Talk:Electronic cigarette

Legal status of electronic cigarettes vs Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Legal status of electronic cigarettes is limited to only legal status. But with the title Regulation of electronic cigarettes it is very broad. I can create a new article for Regulation of electronic cigarettes. Please provide at least six refs and possibly start a sandbox if anyone is interested in my services. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• ... or you could, you know, let someone else do it. Just a thought. I've asked Arbcom to stop you from editing in the topic area until the case is over.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, please provide some references and we can create a new page. After you provide the references you will soon see a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to play to our relative strengths - you provide the refs, & i'll write it up? Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not have time to gather the references. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, the previous discussion here fell on deaf ears and we now have effectively two articles covering the same, legal status and legal status disguised as "Regulations of electronic cigarettes". Yet another article that needs competent rewriting.--TMCk (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a start! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. At the moment all it does is repeat legal status stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, now he's moved "legal status" to the ungrammatical Regulations of electronic cigarettes, without discussion! We should have two pages, which I'd suggest should be called Legality of electronic cigarettes (by country, essentially exists) and Regulation of electronic cigarettes (by issue; yet to be created). Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Having two articles on the same subject with nearly identical names that basically say the same thing is confusing. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, one is answering the question "Are e-cigs legal in Aruba", the other should deal with the far wider range of types of regulation (I recently gave a sample list here) and not degenerate into a by-country list with no generalizing narrative. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allow others to fix it.

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) AlbinoFerret 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

This may be of interest, its a review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598199/ .AlbinoFerret 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Farsalinos, Konstantinos; LeHouezec, Jacques (2015). "Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)". Risk Management and Healthcare Policy: 157. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S62116. ISSN 1179-1594. PMC 4598199. PMID 26457058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The impact factor is zero. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Impact factor, while important isnt a clear reason to not use it. The author is also the author of other reviews we are using. There is more in it than just medical claims, it also addresses regulation and usage. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to it being a zero impact journal, the authors have a potential COI. See "A small minority of KEF’s studies were performed using unrestricted funds provided to the institution (Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies. JLH has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre."[1]

They are contradicting many high-quality reviews. Some of the reviews by the authors are grandfathered in but moving forwarding we should try to be cautious of non-neutral sourcing. There is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Which "many high-quality reviews", and how? Our article is chock-full of "non-neutral sourcing", which is not surprizing in an area of controversy. If there "is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources" why is our coverage of regulation issues so vague, spotty and poor, as previously discussed, here and in other articles (see last section)? We repeat a bunch of assertions by non-specialist clinicians suggesting "regulation" without specifying which of the dozens of types of possible regulation they actually want. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do we dump papers by scientists who have at some point in their careers done research for the pharmaceutical industry... because they might have a "potential COI"? Do we start now to figure out which papers that should be chucked? Because we need to do so, if COI of this kind is considered. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Framing legitimate criticism as "dumping papers" doesn't do anything to make this paper less biases. This is not potential COI - that phrase is in the disclosure section of the paper. Also there is an enormous difference between a low impact factor journal and a zero impact factor journal. CFCF 💌 📧 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I was reacting to a particular aspect of the "criticism". A particular aspect that has no relevance here, as other than a Red herring, the COI referenced is not something that has impact on the paper. The COI aspect as used in QG's commentary is thus not legitimate criticism - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author. While it may have a zero impact factor, there are non medical uses for this paper. AlbinoFerret 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author." How can you say that AlbinoFerret?!

Funding is a stark example of Conflict of Interest. It is the pillar of COI. --MarkYabloko (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that what the guideline WP:MEDRS tells us. AlbinoFerret 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried another impact factor search.[2] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? AlbinoFerret 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

After posting that I did a google scholar search.[3] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the impact factor is not 0.[4] it is around 1.57. Researchgate must have failed to calculate impact factor for this journal. --Kim D. Petersen 08:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• This source should certainly be used. It gives more detail on the issues around regulation than we currently have (As I've previously complained, this is an area we cover very poorly). It also provides a useful account of the current state of the controversy, which we lack any coherent coverage of, just piling-up contradictory statements without any attempt at an overall narrative (more comments above). QG's opposition to a paper by one of the leading experts broadly in favour of the harm reduction approach is sadly completely predictable. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC Are these sources the same?

RFC: Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[5] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[6].

The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.

Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not seeing what is wrong with this dif [7]? The content was just moved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A claim was removed, perhaps you missed that. But the specific question is are the sources the same. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss below in the discussion section

Are the sources the same or different?

• Different sources They are clearly not the same source. They are from two different agencies with distinct url's. While they may say similar things the wording is not the same so one is not a copy of the other. AlbinoFerret 06:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Different sources,, clearly While the conclusions are the same, the wording is not, and it never hurts to have statements from multiple sources anyway, as long as they are high quality. And they certainly are in this case. LesVegas (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• The websites are related. The UK NHS website says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[8] The NHS website was created by PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You should make up your mind whether it is related or not.--TMCk (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we then remove all the duplicative findings from the US government agencies like the CDC and FDA? Should we remove similar statements from different parts of the WHO? AlbinoFerret 19:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Does it matter? If it's the same claim supported by independent sources then we have two references at the end of the claim. Why waste time with an RfC if the only difference is either 1 or 2 references at the end of the same claim? CFCF 💌 📧 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• They look related to me You are welcome to make your case they are separate sources, as you have been all along Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Different sources They base their views and opinions on the same background, and thus come to similar/same conclusion, just as many other such agencies and organizations do. Why should there be/is there a different standard between pro and contra organizations? --Kim D. Petersen 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles that cover the similar things regardless of who created the source?

This question is too broad. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No We need a simple across the board rule. Instead of allowing editors to pick and choose what claims they want to add that are similar but remove others they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course the question is too broad. Editors apply judgment. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Idealy we shouldn't single cite individual statements/papers, but instead strive to summarize the literature with a nod towards notable outliers, as per Wikipedia's pillars. But since this isn't done in this article, which instead consists mainly from individually cherry-picked sentences from papers - then the answer is No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Doing anything else invites gaming. We need to be consistent and should never allow cherry picking to take place with regard to claims from articles that cover similar things like this. LesVegas (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles if they are from the same group or author and discuss similar things?

