Talk:Electronic cigarette

List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes

Another bold coat rack is on its way.--TMCk (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Gigs, your comment directly led to this edit. It is a good start. This list is similar to other lists like List of additives in cigarettes and List of cigarette smoke carcinogens. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Discussion for page move. See Talk:List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes#Requested move 19 June 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit-war without arguments...

Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.

In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.

So please discuss. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

An image of a vape shop adds tremendous value. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Which value? I could have bought your argument if there had been characteristics in the picture of a building that were different from any other business building. But if you want a picture of a vapeshop - then find one that shows a vapeshop from the inside or at the very least has some qualities that make it stand out as being a vapeshop. --Kim D. Petersen 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Or is your point with the picture that vapeshops look exactly like any other type of shop from the outside? Because that is the only "take away" message i get from it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the shop on the building shows it is clearly a vape shop. That what makes it special. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So it is the logo/"brand" sign of the shop that is the interesting part? Isn't that against our policies or at least our guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING)? --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The name clarifies it is a unique shop. It is very interesting to see an actual vape shop. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Once more. Are you are stating that the logo/"brand" here is the reason that you picked this picture? And not any other characteristics? If that is the case, then it is advertising - even if you do not (which i do not suspect you to) have that intension. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It has all the characteristics of a vape shop. A building with a vape shop inside. It is a high-quality image. This is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the question i stated above. And "high-quality image" is not an argument in itself. A building with a "vape shop" inside, is not an argument either. The overwhelming thing here is that there is nothing outside of the logo/"brand" that is special about the image. Thus it becomes, albeit inadvertently, advertising... and WP:NOTADVERTISING is rather clear there: We shouldn't have such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a simple picture of a vape shop. The image represents what a typical vape shop looks like. The non-controversial thing here is that this is what a vape shop is. It is in a building like other businesses. The name on the shop is a generic name. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only typical characteristic of what a vape shop looks like is their sign/logo/"brand" on a building, then it doesn't have encyclopedic value. The only value then is to present the sign/logo/"brand". --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It adds value because now the reader knows what a vape shop looks like. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless our readers are dim-witted, they already know that shops are located in buildings. This image brings no encyclopedic value. The only thing that differentiates it from any other picture of a business is the sign/logo/"brand" - thus once more: It is advertising. --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A vape shop from the outside is not a fancy customized building like a movie theater. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! That is why it is only the sign/logo/"brand" that differentiates this from any other shop - and therefore an outside picture is nothing more than inadvertent marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"dim-witted" is what I thought when I (finally after it was introduced) removed the image. W/o caption, one would not even know what it is w/o blowing it up and I'm talking about a 22 inch screen with standard resolution. It's sooo sad that we even have to discuss such clear cut non issue nonsense but meat and false loyalties demand wasting time on such. What a pity mess and shame.--TMCk (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
But then again, brains don't mean shit and we're on the internet...--TMCk (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not in any way against a picture of a vape shop - it just has to have some characteristic outside of a logo/"brand" that presents to our readers that it is a vape shop. A picture from the inside of such a shop would be very good, and such a picture can be done without being overly promotional. Google image search on "vape shop" shows lots of that kind of images - we just need one that can be used within our copyright restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be easy to find such an image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If so, why don't you go for it or did so in the first place instead of picking a ready to use invaluable image?--TMCk (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We can also include an image from inside a vape shop. Both inside and outside is the best approach IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the reason specified above: No, it is not. At least not unless you present an outside photo that is not indistinguishable from marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have searched and looked at other images of vape shops. This is what they look like from the outside. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Then the outside of vape-shops is uninteresting, and nothing special => no encyclopedic value. On the other hand: The insides of a vape-shop differs quite alot - so that would be interesting => have encyclopedic value. --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You searched with your darkest sunglasses on, didn't you? Try again and look no further than commons. Note that 8 of them are even in the same city! Still think "that's how they look like"? And to Kim's observation, yes, the inside would be much more informative.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All of them suffer under being either non-descript, or the sign/logo/brand being the major aspect of the picture. We need something that is A) not confused with advertising/marketing B) sufficiently descriptive of a vape-shop. And as far as i can see, that would only be handled with a picture from the inside, with for instance focus on a vape-bar or the like. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any free and fitting images on a search I just did, I asked a Venezuelan photographer living in Brazil to give us a hand. A picture from a Brazilian store or lounge would also cancel out pretty much any potential advertising claims.--TMCk (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not worse either and the result of a misunderstanding of what we're looking for. I clarified at the editor's talk page on commons.--TMCk (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we looking for another image of a vape shop from the outside. Since the new image is somewhat of a distraction we should go back to the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no freakin' "distraction". The image is just as good or bad as the previous one. You really want to argue about that image now? There is no deadline here and "your personally picked image" back in would be nothing else but disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A big red sign is a "distraction". QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors restored the image that was deleted.[1][2] QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some meat joint the editwar. Are you calling for a continuation now?--TMCk (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "That is what WP:BRD tells us, and what WP:STATUSQUO informs us. The name Vapor Shack is also a big logo which is also distracting."
Your edits are not the status quo and if you go by BRD, then your edit was challenged in the first place. Banana my friend, banana. But don't worry, I'm sure meat is on it's way to make a silly pity revert.--TMCk (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure your position. Do you prefer the new image or the previous image or you have no preference? QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• There can't possibly be a copyright issue over two words used as a trading name. There might conceivably be a trademark issue if the logos are similar, but that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Editors should use whichever image they prefer in this case, or consider using no image at all on the grounds that a snapshot of an independent vape shop on a high street somewhere is only very tangentially related to the economics of e-cigarettes.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• A trademark issue is a concern. The company could be violating Radio shack's trademark. Wikipedia should not be propagating the possible issue. I also think the previous image is better. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• On comparing the logos I see there's no similarity and no cause for concern. Even if there was, Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that would require us to protect Radio Shack's trademarks.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted this [3]

