Talk:Electronic cigarette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With aggressive industry tactics such as cartoon characters and candy flavors such as bubble gum, fruit loops, chocolate and strawberry, it's no surprise studies show a dramatic increase in kids using e-cigarettes."[1] QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Girls as young as 11

• This change added text about what Kelly Evans, the director of Social Change UK, thinks, but Evans is not an authority on the topic. The previous text is sourced. See "A report into e-cigarettes has found girls as young as 11 are buying them in pizza parlours and high street shops – and are being tempted by flavours including “gummy bear” and bubble gum."[2] There are many sources to verify the previous claim in accordance with WP:V policy when I did a Google search. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The text is well sourced. There is no need for in-text attribution according to WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

New Images

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

• The article seems to contain four (4) separate images of people exhaling clouds of vapour. Let's remove three of them please.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Each image is unique. Let's keep all of them. QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any other reasons or is it just that they're unique?—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Each individual image is different and each one adds value. For new images I requested a timeline for the sales for Economics since the other images were deleted from the section. That's good the spoof of RadioShack image was deleted. We are moving forward with better images than before. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

One image is enough IMO. We should really trim two of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first image is of an e-cig user exhaling aerosol/vapor. The second user is a user using a nicotine free e-cigarette. The third is an image of a a user cloud-chasing. The fourth user is an e-hookah user. All four are different. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• A picture of my cat would also be different. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia is in a first world country where modern internet connections are the norm. Some are still on dialup. Images use a high proportion of the article's bandwidth. We need to use fewer of them. When choosing which of the images we keep in the article, it's important to observe WP:PERTINENCE and not just have lots of pictures of people exhaling clouds of vapour.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The reader will not know what is cloud-chasing without seeing an image. The reader will not know what is an e-hookah without seeing the device. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay the three we have seem reasonable. I had never heard of cloud chasing either before working on this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Bold, revert, refuse to discuss

This is a problem behaviour. Wikipedians are supposed to be willing to try to find consensus. Editors who refuse to use the talk page, or who use the talk page to state an objection without being willing to give their reasons, are doing an end-run around the consensus-seeking process.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To what do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• My edit; CFCF's revert; I begin discussion; CFCF doesn't participate. QuackGuru states objections without reasons. I prompt for reasons. QuackGuru doesn't respond. In the circumstances, to be quite frank I'm tempted to restore my edit saying there's no good faith objection. These aren't edits that any reasonably competent editor would object to.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I disagreed with your specific wording, but I cleaned up the harm reduction section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm OK, you've almost exactly restored the wording I used, except that you left a needless "of them" after the "both". You've done that on a number of occasions before. I also note that once again, CFCF reverts me when I make an edit but he doesn't revert you when you make almost exactly the same edit. Could I be in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club too, please?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the part "of them".[3] QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. So why did you disagree with these proposals when I suggested them?—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I disagreed with your proposal because I disagreed with the exact wording of your proposal. At that time before I made the changes in mainspace I did make a similar change to the wording in my sandbox. Eventually I made a similar change along with other changes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Well, the wording I suggested for those three sentences now appears in the article exactly as I proposed it, but because it was you who made the changes this time rather than me, nobody has reverted. This is not the first time I've edited the article, been reverted, and then you've re-added very similar wording to that originally proposed by me.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It was similar but different. I did not make the exact change as you did.
• For example, you made this change: "while another 2014 review has found that in some populations up to a third of youth who have vaped have never smoked tobacco."[4] I made this change: "while another 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever vaped have never smoked tobacco."[5] It was similar but different. Your wording removed the part "nearly" and "ever". In the future I think you will have more success with your edits if you do not alter the meaning of the sentences if you want to continue to trim or simplify sentences. There is a fine line between a source text and original research.
• If you like you can start a sandbox or make proposals and if I agree with the wording I can make the edits very quickly. We can go through every section and every sentence of the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite:"If you like you can start a sandbox or make proposals and if I agree with the wording I can make the edits very quickly." Is this your Article, QuackGuru? Are you the only one, who is allowed to make edits here?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you see what I did? I started new articles. Both are well written and for both editors wanted to delete them. If you like you can AFD any new article I start. Earlier this year I realised this page was still half-baked. So I went ahead and made beautiful music in mainspace with a +16,522 bytes good edit. This is a mature article and this page is far better than most articles on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• QG, once again I find what you say a complete non sequitur. I often have a great deal of trouble following your thinking, and I think you're having trouble following mine. I'll try to explain my point again.

  I made this edit, and CFCF reverted it. I began a talk page discussion about the reverted edit. You said you objected to it. But then you made an edit that incorporated the exact changes you'd just objected to, except that you introduced a superfluous "of them". Then I mentioned the superfluous "of them" on the talk page, and you saw my point and removed it. So you made the exact edits which you had objected to when I made them. The wording is exactly the same as I originally proposed. The only difference is that you made the edits instead of me.