It would be better to provide a specific example. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are full of duplicative claims, read it. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This should be applied the same across the articles, regardless of the conclusions. We should not pick out things we disagree with to remove. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifics needed here in my opinion. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Again in an ideal world, we shouldn't have an eye for individual papers/authors, but instead focus on what the weight of the literature tells us. Instead there should be summarization of what the literature in general says about particular subgroupings of particulars about the topic. So yes: we should, but currently we can't. --Kim D. Petersen 06:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment MEDRS is already clear about this: editors should not reject high quality sources because of content or conclusions, but instead focus on the quality of the source. LesVegas (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove sourced claims if they are based on findings from other sources?

It depends on the claim and the sourcing. This is another vague question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No That allows gaming of the system and editors picking and choosing to remove things they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Confused about this question. But again, see my two other answers: We should summarize the literature - not focus on individual papers/authors. --Kim D. Petersen 06:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment is there an example of this having occurred in the past? I too am confused about this question. LesVegas (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, LesVegas so far we have lots of duplicate findings and I cant remember any others having been removed. AlbinoFerret 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, every article and talk page should have some reasonable consistency. It's unfortunate that parameters like these need to be put in place to keep editors from removing duplications when an editor just feels like it, but I entirely think it's reasonable. I will say it again: duplications should never be used for multiple government agencies and should only be removed in cases of much lower source-status, such as systematic reviews all the way down to primary studies. But as a general rule, duplications don't need to be removed and I think only should be considered in cases of lower level sources. This was clearly not such a case. LesVegas (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems that there is some confusion, British National Health Service is quite different from Public Health England. They are not the same agency. They are both agencies of the UK department of health. Just like in the US we have a Department of Health, and the FDA, CDC, ect. From the Public Health England wikipedia article

Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom that began operating on 1 April 2013. Its formation came as a result of reorganisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England outlined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took on the role of the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and a number of other health bodies.[1]

AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, claims by the NIH are different from those by the FDA or CDC, for instance. Governmental bodies often have nuanced statements that differ slightly depending on context (and that's interesting and helpful) and even when they are exactly uniform, multiple such sources should still be used in tandem to illustrate consensus. LesVegas (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions added after the start of the RfC above

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove text sourced to the UK NHS website if it is repetitive?

• Remove duplication. In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[99] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years, and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor.[97][9] The part "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders" and "there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor" is repetitive. They virtually mean the same thing but in different words. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. I will add they only appear to be duplication because they were moved together from their orignal location in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Remove duplication Seems much the same source saying much the same thing. Of course it doesn't follow that all other sources are repetitive. When different sources come to the same conclusion, that's hardly the same as the same source saying the same thing twice. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Loaded question - it implies that there is repetition. Rather invalidates the RfC. (defaults to No) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• No There are many reasons for duplication or partial duplication of citation or external opinion. Duplication may be justified for example to indicate the range of opinions or support (say from different times, places, or schools), or to include citations of sources that overlap but are not identical. Removal should require individual justification, such as for when someone strings together half a dozen assorted citations to lend support to a contentious point, not merely because one editor thinks that one citation is on principle adequate, and two must accordingly be excessive. JonRichfield (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• No I have looked at the text and it might be nice to rewrite it completely to make a non-redundant, stable, cogent, watertight document, but by the nature of the topic and situation that will not happen. The material is not unduly repetitive because its degree of repetition conveys some of the climate of opinion in different bodies concerned in the matter. It would be simplistic assume that a single reference to a single position of a single source amounts to the same as invoking more than one source in a matter open to opinion and position rather than undebatably rigid fact. If it were a matter instead of tediously quoting a long roster of sources, that would be another matter. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Different bodies even coming to the same conclusion illustrates consensus. Where I would suggest duplications should be removed are in lower level claims, such as systematic reviews, which often go either way, and are often cherry-picked by editors with a strong bias. But, no, consensus statements or statements by national health bodies, even if the statements are exactly the same, only further illustrate consensus about a claim and these are our best sources and should, in fact, be used liberally. LesVegas (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove repetitive text from the UK NHS website when there is another claim from the Public Health England website?

• Remove duplication. AlbinoFerret stated "By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix."[10] I came to the conclusion it is redundant text. "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84]" "The UK National Health Service stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[86]" Wherever the text I highlighted in bold is placed it is still duplication. Both are from related UK organisations. The "Positions of medical organizations" section is meant to be a WP:SUMMARY. It is not a summary when the "approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes" claim is not in the main article. It is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include both. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you remove the part from the positions article and then you come here to say it doesn't belong here because it's not over there?--TMCk (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I initially added it but I came to the conclusion it was repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. AlbinoFerret 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But are the two sources in question really multiple sources? Seems like much the same source. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The British National Health Service (NHS) is quite different from Public Health England (PHE). They are both agencies in the UK department of health. AlbinoFerret 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the case you're welcome to make. Do they have different missions, funding, purposes, clientele, activities, staff? Would it be possible for them to come to different conclusions? And so on. It's a question of these sources; not a broad question of editing policy.Cloudjpk (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer to these concerns is yes they are diffrent. Much like the FDA and CDC in the US. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just as loaded a question. NHS != PHE according to (amongst others) QuackGuru, thus the two are not the same and statements similar but not same => No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Remove duplication. The sources are similar if not identical; the conclusions are identical. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, for the same reasons as AlbinoFerret above, plus what I said in the immediately previous sub-question. In any case, removing duplication may sound fine, but not when the duplication is relevant and functional. The articles we write are not permitted to be essays (OR and similar religious war cries) and we accordingly are compelled to limit ourselves to citations that might entail redundancy. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Repetitive text and repetitive claims possibly shouldn't be used if we have two similar claims from lower level systematic reviews, of which there are now many for E-cigs and vapors, but should always be done when it's high level governmental health authorities making claims, even when the claims happen to be identical, because that illustrates consensus amongst public health authorities analyzing meta-data. LesVegas (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion for text

