Talk:Electronic cigarette

Lead too detailed

I absolutely agree that the lead of this article is to heavy. Some authors seems more interested in describing the negative effects of the e CIG rather than describing the actual device. The bulk of the intro should be transferred into the health section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.161 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2014

Specific Changes Proposed for lede

Per WP:lede The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I suggest significantly reducing the amount of health comment within the leade, where it can never receive significant discussion. The lede is currently 4 paragraphs and the first is a good summary of what an e-cig is. The second currently Health, the third is use and the fourth is legality. This could be more concisely summarised with the detail left for the article.

I would move the information about the creation into the first paragraph and create a second paragraph out of the remainder something like.

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol that resembles smoke. It generally uses a heating element within an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings, while others release a flavored vapor without nicotine. Currently marketed e-cigarette devices arose from an invention made in China in 2003. The e-cigarette market has been rapidly expanding.

The benefits and risks of e-cigarette usage are currently uncertain and the matter of some debate among the scientific community. Evidence suggests e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions about long-term use. The use of e-cigarettes has become more frequent in both the US and the UK. Approximately 60% of users are current smokers and the majority of the remainder are ex smokers.

Electronic cigarette legislation and public health investigations are currently pending and are being debated in many countries. The European Commission adopted a proposal to revise the European Union Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC requiring standardization of liquids and personal vaporizers, disclosure of ingredients, and child- and tamper-proofing of liquid containers; the US Food and Drug Administration published proposed regulations in April 2014 along similar lines.

References

I'd rather have consensus here than boldly make changes. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks good, SPACKlick. I would suggest a minor addition, as marked above in your text. Mihaister (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help getting the correct references into the above text, will start looking this afternoonSPACKlick (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a start. Unfortunately, I'm rather short of spare time this week, but will circle back to this early next week if you still need help. Mihaister (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Some more work on the new lede. I think it's in good shape. SPACKlick - please have a final look and proceed to update the article.Mihaister (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mihaister, I kind of forgot about this proposal so I'm glad someone caught my lapse. Nice job. SPACKlick (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead is supposed to be 3-4 paragraphs. Disagree with making it 2. It makes it more complicated to read by squeezing it together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed lede currently covers 3 major topics, which should be naturally broken into 3 paragraphs, as I've done above. Mihaister (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the current 4 paragraphs with the layout of the lead reflecting the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The current lede just throws together a pile of numbers and stats that are better addressed in the body. It doesn't flow very well and appears either unfinished or too detailed; sort of meandering and unencyclopedic. Mihaister (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Even worse is the fact that the original includes a link to a compilation study by Stanton A. Glantz, PhD that says vapers continue to smoke combustible cigarettes. The study referenced another study that only looked at a 30 day period. This man is a rabid anti ecigarette advocate that has been found to twist statistics to his own anti-ecigarette bias. All the study did was rephrase others work in a way to make it look like the opposite that was found. The proposed section looks more balanced. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

---

One small edit suggestion to the line "It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer" might be improved as "It generally uses a coil as a heating element inside an atomizer, cartomizer or tank system," I know of no e-cigarette that does not use some type of coil as the heating element. The atomizer, etc, contains the coil, wicks, and some way to get the voltage to the coil through posts and insulators along with the eliquid. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Here is a link showing the coil is the heating element http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/electronic-cigarette1.htm AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I modified the wording to reflect that the heating element is encased within an atomizer. However, I think the whole discussion of coils, tank systems, etc. is too detailed for the lede and better suited for the technical section below. Mihaister (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, at least it reflects that the atomizer is not the heating element itself. I will take a look at the technical section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we may have consensus here. SPACKlick, do you want to update the article lede? Mihaister (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I am missing the consensus. You could try a RfC to gain greater input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel this is adding to the article, it simply brings overly minute details to the lede. I think the lede is good as it is, with it's 4 paragraphs. It feels as if we are reducing the general information about e-cigs and getting lost in details. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But the lede isnt supposed to be about details and information, and should ideally be about a paragraph. The details and information should be in the rest of the article.WP:lede AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. The lede should be a good overview of the body. 4 detailed paragraphs is best. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree, but WP:lede sets the style for the page. In it there is a section called WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, notice that it is singular and not plural? The lede isnt about setting forth information, that is the rest of the page. When the lede is to long it is a result of bloat. The lede of e-cigarettes is a result of bloat. It should set out the controversies but not a lot of findings and studies, those belong in the sections. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LEADLENGTH: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. QuackGuru (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if the section is changed to the new version there is one change I would like to do. The line "The majority of users who tried e-cigarette, continue to smoke traditional cigarettes.". This was changed in another location and I would like to change it here. Copying my comments from below;

While the article may have said "majority" for some time, the reference, Grana makes no such claim. In fact the word "majority" is only used once and that instance deals with the length of time ecigarettes were used. The sentence that we can find in Grana is "e-cigarettes are most commonly being used concurrently with conventional tobacco cigarettes (dual use)" and "The most common outcome was dual use of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes" the words "most commonly" are used.