  This is not the first time that you've argued against one of my edits and then made very similar edits yourself. In my opinion it's simply because you like to be the person who edits the article.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Similar is not the same.
  • See "However, due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, the CDC has issued warnings."
  • See "However, due to the lack of regulation of the contents of e-cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, the CDC has issued warnings." It is different like this edit was different from your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, if this conversation was about the edit that you're talking about there, then you're right, it's not the same. Well done. However, this conversation is not about that edit.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• This edit like others edits you have made did oversimplify the content which made it too vague. This change to the harm reduction section was very similar to your change. I thought it was a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• This conversation is not about that edit either. It's a masterpiece of unintentional irony that you accuse me of being vague, and I'd like to discuss that edit too in due course, but for the moment let's try to discuss the edit that this conversation is about.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yet again, all of my substantive edits are being removed without discussion or explanation. Yet again, all the editors involved in doing this are active on WT:MEDRS.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• This constant reversion includes restoring obvious error ("shown to be appeal to").—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I already fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh. No, you haven't. You're not capable of fixing it because the actual problem is User:CFCF's behaviour and that isn't within your control. CFCF treats me like a vandal. He uses twinkle's one-click reversion tools without an edit summary and refuses to use the talk page. The source you're using actually says the research is by Kelly Evans the director of Social Change UK, who isn't a scientist or a medic, she's a professional marketer who makes a living lobbying government. This much better source which you've now introduced is one that I would accept without question. I do not accept your use of it, though. The source does mention e-cigarettes in connection to young people, and it says "E-cigarette use in the UK is not limited to adult smokers, but also includes children and young people who smoke as well as a very small proportion of young non smokers under the age of 18." If you do a word-search for "appeal", which is the claim you're using the source to support, it says: "This marketing may appeal to children as well as adults. However, there has been very limited research on this element of e-cigarettes to date."

  Since I don't seem to be allowed to edit this sentence, I patiently request that you adjust your sentence to reflect what the source really says.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I included "Marketing might appeal to young people as well as adults.[49]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well done. You still need to remove, attribute, or reliably source the text "Shown to appeal to girls as young as 11".—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The text is well sourced and there is no need to delete an obvious fact. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Girls_as_young_as_11. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The reliable source is this one. This source is not reliable because it's reporting a "study" carried out by a non-scientist who's being paid to lobby government. The article has changed bewilderingly quickly during the course of this discussion but at the time I'm typing this, the reliable source does not appear anywhere near the contested text; the only other source on offer is this one which does not mention girls or the age of 11. When I look at the reliable source and take it as a whole, yes, it is technically the truth that it says young people are induced to vape by marketing; but to cherry pick that one conclusion from the whole source is massively to misrepresent what it says, and to talk specifically about 11-year-old girls is just bizarre. The text about 11-year-old girls really comes from the walesonline source. It needs to be removed, reliably sourced, or attributed to Kelly Evans. It's not appropriate to include the text about 11-year-old girls in Wikipedia's voice without a better citation that's specifically about 11-year-old girls.—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• We are not using the primary sources.[www.social-change.co.uk/research/youth-smoking][6] The source is reliable per WP:SECONDARY and it is about girls as young as 11. The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody said we were using the primary sources. It's clearly a secondary source, but it's unreliable. The source quite plainly says that the research is by Kelly Evans (eighth paragraph which reads "director of Social Change UK Kelly Evans, who wrote today’s report Smoking in girls aged 11-12 years in North Wales"; confirmed by second paragraph). Kelly Evans is a marketing expert. Her Linkedin profile is here; she's a serious figure in the marketing world. She's a speaker at high-profile international marketing conferences, etc. But she's not a medic or scientist and we don't know who's paying her to conduct this research. We do know that she makes a living lobbying government.

  QuackGuru, I do not understand how you could read that source with proper attention and still say The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds. I do not think you can possibly have read it with a suitably critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable. The original research and report was by Kelly Evans, but it was WalesOnline who made the claim for the fact. Claiming the text is sourced to Evans is a WP:SYN violation. We are not using the other sentence that was sourced to Evens. There is no serious dispute, anyhow. See WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's preposterous. I can scarcely believe that anyone with 35,000 edits could possibly say Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Me thinks WalesOnline is reliable for the mundane claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Classic example of why we need uninvolved sysops here to referee. One of us is deeply, horribly misguided about what a reliable source is, and we need an uninvolved person to look at this conversation and decide which of us it is.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• WalesOnline is widely used in Wikipedia articles as a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure that's true. But Walesonline is careful to attribute the research to Kelly Evans, and we should do likewise. If you're not willing to use in-text attribution to her, then you should remove the offending sentence or find another report that's specifically about 11-year-old girls.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A report into e-cigarettes has found girls as young as 11 are buying them in pizza parlours and high street shops – and are being tempted by flavours including “gummy bear” and bubble gum."[7] This conclusion was written by WalesOnline not Evens. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you seriously suggesting that Wayne Davies, the WalesOnline journalist, conducted a scientifically robust study to verify Kelly Evans' report?—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Check sources

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Small typo

"The Electronic Cigarette Convention in North America which started in 2013, is an annul show where companies and consumers meet up."