I started these new questions because the questions for the other RfC were too vague IMO. According to User:AlbinoFerret the conclusions are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So its ok when you add duplicative conclusions [11] but not others? AlbinoFerret 17:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of improving the text. I removed the duplication and SYN. I did the same for this page. I recently removed a sentence that was redundant. Do you agree with removing the redundancy? User:AlbinoFerret, are you still claiming that adding redundant text improves the page? QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The way you word that question "are you still claiming that adding redundant text improves the page?" is a linguistic trap that misrepresents all that I have said. That you have now removed some duplication is a good thing, remove a bunch more. I do not believe that the NHS is a duplication, and moving it caused any resemblance to duplication, The statement belongs in harm reduction and the deleted part restored. AlbinoFerret 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Smoker v Non-smoker

Hello User:SPACKlick I see you reversed some recent changes in the Electronic cigarette article, because, according to you, "Not per source, sentence refers to all people not just users". Would you then kindly explain to the rest of us, how is it "The benefits.." include non-smokers? And how is it that the safety risk from inhaling smokes from e-cig is like that of watching smokeless tobacco chewers for non-smokers? The article is obviously comparing the "benefits" for smokers ONLY, isn't it? And hence, changes should be made to reflect that, or in other words: THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING, Agree? --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not SPACKlick, but it appears he reverted you because of failed verification. All content must be based on a WP:MEDRS source for that type of claim. We cant add anything unless the source makes the same claim. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a matter of verification. The way the wordings stand right now imply that there are benefits to non-smokers too, which is obviously misleading at best. --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarkYabloko, I tried to clarify the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better QuackGuru, thank you!

But wouldn't 'smokers' be even better than 'users'? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every vaper is a current smoker or former smoker. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. What about adding the word "users" to: "Their safety risk is like that of smokeless tobacco"? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I added users to clarify it is users. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you QuackGuru --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, this page requires WP:MEDRS sources to state any medical claim, you might want to read the guideline. Also please be aware that daughter pages exist with much more detailed health risks. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Logical concepts in these types of arguments are very sensitive to context, which can distort or even invert flat conclusions. Consider:

"THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING"

certainly sounds conclusive rather than only persuasive, but on analysis it is less of a principle than a slogan, with all the question-begging characteristic of most slogans.

For example try instead:

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE SOME THINGS RATHER THAN OTHERS, EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS UNDESIRABLE

or

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE LESS OF SOME THINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE UNDESIRABLE

Each of these separately and both of them together are relevant to the question of the acceptability of vaping, if not necessarily of its positive desirability. However consider also:

THE UNDESIRABILITY OF INTRODUCING VAPING INTO A NON-SMOKING COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE BENEFITS OF INTRODUCING IT INTO A SMOKING COMMUNITY

Note that I speak as a non-smoking, non-vaping non-industry-connected disliker of smoking, who has yet to be significantly incommoded by vapers. I fully realise that that proves nothing, including my own honesty, good sense or relevant experience, but possibly I am gun-shy and I do wish to forestall certain classes of ad hominem responses that are common in such debates. JonRichfield (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification

The review does not mention "cigalikes",[12] but we do mention "cigalike" in the lede.[13] QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So add one of the hundreds of MEDRS sources that do use the term, eg the PHE Report Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarettes in general are not called "cigalikes". There are many different names for different types of e-cigs such as box mods. We don't need to name all the different types in the lede. But the lede does have specific information on "cigalikes". See "There are disposable "cigalikes" which are known as first generation cigalikes and there are reusable versions.[6]" See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Bhatnagar2014_6-0. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a common term that has made its way to MEDRS sources. I see no reason it cant be added if its sourced. There is also still a ton of cigalike problems in the articles where claims about cigalikes are applied to all generations. AlbinoFerret 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the specific names we also state "There are also second generation,[7] third generation,[8] and fourth generation devices.[9]" The first sentence would be too long to include all the names. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Farsalinos2015_9-0. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While its true that these generations are in sources, I think it best to only mention those that have specific common names tied to them like cigalike, I am waiting for a Medrs source to use "ego type" to describe second generation as this is common usage. AlbinoFerret 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede now says "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco combustion.[2]" QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, coming to this late, I don't like the current start: "An electronic cigarette (EC, e-cig, or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV), or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". There are too many bolded names in a row, and "cigalike, eGo, mod," are terms for particular types. It would be better to move these to the "generations" sentence a line or two down, and keep just the general terms that can cover all types at the start. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree here, that many alternatives when you are beginning a definition is not readable. Best to use the term Electronic Cigarette, continue the sentence, and then another sentence of alternative names. Possibly an entire section to have names reflected in relationship to Generations of devices. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now changed, & I'm happy with the current version. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Secondhand Vaping

There was a time when people were led to believe that smoking is good for them, or at least, not harmful. Now, some decades later, they know better. Yet, that same tactic is used on them again, into believing that e-cig and vaping are mostly harmless. While certainly people should have the right to decided what is good for them and what's not, the article should emphasis to them that "lack of evidence" does not equate "safe". What's even worse, is that bystanders, including children, are forced to inhale these carcinogenic and hazardous particles with complete disregard to their welfare and right because it is supposedly not that harmful, or at least not as harmful as secondhand smoking! Why they have to choose between two evils? Shouldn't they have the right to vape fresh air?

This article "Electronic cigarette" seems to completely evade the subject of "Secondhand Vaping", and finding some info digging through its multilevel links is no excuse.

http://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-secondhand-vaping-harmful-your-health --MarkYabloko (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have referred you to WP:MEDRS, it is clear that source is not MEDRS compliant. I will also point out that these points are on a breakout or daughter page Safety of electronic cigarettes sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. AlbinoFerret 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again AlbinoFerret. I DID agree you with you that the above link is NOT MERDS compliant. No arguments about that.