I would like to have it changed to match the line further down in the article "E-cigarette users most commonly continue to smoke traditional cigarettes." to be consistant. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for adding this

Not seeing the consensus for adding "The WHO position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts as having made "important errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the studies reviewed" and that it uses "alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence."" Interesting that one of the authors is funded by an e-cig company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO's position has not been criticized but the WHOs recently commissioned report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase the "object" of the criticism as you see fit, but censoring the MEDRS-compliant McNeill study is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Otherwise wrt to implied COI, travel reimbursements do not constitute "funding" and a "manufacturer of e-liquids" is not the e-cig industry. Also, recall the discussion above on this talk page, where a Federal Judge passed ruling that pharma funding does represent a COI with respect to tobacco topics. If you qualify publications in the article based on association with e-cig industry, in the interest of NPOV, associations with the pharmaceutical industry must also be disclosed. Mihaister (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We could summarize it as "this report has been criticized" but quoting large amount is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

May I propose you summarize this publication with what you think is due weight, and we'll take it from there. Mihaister (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what WHO decides based on this report they commissioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. WHO already wrote their report and recommendations for FCTC. Irrespective of the outcome from FCTC COP6 (which, BTW is a political rather than scientific forum), the McNeill study stands on its own as a peer-reviewed secondary source, presenting a critical evaluation of the WHO-commissioned report, as well as a review of the existing literature. Mihaister (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the criticism is needed to point out the problems with the WHO report. Simply because the WHO report carries weight and simply saying someone disagrees with it gives lesser weight to the peer reviewed secondary report. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text to summarize McNeill critique

In the interest of making progress on this topic, here's a proposition for some text to summarize this critique in light of the discussions above.

The WHO-commissioned report forming the basis for its position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts for selectively reviewing the available evidence and misrepresenting study findings.