The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The nicotyrine hypothesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So What? SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Image of Cloud chasing

Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The image is a large plume of vapor (and part of the name of the image has cloud chasing in it). The source is for context for the readers. It is better to discuss other potential images rather than deleting this useful image first IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"A large plume of vapor" != Cloudchasing. Deleting the image is appropriate because it is not an image of cloudchasing. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your other "potential image" is not cloudchasing either... The wording "useful image" is completely inappropriate in this context, since it is not useful for the purpose. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This potential image is even a larger plume of vapor. This is an image cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk)

No, it is not an image of cloudchasing. It is not the size of the plume that defines cloudchasing, but the context within which it is being done. And sitting on a staircase on just vaping with alot of VG is not such a context. It would generally be nice if you took the time to actually inform yourself about the topic, instead of guessing. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud-chasing is also done at an amateur level. Not everyone is a professional. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, did you come up with that yourself? There is just a bit of a problem here, even when it is done on an amateur level, it is still done within a context. Cloudchasing is the contest of creating the biggest clouds possible, bigger than the last you made, not just the act of blowing out big clouds.

Btw. which reliable source are you referring to when making these assertions/claims? --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vapers preferring this variety, many of whom refer to themselves as “cloud chasers,” sometimes participate in cloud-blowing contests for cash."[4] There are contents but...