The point that I am trying to make it that lack of MERDS evidence does not mean something is safe. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is 100% safe. The articles reflect this. Right now there is a controversy as to how safe, or safer they are. Current MEDRS sources say they are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. If you are seeing this article as saying they are completely safe, I urge you to reread it. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The key point is whether e-cigs are less unsafe than cigarettes, and there is MEDRS evidence that they are, by about 95% on current evidence. There is also evidence that the false perception that they are about equally as unsafe as cigarettes is growing in the general public, smokers and non-smokers both, which concerns public health experts. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several reviews and reports that comment about "second-hand vape", but contrary to your personal point of view they are not as uncertain as you make them nor do they document a significant increase in harmful substances. In fact the most comprehensive report to date notes that:

EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11

And as AlbinoFerret notes above: We can only write what is found in WP:MEDRS's, and describe it so that WP matches the prevalence of evidence in the literature. Popsci is a really really bad source for science and/or health information, even if it, if you read it carefully, says much the same as our article and the PHE report. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicotine is certainly much less in e-cig, but this is not the issue here, is it? There are many other harmful pollutants in cigarettes and e-cig other than nicotine.

A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using e-cigarettes.[23] The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapor" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses.

And going back, the fact is: No amount of nicotine is safe to administer to fetuses which has nothing to do with my point of view or yours point of view. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the PHE2015 report closer - since they aren't referring to "just nicotine". Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes, and that most measurements have found the amount of substances to be within the norms for air-quality. There are no raised red flags - sorry. And even in the WHO report there is no alarming data. --Kim D. Petersen 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Kim D. Petersen, I wasn't commenting on PHE2015 p. 11, I was commenting on your statement " EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11".

I also agree with your statement that "Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes", but that is not the point!

The implication is that if you are a Smoker then you are better off switching to e-cig. My point is that Non-smoker should not to be forced to compromise. --MarkYabloko (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article is not written from the view of a smoker, but for and about the general conclusions that the literature presents. You may not like the material, but it is what is there. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I will also add that Wikipedias role, and our role as editors, is not to right great wrongs but to put forth what is found in reliable sources, in this case MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good start in reading would be from page 76 and forward in the Public Health England report, which covers most of what you are commenting on. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kim D. Petersen. Popsci was pointed as an example NOT as WP:MEDRS. I am sure as more studies start piling up we will get a clearer picture some decades from now, and you will get your WP:MEDRS, just as we did with cigarettes.

Until then, secondhand vaping, secondhand smokers, children and fetuses should have the right to say NO.

--MarkYabloko (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So far the general trend within the science has been: Must be dangerous => Might be dangerous => suspecious => we don't know enough => we can't rule out danger => danger is very low.

As for your personal opinions - they are irrelevant on Wikipedia - we write according to what the literature says, and not from personal views. --Kim D. Petersen 14:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming more and more soapbox like, and unless there are direct suggestions for improvements based upon reliable sources, then this discussion should be closed. --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New "full range" image uploaded

I've uploaded an image found and linked at MED talk by CFCF. Having all generations in one image will be useful for a wide range of pages.--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That image has too many devices that look similar as each other. The image is not a good option if the purpose is to illustrate concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its a bit compact, but otherwise a great picture. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you describing this image that you were so keen to force into the article and then was stuck there for over half a year and after it was removed recently you sneeked it in there again before reconsidering and replacing it with a single devise?--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kim. Compacted it is but otherwise almost perfect.--TMCk (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Add to Quack: Not to mention this image you had in mind as replacement.--TMCk (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good image. Some second gen, but mostly third. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 cigalikes, too. Aren't they 1st generation?--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the black cigalike on the edge, it blended in. So there are first gen also. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. Bright, high-color, logos displayed, mirrored on the surface. If you want WP to advertise product, it's a fine choice. If you want to provide information such as types, similarities and differences, generations, and so on, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Cloudjpk: I presume I've missed something. Did you seriously mean to tell us that File:E Cigarettes, Ego, Vaporizers and Box Mods (17679064871).jpg looks like an advertisement to you, or was this some kind of humour or sarcasm?—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Replace with better when possible The items featured in this picture are hard to distinguish or identify. I would prefer a single e-cigarette depicted clearly, which is the usual way of illustrating product articles. There is no explanation of the significance of showing these designs or how they might differ from each other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An image with the 3 (4 or 5?) different main types would be better indeed but if wp were to be that picky there were (almost) no images (and no text).--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I restored the older images which show individual products. I think these are more traditional as product images than the group photo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous.--TMCk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I fail to understand your perspective but would talk more. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The new image you replaced shows a broad spectrum of devices, including newer devices. The old ones are dated technology and show only 2 of the devices that are e-cigs. The newer image is better. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I assert that most Wikipedia product pages only show one current example of the product. To what extent do you agree? If you agree, then why do you feel this article should be different? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because of the pace of innovation and the number of devices that dont look like each other that are classified as e-cigs. You cant simply insert images of two kinds and expect it to visually describe what you are talking about. This is part of the cigalike problem I have mentioned in other sections. The articles are to focused on one type out of the multitude of types. AlbinoFerret 20:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The newer image contains repetitive pictures. For example, there are 5 pictures of box mods and it is difficult to tell where is the cigalike. It would be better to find a better image than use this one. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The most designed and innovated object in the world is the chair and still the article there only has one picture. One representative example is the norm. Suppose that a group image were better - why this one? It is crowded, does not allow differentiation of models, and shows outdated models just like the single image. It would be unorthodox to not use a single product image and stranger still to use a lower-quality group photo. If you like new devices, then why not a single image of a commonly used new device? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason for this one , is because we have this one. If you have another that is better, by all means suggest it. But suggesting the older images should not be replaced because one we dont have is better is faulty logic. As for other articles, perhaps Inhaler is a better comparison as they are similarly used. It has a multi image in its lede. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret That article also shows a single image. Can you provide a single product image that you like, that could be shown with the group image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Since QG pointed out the cigalike is hard to see in the new image, keep the cigalike one already there and replace the ego image with the new one. AlbinoFerret 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

fyi Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Entry For "Electronic Cigarette" is a Hideous, Unreadable Mess

A critique of this article. Enjoy (or not)! http://blog.thedripclub.com/the-wikipedia-entry-for-electronic-cigarette-is-a-hideous-mess - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not from a very neutral source, but many of these points have been made here for years. In fact the "bath salts" bit is not as crazy as it seems - it turns out it is an American street name for substituted cathinones, but it was lazy of the authors of the study not to clarify their sentence. Adjusted by this edit. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree this page does have serious problems, mostly related to sourced content from very old content for a rapidly evolving technology product. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for GA?

