly, probably in the second paragraph of the lead, in no nonsense language why people use e-cigarettes, we should explain more clearly whether they are a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes (i.e. they are likely safer alternative, but it's not been proven exactly how much safer they are). In the lead we could also replace the terms "smoking cessation aid" with "help people stop smoking" and "tobacco harm reduction" with "reduce harm from smoking" whilst still maintaining Wikilinks to these concepts. Either way it clearly needs to be stated in clearer more understandable language how and if these things help people stop and reduce harm from smoking. At the end of the day the lead probably needs a rewrite to make it more comprehensible.Levelledout (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

While in general I agree with the above post I would caution about OVERsimplification of language this is not Simple English Wikipedia. While Tobacco Harm Reduction is not a common term outside of the relevant topic area and may want to be explained when first introduced or replaced in general Smoking Cessation is a reasonably common term that can probably stay without a significant reduction in readability. SPACKlick (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that if we first introduce the terms by saying something like "Help people to stop smoking as a smoking cessation tool" it would be a lot better.Levelledout (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear that they help people to stop smoking thus we should not say that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Motivations for use

@Doc James: last edit,with my two grammar tweaks resulted in the following sentence.

Most peoples' reasons for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, with a considerable proportion using them recreationally.

I have a small concern that this implies that users using them to quit use them recreationally. The original sentence implied more that some use them to quit and others use them recreationally. I can't work out from the source which is a more accurate implication and would appreciate thoughts. SPACKlick (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)