"annual" is misspelled in the above sentence

BrentWomble (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lede

I disagree with the recent changes to the lede. The changed were too wordy and difficult to understand. I agree with simplifying the lede. Past changes or proposals that had no consensus or did not improve the lede were Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Proposal and Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Removal. The lede should be concise and summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with Quack, the previous lede reads better to me and is a more concise summary. S. Marshall could you explain the reasons for the changes? SPACKlick (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was trying to bring the lead closer to the sources, but all my changes were removed, as usual.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Article in plain english

This article reviewing the current state of e-cigs in the Oral Health Group journal from Canada puts several concepts in pretty simple lights. Also be worth reviewing their sources. A Dental Perspective On Electronic Cigarettes: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I personally also think it's a pretty good structure for an article on e-cigs but more on that elsewhere.SPACKlick (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of text

Smoking cessation comes before harm reduction in the body. The placement in the lede does not follow the body. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be my ignorance but I don't believe the lede is obliged to follow the order in the body. Is that in some part of a policy I've either not read or forgotten? SPACKlick (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense the lede should follow the body when we can follow the body. The edit decreased the readability by conflating two different points. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it improved readability. Putting two general points at the start of the paragraph and then giving details after. SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a very specific summary of Harm reduction. The statement will change in the future when the evidence becomes more clear. For now I clarified the current evidence a bit more for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede summarises the body

The text in the lede summarises the body. Moving it to the body created duplication. The text in the lede is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Text not redundant

[8][9] "Nicotine is very addictive,"... The reader will not know it is very addictive without stating it is very addictive. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No specific response was made to the objection. Therefore, I have restored the wording (and made other changes). QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The word "ever" is not redundant

See diff. I replaced it with "at least once" for now.[10] If the text is too vague the wording is uninformative and possibly could be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness' sake... seriously? You really changed "had used them" to "had used them at least once" on the basis that it was more informative and less likely to be original research? I think you have a lot of trouble letting any of my edits stand.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I trimmed it. How was the word "ever" redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• The following three phrases all mean exactly the same thing:-

1. 1. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had used them at least once
   2. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had ever used them
   3. As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had used them

Each phrase is true if and only if up to 10% of American high school students have, at any time in their lives, vaped. Each phrase is false otherwise. They are semantically equivalent. And because they are semantically equivalent we default to the briefest version that conveys the meaning accurately. I say "we", QuackGuru, but you don't, and that's always been at the heart of the problem I have in dealing with you. You're good at adding material to the article but you don't like removing anything ---- you don't seem to see irrelevance, redundancy or bloat in the places where I see them.

I also think you often don't understand English the way I do. The clearest example of this was this edit where you said "a few" is a synonym for "many". Can I ask you, is English your native language?—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I consider that a personal attack and a childish attempt to discredit a good editor who is doing wonderful work for this article. "Use" is not as unambiguous as you seem to think, it can be interpreted to mean regular use. For example many patients consider themselves non-smokers despite smoking on a weekly basis. "Ever" is clarifying and I support including it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  According to the data under prevalence it is ever vaped. "In 2012, 20.3% of middle school and 7.2% of high school ever e-cigarette users reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.9 Similarly, in 2011 in Korea, 15% of students in grades 7 through 12 who had ever used e-cigarettes had never smoked a cigarette.10 The Utah Department of Health found that 32% of ever e-cigarette users reported that they had never smoked conventional cigarettes.34"[11]

  The term "a few" is a synonym of "many" according to Thesaurus.com.[12] This is not to be confused with few. Also see "This phrase can differ slightly from few used alone, which means “not many.”"[13] QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see you using the talk page at last, CFCF. I do hope this is a signal that you intend to start discussing as well as reverting?

  QuackGuru, you've wikilinked data to WP:V. I'm confused by this and I don't understand why you've done it. WP:V is a policy I thought I understood well; according to X!'s tool I've made 147 edits to WP:V and 982 edits to its talk page over the years. Why is data relevant to the word "ever", and does the connection between them have something to do with verifiability?

  I do realise the source says "ever", by the way. The role of an encyclopaedia editor is to evaluate the sources and summarise the key points they make. You're normally good at finding sources but I think you have trouble with summarising them. Summarising means using fewer words, and "ever" is one of the words that can be reduced.

  I know that you seriously do contend that "few" is synonymous with "many". In the light of that fact, it's neither a personal attack nor a childish smear to wonder whether English is your first language. I'd also just like to point out that the source you've just linked does not say that few is a synonym of many. It says it's an antonym of many. It's important to read sources closely, which is something we've discussed before in the context of your insistence on saying "girls as young as 11" (which the article still says because I'm not being permitted to remove this text). I've shown you in great detail why this source is unreliable but you apparently haven't been able to make the connections.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)