Has there been any thought about taking this article through Good article nomination. It seems fairly comprehensive content- and sourcing-wise. The prose could use some improvement but I don't think that is as a huge issue for GA status as it is for FA. Sizeofint (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, things are being deleted from the lede that summarise the body. Sourced text is being replaced with vague text or original research. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess at present it would fail the stability criteria then. Sizeofint (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert 19.11.15

@Johnbod: Smoking cessation: the article is stuffed with contradictory sentences one after the other - why pick on this one -- Might as well start somewhere. Are you happy for me to fix this stuff or would you prefer that I tagged all the contradictory sentences for you to fix?—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This text is already in the Harm reduction section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is, but "Vaping may have potential in harm reduction compared to smoking.[12]" is. I'd be happy to move the disputed sentence to "Harm Reduction", removing the one I just quoted, but keeping the reference for the new text.

In general, where significant chunks of text are being addressed, I think new drafts (up to a para at a time say), should be proposed here for discussion. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See Electronic cigarette#Harm_reduction. "As of 2014 promotion of vaping as a harm reduction aid is premature,[20] but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy.[21]"

"Vaping may have potential in harm reduction compared to smoking.[12]" This text is redundant. It can be deleted.

There is a summary of "Harm reduction" in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Johnbod, the reason I fought that colossal Arbcom case was so that I would be allowed to change the article. No, I'm not going to submit my edits to a committee process before I make them. If you don't like what I write, change it. If you've given any specific and intelligible reasons for that revert, I haven't seen them yet, so perhaps you could point that out to me.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• And then you revert me, as you just did. And then we end up here. We might as well do that from the start, and not sentence by sentence - that way of doing things is half the trouble with the article as it stands. Take it from someone with a lot more experience here than you, re-drafting section by section is the way to go in an article like this. Otherwise someone just rewrites your rewrites, and only 1-2 people can be bothered to follow the edit-history, and no-one except the author will bother to defend any version. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't recall reverting you, Johnbod. I recall reverting one edit of Blueraspberry's. I think you're confused about this, which is understandable given the volume of editing recently. I see that you don't want me to go through fixing the contradictions so I'll tag them for you to fix.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Probably. Please don't bother on my account - I'm unlikely to do anything about them that way. The article is full of contradictions because the sources are. The way to fix that is not just to remove things, but to redraft a balanced narrative that explains the issues and the different statements, and everybody editing the page directly at the same time won't achieve that. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• "As of 2014, their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear,[20] but they have a potential to be part of the strategy to decrease tobacco related death and disease.[21]" This is the current text in the lede. It would be confusing to place both sources at the end of the sentence. Both sources do not verify the same text. Sources usually disagree on this topic but that does not mean there is anything to fix. I disagree with adding a tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed, rather than hurt, to learn that scant decade or so of service and my paltry hundred-odd article creations aren't sufficient for me to edit the article without the supervision of more mature and experienced editors. In my callow youth and inexperience, I respectfully submit the following proposal to the editing committee for approval:-

New paragraph, headed Nicotine yield.

Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL. This is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source).

This new paragraph would go somewhere around the "construction" section. It also belongs in our horrible, horrible fork called electronic cigarette aerosol (which amusingly fails to quantify the nicotine concentration in the vapour, although it certainly has a lot to say about the levels of formaldehyde, carcinogens and lead). If, that is, that's one of the forks that survives AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense to compare an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine with the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid! The tobacco of an traditional cigarette contains ca. 14mg nicotine (1.1-2.9% of dry weight of tobacco SOURCE: Click). You have to compare either the amount of nicotine in liquid and tobacco or the amount of nicotine absorbed from liquid and tobacco. You can't compare apples with pears - Mixing up things is misleading! BTW: The only thing that counts is the nicotine delivery respectively blood plasma concentration of nicotine.

• Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial.
• Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices. (Hint: Look at Fig. 4, Click me)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea S Marshall, go for it. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's a cogent point well made. I should have been less facetious and more careful; a lesson for me there. (My excuse is that I was stung). Let's try this:

Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). Vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (Nature source linked above). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL, but this is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source).

This would be a whole lot easier if other people could directly edit what I write, wouldn't it?—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Better! Much better! :) How about a sentence that Vapers tend to reach the lower blood nicotine concentrations much slower than smokers?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the specific information about EU regulations to the construction page. For this page I added general information about the liquid concentrations. See "A cartridge may contain 0 to 20 mg of nicotine." If the other information is added to the construction section it should be added to the construction page body and lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• No you don't, sunshine. We will not be going back to that old problem where I'm not allowed to change the article but when I start a talk page conversation QuackGuru pre-emptively makes changes before consensus is reached.—S Marshall T/C 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Merlin 1971: How about:-

  Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). In practice vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (nature source linked above). Tobacco smoke is absorbed into the bloodstream rapidly, and e-cigarette vapour is relatively slow in this regard (nature source linked above). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL, but this is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source). The nicotine concentration in an e-liquid is not a reliable guide to the amount of nicotine that reaches the bloodstream (source).