"Some cloud chasers flaunt it, showing off their cloud-making ability where anyone and everyone can see."[5] ...some like to flaunt it in public. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The first image is a large plume of aerosol. The second image is even a larger plume of aerosol. This is non-controversial. We don't need to include a "professional vapor" blowing extremely large plumes of e-smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"a large plume of" vapor doesn't necessarily indicate cloud chasing. Cloud chasing is about seeking a large plume of vapor intentionally. Some set ups produce a large cloud under certain circumstances, such as in humid environments. Also neither of the plumes shown are the size or shape of a typical cloud chasing plume which is a long tight cone. The firt isn't even a particularly large exhale and would be typical to most high glycerin users with a tank. The second might indicate a slightly higher than average wattage as well but to call either of them cloud chasing is merely opinion. Seek a sourced picture and back away from claiming any plume of vapor is cloud chasing.SPACKlick (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The original image is categorised under "Cloud Chasing". See under tags for the categorisation. See here too. Therefore, it is a confirmed image of cloud-chasing. Imagine that! QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If a non-expert tags his image "plasma" that's not evidence it's plasma. SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My point being opinion from the creator of the image is not verifiable. There is clearly dispute that this shows cloud chasing, you do need to cite the sky is blue. A minority of editors in this discussion agree with you. Do the right thing, remove the image and find a verfiable or non controversial image of cloud chasing. SPACKlick (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Most editors agree the image is useful. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Known unknowns

There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a 2014 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that both inserting and removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Who "highly value[s]" that text? --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's really CFCF who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.

However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We had a RfC on this very issue. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_14#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The consensus is to use such information on the article. This is normal practice across Wikipedia to include the known unknowns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it really isn't, QG. It's relatively normal to include significant known unknowns. We don't know how to replicate spider silk, and that fact is rightly mentioned in spider silk because it's significant for engineering and textiles. We don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is correct, and that fact is rightly mentioned in the article because it's one of the most significant unsolved mathematical problems for the 21st century. But it's not at all normal to mention all the known unknowns in articles about medical and semi-medical devices. The word "unknown" does not appear anywhere in syringe, eye drop, pill (pharmacy), or tablet (pharmacy). It does appear once in toothpaste. But this article includes it seven times, including one place where we say it in three successive sentences. And they're bizarrely specific sentences as well.

What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.

I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Wikipedia being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

After reading the source again I tweaked the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While I see there is a point past where it is not useful, discussion of "known unknowns" is an important part of an encyclopedia article, when it is established by high quality secondary sources. If high quality secondary sources feels it is important to mention, I think it is relevant here. Yobol (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, the disagreement here is not all known unknowns but those which are extremely speciic and of little value but emotional scaremongering and or cannot be put into good english. The three claims under dispute are exactly that.

"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." "The impact of e-cigarette use by children on substance dependence is unknown." There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. SPACKlick (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It no longer says that because yet again, QuackGuru has grasped part of what we're saying and taken it on himself to unilaterally change the article partway through the discussion.

  Please note carefully that CFCF does not choose to revert QG's changes, even when he's removing a sentence about known unknowns. This is, of course, because QG is in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club. These two editors are not deliberately acting as a tag team to prevent the wrong people from making any changes; but the practical effect of their behaviour is exactly this.

  Note also CFCF's instinctive use of Twinkle's anti-vandalism tools on edits made within policy by established editors. I say "instinctive" because he's so quick with it: it takes him only a few seconds. There's no thought going into that at all.

  Still, we need to drop this for the moment, having made more progress than I thought would be achievable. It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You claim " It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around." If you don't have cosnesusu now than I think you should not try to delete at a later date. In the long run it will probably be known the unknowns. It has been established that the known unknowns is informative, especially when a MEDRS compliant source is discussing it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm reverting your changes is because they are blatant and remove well sourced secondary opinion. Whether QG has removed similar statements is beside the point: regardless of whether I've missed such changes or not the fact remains none of QGs edits have removed the same amount of information. As for my reluctance to reply in this discussion, I find it a waste of time and unlikely to be productive. We've already extensively covered the topic of known unknowns. Please refrain from reverting what is strongly supported by consensus, so that we don't have to waste more time on time-consuming RfCs and whatnot. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep referring to "Stong consensus" CFCF but there isn't. There's dispute. Dispute can only be resolved by discussion which you admit you're not keen to be involved in, showing your not here to improve the article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I did not exactly delete any sentence. I read the source again and merged the two sentences together. The wording is "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to addiction or substance dependence in youth is unknown.[85]" I did the same for another sentence early this year. See "In the US, as of 2014 some states tax e-cigarettes as tobacco products, and some state and regional governments have broadened their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes.[45]" QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)