Please modify the text above in preparation for insertion in the article. Please note that the WHO position is discussed extensively in the article, thus given far more weight than the short sentence proposed above for the McNeill publication, reflecting the due weight discussion above. Mihaister (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"forming the basis for its position" What position? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The report, when issued by the WHO forms a position that is recognized]. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, AlbinoFerret. The report linked above and cited in the main article clearly states on the front page: "Report by WHO", therefore accurately being recognized as the position of WHO on this issue. The commissioned report published by Grana et al. is a distinct document and is cited throughout the position statement prepared by WHO. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a review [1] and thus hold less weight. Do not feel it should be mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Critique is synonymous with review. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Feelings should not play into wiki editors' choices of which evidence to discuss. See WP:NPOV. The fact is, McNeill et al. is a peer-reviewed secondary source published in a mainstream journal, thus meets all the criteria in WP:MEDRS. If no objective discussion takes place here I'm taking this arbitrary censorship to mediation. Mihaister (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Will request further opinions for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest reading this page WP:CAN AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it has a list of good places to ask for opinions and its possible you may be unaware of them all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose including this, the referenced item is a press release. Zad68 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A press-release with a DOI number?? Sorry, but you are wrong. The press-release is about the paper - the paper is not the press-release. You might have taken the time to read the press-release which makes this clear by sentences such as "The article by McNeill and colleagues takes nine key statements ...." --Kim D. Petersen 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Zad68, that is incorrect. The referenced item is a peer-reviewed article. The link posted by User:Zad68 is indeed a press release, but that's not what's cited here. Mihaister (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The paper itself isn't listed in PubMed as a review article, as claimed above. A "critique" isn't the same thing as a review article. They are not in the same category of weight, especially when the the review article it's critiquing is by the WHO. Zad68 18:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply to a paper will/can never be a review. So what you are saying is that the normal scientific process of papers is invalidated by WP:MEDRS? Even further the paper that we are originally talking about, is also not a review listed in PubMed - so how do we go forward? --Kim D. Petersen 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you're drawing is purely semantic. The article clearly does not present new or original experimental results, but rather tries to "identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence and arguments relevant" to the topic at hand, which is a direct quote from Literature review. If that does not make it a review article, I don't know what would. That being said, even if there's disagreement as to the "label" of this publication, the fact remains it is a secondary source listed in PubMed and should be discussed in the article, even if it is being given less weight. Censoring this high-quality source just because it disagrees with WHO is inappropriate, unscientific, and unencyclopedic. Mihaister (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, take PubMed's. There is a meaningful difference, per WP:MEDRS, in how an article is categorized by PubMed. Based on your interpretation a letter to the editor written by an "independent researcher" (i.e. unaffiliated layperson) could equally qualify as a "review". There is a lot of garbage in PubMed that meets the bar of "secondary source listed in PubMed" so that qualifier holds no weight. PubMed makes a much stronger distinction, and maintains a distinct category for "Review article". Zad68 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The publication in question is not a letter to the editor, but rather a peer-reviewed article, so that comparison is misleading. Whereas I might agree with you that the qualifier "secondary source listed in PubMed" holds no weight, "peer-reviewed secondary source listed in PubMed" does, whether or not it's tagged as "Review" in the PubMed database. Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The goalposts are detailed in WP:MEDRS they haven't moved. Zad68 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are moving the goalposts - since WP:MEDRS doesn't say that we can only use reviews. It says we can only use secondary sources - and this is a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. This is not, and cannot be a primary source per WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether press release or critique it doesn't hold to WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not hearing objective or relevant arguments as to why this publication should not be mentioned in the article. The discussion above seems to be a combination of appeal to authority and moving the goalposts. I would like to open this discussion to a wider contributor base with an RfC in the sci topic area. Any objections? Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're being told the correct stuff, it's up to you to hear it... Please notify WT:MED if you're going to post something related at WP:RSN. Zad68 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is it not a WP:RS? It is peer-reviewed, it is a secondary source, it is PubMed indexed (PMID:25196419), and finally it is published in a MEDLINE catalogued journal[2]. Are we redefining WP:RS and WP:MEDRS here? --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is not WP:RS because it criticizes WHO, which is obviously unassailable because it is WHO. My head is still spinning at the circularity of the argument. Again, the discussion above is devoid of objective, verifiable argument for censoring of this source. Mihaister (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a government, it's a privately-run website, and so the accusation of "censorship" is off-base. "Peer-reviewed secondary source" isn't the bar. If you'd like to open this up to a wider discussion audience, please notify WT:MED where you've started the discussion. Zad68 02:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting position from an admin... I was rather under the impression Wikipedia is not censored. Mihaister (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this content discussion? Read WP:NOTCENSORED, it has nothing to do with this. Zad68 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:COMPREHENSIVE is more directly on point: it says Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information" Mihaister (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me it also speaks against sound scientific reasoning. Placing one source as infallible, that cant be questioned and cant have its errors pointed out is a prescription for disaster. Its kind of like religion where a holy text cant be subjected to questions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the most important scientific advancements have come by those that spoke against the prevailing point of the day, often opposed by the so called experts or groups that were said to know the truth. That is a true scientific method, to question everything, regardless of who says or publishes it. While it may not be the case here that an important discovery may be made it may influence peoples lives. Silencing criticisms of opposing points of view based on who said it is just so wrong I dont have time here to cover all that is wrong with it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we please cut out the emotional hyperbole ("censorship", "religion", "holy text", "truth!"), it's disruptive and interferes with the content discussion we should be having.