  Is the nicotine content of e-liquids regulated in the US?—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• One minor thing: You'd need to drop the "in a cloud" (which is formed out of exhaled vapor) or replace it with (inhaled) aerosol. As for your question about US regulations, not yet.--TMCk (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• This article probably needs a glossary of technical vaping terms.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not e-cig specific. One wouldn't say "smoke cloud" either unless maybe when it is about second hand smoke.--TMCk (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would. I smoked for 25 years, and I used to talk about a cloud of smoke. Might be one of those American dialect things.—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A cloud is commonly a specific (usually) visible physical formation but we're getting off topic a bit (I guess).--TMCk (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Next draft:-

  Nicotine yield

  Smoking a traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine (source 1), but the nicotine content of the cigarette is only weakly correlated with the levels of nicotine in the smoker's bloodstream (source 2). Likewise the amount of nicotine in a puff of e-cigarette vapor is widely variable and estimates based on the studies currently published need to be treated with caution (source 2). In practice vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (nature source linked above: source 3). Tobacco smoke is absorbed into the bloodstream rapidly, and e-cigarette vapor is relatively slow in this regard (source 3). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 2% (20mg/mL), but this is an arbitrary ceiling based on limited data (source 4). In practice the nicotine concentration in an e-liquid is not a reliable guide to the amount of nicotine that reaches the bloodstream (source 5).

  Nearly there now?—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good. Maybe add (now or later) common nicotine content besides (or instead) the EU specific regulation.--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• The common nicotine content is in the article. See "A cartridge may contain 0 to 20 mg of nicotine.[79]" The specific info about EU regs is in the construction page. It is better to use common info on nicotine content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• The common nicotine content of cartridges is not the common one for e-liquids in general. Maybe read "your" article on it?--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. BTW: I like the way this open and productive discussion is developing!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if QuackGuru's is the only objection then please could someone pop that paragraph in below "construction" and above "health effects"? In a less fraught article I'd do that myself.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And get reverted in one sweep or tiny little subtle edits? No no, it's all yours :) --TMCk (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

TMCk, you wrote "Looks good. Maybe add (now or later) common nicotine content besides (or instead) the EU specific regulation.--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)" Do you think EU specific regulation is too EU-centric? Would it be better to add a general claim instead? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said above.--TMCk (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Safety claim in Harm reduction.

This claim is not about harm reduction and should be moved, I do not believe this to be a harm reduction claim but a safety one.

A 2015 review found vaping e-cigarettes at a high voltage (5.0V) may generate formaldehyde-forming chemicals at a greater level than smoking, which has been determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than smoking;[13] the underlying research had used a "puffing machine".[101] Another small study with people using similar devices and settings found that the users could not use the devices because of "dry-puffs" at the high settings, which according to the 2015 Public Health England report "poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled" and "At normal settings, there was no or negligible formaldehyde release."[101] They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[101]

Any suggestions on a location? AlbinoFerret 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole 3rd para is safety rather than harm reduction, which does not = everything to do with "harm". I'd suggest spiltting the 2nd para of "Safety", and adding it after " varies in composition and concentration across and within manufacturers.", then sorting the para arrangements afterwards - most are too long anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the safety section remain 4 paragraghs. Is it possible to shorten the text a bit? It says "They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[101]" Since there is no indication of exposure to dangerous levels of aldehydes this is a harm reduction compared to smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That cant be removed regardless where it is placed, if the first claim is kept. It is not harm reduction to say that the findings of a previous claim is wrong. In fact that whole section should be removed from the articles because PHE shows that the results were the product of failed methodology. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Harm reduction is not about detailed clinical aspects of safety like this, otherwise what is the difference with safety? It is about, with a considerable difference in risk levels accepted, how useful e-cigs are are at replacing or reducing tobacco smoking for individuals or groups. "Gateway" and "making nicotine accepted again" type issues belong here. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources often contradict each other on this topic. If we remove all the disagreements there will be very little left. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal would not be on the basis of disagreement, but that a source has pointed out the flawed methodology of the findings. AlbinoFerret 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the text to the safety section. Moving all of the text was too much detailed information for a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The text was misplaced. I moved some of the text to safety. This was not new material. This edit deleted the text, but did not give a specific explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I moved the claim to safety, and then you removed it without waiting for a response to a talk page section you started on Safety. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the claims to the safety section in this article because it was misplaced in the harm reduction section. I removed duplication from the safety page. According to talk page consensus the text was misplaced. After I moved some text the correct section it was deleted. The text was in the article for some time. I do not see consensus to delete all the information from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is that most of that paragraph was safety, I removed all the safety claims from Harm reduction, if anything removed isnt already on Safety, it can be placed there. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete it all from this page. You added mostly duplication to the safety page. There was talk to add it the another section.[14][15] QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not deleted, but moved to the Safety page. As I see it Johnbod agreed and so it was moved. The information is not lost, and if some was inadvertently misplaced it can be retrieved from history and placed in the correct location, the safety page. The addition was suggested to go to the safety section, but that should be a sync of the Safety lede, I am not sure such detailed information is necessary in the Safety lede. You also argued against it being in that section, so it went on the Safety page.AlbinoFerret 21:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You added mostly duplication to the other page. I explained it was too much info to add all of it so I added only some of it to the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Didnt see it was already there, so I added it, no biggie. Logic indicates if its to much for the summery of Saftey on this page, it should go on the Safety page. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

New article

See E-liquid. Do editors want to keep it or redirect it? I could expand it to include more information about the chemicals added to the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The article contains nothing but duplicative information from Construction and should be removed. Adding Safety information or other information from the articles to it would make it a coatrack and would duplicate information from that article. I know of no discussions of splitting off e-liquid from Construction and the pages creation without the same is a big problem. AlbinoFerret 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep it for now. It's obviously all just a copy now, but there is plenty of coverage of flavours (targeted at children or not), the market, strengths, regulation and so on that is far from fully covered at present in the other articles. But it needs to develop its own content. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the section in Construction should be expanded first. There is a lot of room to expand it. At the moment it is unnecessary to have a separate. There may never be a need for a separate page. I don't have additional sources to expand the page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, if its kept, I think we should remove the information from Construction. I never thought of eliquid as part of construction which imho should be more hardware related. Eliquid is more software. We could add a link to see also. AlbinoFerret 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone finds more sources please post them on the e-liquid talk page or help expand the page. It is a bit short. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: reduced volts and aldehydes

RfC: Is the first proposal or any other proposal relevant to the Safety section?

First proposal: Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found later-generation and "hotter" e-cigarettes (e.g. 5.0 volts) may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another 2015 review stated that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated at a maximum voltage users could not use the devices because users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and they concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

Second Proposal by AlbinoFerret - Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out explained that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

Third proposal: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

I tweaked the third proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth proposal, a mixture of the last two, using "power" rather than "voltage", and other minor tweaks: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the same studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal, adds the study: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider. Another 2015 review looking at the Kosmider study stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the similar studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." AlbinoFerret 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on reduced volts and aldehydes

Backstory: I thought it would be better to shorten the text. The misplaced text was eventually removed from the harm reduction section and I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction. for the previous discussion.

Proposal: I propose including this text in Electronic cigarette#Safety but with better clarification. I think the reader will benefit from knowing reduced volts are generally safer than high volts and according to a report users are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC):

The RFC is malformed. The RFC does not ask a question, and misleads any editors leaving comments. The reason the edit should be removed is the Public Health England report [16] on pages 76-77 shows that the results were obtained by faulty methodology. This paragraph is especially insightful

The EC was puffed by the puffing machine at a higher power and longer puff duration than vapers normally use. It is therefore possible that the e-liquid was overheated to the extent that it was releasing novel thermal degradation chemicals. Such overheating can happen during vaping when the e-liquid level is low or the power too high for a given EC coil or puff duration. Vapers call this phenomenon ‘dry puff’ and it is instantly detected due to a distinctive harsh and acrid taste (it is detected by vapers, but not by puffing machines) [139]. This poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled.

So they set the experiment up to fail by setting the device to maximum and then increasing the puff length till the wicks ran dry. It is no surprise the found evidence of "thermal degradation" (burning). AlbinoFerret 03:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

older proposal no longer on the table AlbinoFerret 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose this alternate text if some text is needed. While later-generation and "hotter" e-cigarettes (e.g. 5.0 volts) may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking when tested on a smoking machine, reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the same studies concluded that when you push the voltage to maximum and increase the time the device is used past what humans normally do with a puffing machine, it is possible to thermally degrade eliquids and so detect high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it. AlbinoFerret 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC) The 2015 review stated "However, a more recent study utilizing the newer “tank-style” systems with higher voltage batteries reported that these e-cigarettes might expose users to equal or even greater levels of carcinogenic formaldehyde than in tobacco smoke."[17] The part you added "when tested on a smoking machine" is not verifiable with the source you used. I think the wording you want to add is too long. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Ok take the smoking machine off the first sentence. But I think the rest of it can stay. These sources are all doing the same thing, pushing the device to its limits and doing something that humans will never do. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the simple truth "Under normal conditions e-cigarettes generate neglible levels of formaldehyde" as an entry?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point Merlin, let me try another crack at a proposal, and remove some of the synthesis

Proposal by AlbinoFerret - E-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

That looks better. AlbinoFerret 09:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO: That sums it up very well.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

At a normal voltage generate is too ambiguous. The part "pointed at" is a phrase to avoid according to WP:CLAIM. I expanded my original proposal. I added [Second proposal] below my proposal in case you want to formally propose an alternative. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edited proposal, which should not have been done in an RFC and this whole section has little resemblance to a RFC if any, leaves out to much information. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Voltage generate it too ambiguous"?? Voltage is meaningless! Don't you know the difference between power and electric potential? It seems to me, you're trying to paraphrase some findings, without knowing the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as proposer. Support first proposal. It can be tweaked, shortened or expanded. It is relevant to include information about the safety of different volts in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I have made one formal proposal. AlbinoFerret, I tried to keep the information brief for a WP:SUMMARY. The additional details are in the main Safety page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) As a second option I support Proposal by AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NPOV The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources. AlbinoFerret 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You stated "The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources.", but you have not stated what was left out for a brief summary. You can make a second formal proposal. The specific question is if the first proposal or any other proposal is relevant to the Safety section? Do you think your proposal is relevant to the safety section? QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare The above "Proposal by AlbinoFerret" to see whats left out, the summery you suggest is to short and leaves out details. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The changed proposal by QuackGuru is misleading and did not reflect the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This entire topic is Original Research OR being done within Wikipedia. There is no thing called "hot" cigs. Normal volts is reference to unregulated power sources, which are now for enthusiasts in 3rd Generation format. Not to get into the weeds to fast, the work the researchers did was without the benefit of an Electrical Engineer EE. Volts are not critical, but rather the delivered Wattage at coil which has the coils resistance factored. If you want to get even more into it you need to look at airflow, in the creation of overcooked E-Liquids. The entire term used in the lede of "hotter" is "OR" not supported by citations or practices. It needs to be removed. I don't think I need to register opposition to OR, but I will say OPPOSE, and will be reviewing uncited content. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See "As e-cigarette manufacturing changes, the newer and “hotter” products may expose patients to higher levels of known carcinogens."[18] QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

When I read that link, its points to data that has widely been discredited under peer review. Simply put, it takes a product that is intended to be used at 3.5-3.9 Volts, and ups the Voltage to 4.8V. This is not some sort of new fangled E-Cig. It is a product purposely being misused and measured. Its a burnt toast means of testing. Taking a toaster that toasts fine on setting 2, and turning it up to 10, and saying the resultant burnt toast is bad for health. 1. Yes of course it is, 2. nobody would eat it regardless. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a better proposal for the wording? I think we might be able agree that "Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

We can start here with information about reduced volts. QuackGuru (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we're not able to agree. It would be correct to write: "At normal power levels e-cigarettes generate negligible amounts of formaldehyde." If you ask yourself "what is unnormal?" I suggest, you think of the toasterparable.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to use a primary source, especially when there are reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be even more incorrect to use false/misleading information.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And how are you saying we define it as false/misleading? Wikipedia isn't about reporting the "truth", but about what is WP:Verifiable, and the content of reviews trump that from primary sources here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We usually "define it as false/misleading" by using a verifying source (which happens to exist in this case) that points out such false/misleading claims.--TMCk (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The new secondary source below does use normal "at normal vaping conditions, the levels of aldehyde emissions are by far lower than the levels of cigarette smoke." I agree with TMCk that against using verifiable claims with false information. Especially when it is proven to be false by other verifiable sources WP:NOTFALSE. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively."[19]

"Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

I think the text is accurate and neutral. Stating it as a "normal volt" is too vague. I'd rather the text be more precise and readable. How is the reader going to know what is a normal volt if we don't tell the reader what is the volt? The source says "at a lower voltage". QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That way you are likely to mislead the reader, as some earlier versions have done, by implying that a particular voltage is "normal", or safer, for all e-cigs. What the normal voltage is relates to a specific piece of kit, and is tied in with the other electrical characteristics. There is no point in just specifying one part of the set-up. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We must not use faulty claims. "Reduced voltage" is incorrect. It is all about the power and not the voltage. The term "normal condition" is reliable and reputable because it is used in an scientific paper AND it is not a health claim!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, do you have a better suggestion that will be easier to understand using the current sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Albino Ferret's version is fine, except we should omit "of 5 volts" for the same reason. "Lower" has the same problems as "normal", if not worse. Since this research has been covered by the PHE report and several reviews, just quoting their summary might be best. Personally I'm hopeless at electrical stuff, but at least it is a "known unknown" for me. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part normal voltage makes no sense because what is a normal volt. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the whole point. What is the normal voltage is what is normal for that particular set-up. What we need to avoid doing is implying any particular voltage figure is normal for all equipment, which is misleading. For this reason we should avoid giving specific figures outside a full description of the equipment used, which would of course be much too long for here. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Normal usage of e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde.[1]" I changed the wording to avoid confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes based on johnbod's comments. I think the specifics that replaced the "low" are good. I also think capping the voltage at 5 is the wrong thing to do as other mods likely go higher. Normal is sourced QG. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the last proposal of AlbinoFerret. It provides interesting and informative facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, there is a small issue with the following sentence. "Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes" Both sources do not verify the same claim in accordance with WP:V. One source verifies the first part of the claim and the other source verifies the last part of the claim. This appears to be a WP:SYN violation.

The sentence "A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking.[3]" is not accurate. " A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes at a higher volt may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking.[2]" is closer to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, your comments have been very helpful. I rewrote my proposal. Please review and edit the third proposal if you wish. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the first source verifies the claim entirely, I was thinking of removing the second source. I will wait until others have chimed in before agreeing to your newest proposal QG, but its looking good. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source says "The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively." I could not verify "Normal usage of e-cigarettes" using the first source. There is still an issue with another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source also says this "however, in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke." Which can be paraphrased as normal usage. I have removed it since striking doesnt work on references, it underlines them. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we are getting very close to agreement, which is good. I've done a 4th proposal above, a bit of a mix and using "power" instead of "voltage", which I think is better. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the 4th proposal! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin 1971 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good and usable. AlbinoFerret 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part "looking at the same studies" is editorialising. Does the source state is was "looking at the same studies" as another source? QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In the references attached to the claims in the sources they both look at the exact same studies, Kosmider, L.; Sobczak, A.; Fik, M.; Knysak, J.; Zaciera, M.; Kurek, J.; Goniewicz, M.L. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tobacco Res. 2014, doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu078 is one of them. If you would prefer we can add the studies each looked at, but that will be rather long and wordy. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The source did not explicitly state is was "looking at the same studies".[20] It is not necessary to state it reviewed the same studies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is an important fact, we can leave the wording in, or list the study, your choice. AlbinoFerret 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader does not know what the same studies are. I do not have a suggestion to improve the wording except for deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal added the wording. If same study is a problem now, I can add the full studies name there also. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it would be much simpler without having to debunk the "flat earth" claim in the first place but so far the 5th version is agreeable.--TMCk (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader who does not know what the same studies are, is able to read the sourced papers.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I spelled out the study looked at in the 5th version Merlin. One slight change to the 5th, the PHE report looked at similar studies, not the same. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, this is way too much attribution, especially the part "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason its in there is because they looked at the same studies and you objected to the same studies wording. Why do you want to remove wording shows the false methodology claim is talking about the same study as the one that found high levels? AlbinoFerret 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, I have an issue with the part "looking at the same studies" with your proposal. If you could remove it or reword it then I can support your version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, as proposer. It is relevant to include specific information about the levels of formaldehyde in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I support the Third proposal and Fourth proposal. The difference between the third and fourth proposal is that the fourth proposal includes the part "looking at the same studies". The fifth proposal has too much in-text attribution such as "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

"What to Advise to Respiratory Patients Intending to Use Electronic Cigarettes" by Riccardo Polosa, Davide Campagna, and Pasquale Caponnetto. Published Sept 2015, a review, and free access.[21] AlbinoFerret 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, and at least 2 of the authors are well-known, but is it strictly a review? Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I an not 100% sure if its strictly a review, but that is what it appears to be as it reviews work by others and is not new research by the authors. The article is undoubtedly a secondary source in a pubmed indexed peer reviewed journal and not an editorial. That two of the authors are well know and have other sources already in the articles is a plus. I like the fact that its newer source that is free to access, that is a plus to verifiability as readers of the articles may not have access to pay walled journal articles. AlbinoFerret 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

exploding cigarettes

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-seriously-injured-by-e-cigarette-explosion/

I thought only cigars were supposed to do that. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to use it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Want to update "mobile phones", "laptops", "Powered Screwdrivers", etc everytime a battery fails? They are battery powered - every now and then a battery fails. Simple.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already claims on the Safety page about explosions. If it goes any place that would be the best location. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass changes to smoking cessation

Sourced content to reviews was replaced with a randomized controlled trial.[22] The reviews are not outdated content. Sourced content was deleted again.[23] The part "A 2015 review found e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation." is original research.[24] This edit appears to be a WP:COPYVIO because the 2014 review stated "Our meta-analyses demonstrated a higher smoking cessation rate of 20% achieved with e-cigarettes, suggesting that factors beyond nicotine replacement alone may contribute to smoking cessation."[25] This edit replaced accurately sourced content with original research and deleted one sentence that is accurately sourced. This edit deleted sourced content. This edit made the text less accurate than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)