While WP:COMPREHENSIVE is surely a well-meaning user essay, the actual controlling Wikipedia content policy here is WP:WEIGHT. In the cases where it's a user essay vs. a Wikipedia content policy, the policy always wins. There are lots of policies like this that direct us to omit otherwise perfectly verfiable content sourced even to peer-reviewed secondary sources. The issue with the proposed use of McNeill et al. is basically WP:GEVAL. The WHO is an extremely influential authority and a report from them gets a lot of weight. It's a mistake to line up commentary on it from authors with competing interests as if it were in the same ballpark. Zad68 13:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not hyperbole to point out the problems with your reasoning. Its unscientific to silence problems with a scientific paper. Your argument sounds like one a religious zealot would make with criticisms of the Bible. Just replace WHO with Bible. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that the McNiel paper is somehow dishonest because the authors who found problems with the report the WHO funded and issued have different interests? Exactly who is going to look into problems with a report? People who agree or disagree with the WHOs stance and reasoning? Especially as we see here there few are willing to question the WHO. This is all starting to look like a prime example of groupthink AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame you're choosing to continue using such hyperbole. Regardless, nope, not what I said. I'll be happy to respond to on-topic points. Zad68 15:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, dismissing the reasoning on the infallibility of a source until the argument is framed as they want it is something a religious zealot would do. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68 please explain in detail how the source isn't a WP:MEDRS. Specifically explain to us how a peer-reviewed secondary source (per MEDRS), fails to be a WP:RS. Do notice that claiming that it has to be a review is not an argument, since WP:MEDRS doesn't require secondary sources to be reviews - it simply states that reviews are the best (but not only) sources. You've used a lot of time to shoot the messenger, by pointing out how other editors go over the top - but you haven't so far argued against the source. (combine this with the fact that the WHO sponsored report isn't a position statement, or other official material, but simply a conference paper (see MEDRS for this - which states that such has less weight than actual published papers in peer-reviewed journals)) --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found this discussion quite constructive, so thank you for participating. It turns out, the problem User:Zad68 was having is not one of WP:RS at all, but rather one of WP:WEIGHT, in the sense that Zad68 and others above feel strongly that the WHO position carries so much weight that any critique cannot possibly be mentioned without creating a WP:GEVAL situation. So I have another proposal that may lead to consensus here, which I'll open up in a new section for clarity. Please feel free to continue this discussion as well. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New approach to present McNeill article

The McNeill publication directly addresses claims made by the Grana publication, which has gained huge weight in the current version of the Wiki article. It almost looks like the current version of the Wiki article is little more than a repetitive annotated conspectus of the Grana study. Therefore, the McNeill article ought to be used to provide balance to this article in accurately representing the current state of science. In the interest of moving forward, I'm willing to acquiesce that McNeill does not have enough weight to challenge the WHO position, provided we present their review of the claims put forward by Grana.

For example, the lede references Grana in stating:

E-cigarette brands have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing campaigns similar to those used to popularize cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s

To provide balance to this statement, McNeill stated that such a statement "seems intended to create an emotional response" and proposed a more accurate way to put this information in perspective:

"There is as yet no evidence as to the importance of different marketing strategies to optimise the benefits to public health"

Other claims made by Grana also appear to be one-sided reviews of the existing evidence and McNeill presents alternative statements which take into account evidence from both sides of the scientific debate over ecigs. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister I'm glad you're finding this discussion constructive, truly!

The thing you're still missing is WP:WEIGHT. WP:BALANCE redirects to WP:NPOV, and one of the key messages of that policy page is WP:WEIGHT: viewpoints are represented in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources. It is a common mistake to say that because an article carries viewpoint X, it also must carry the viewpoint of opposite-of-X, or (even worse) that if an article has a paragraph of a certain size about viewpoint X, it must also devote about equal space to viewpoint opposite-of-X, to satisfy "balance."

The way it needs to work is that if the published reliable sources are dominated by viewpoint X, so must our article be. Grana et al. is a recent review article published in Circulation, which has the #1 top impact factor rating among all journals in its subject area, and further is associated with the AHA, one of the most prominent and influential medical associations. Therefore per WP:NPOV it deserves huge weight in our article. If another large influential organization like the WHO agrees with the view, even more so. Once again, commentary from authors with competing interests are not in the same ballpark. Zad68 02:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my optimism was premature. Here I was thinking we were making progress, when you circle right back to appeal to authority, moving the goalposts, and misrepresenting the weight of evidence in this field with a ridiculous straw man. It is a common mistake to base an entire worldview on a single publication by conflicted authors in a conflicted journal sponsored by a conflicted trade association. In case you weren't aware, AHA is making a habit out of stepping into COIs: see here, here, and here for recent examples. I'm very disconcerted by the fact that your comments continue to show an immutable bias. You sanctify the Grana publication, while disparaging the otherwise comparable McNeill publication as "commentary"; you mention perceived competing interests for some coauthors of McNeill, but fail to mention the glaring and judicially-defined conflicts pervading the Grana et al. publication and the venue they chose (hint: pharma funding).

On the more quantitative aspect of this discussion, whereas Circulation might rank higher than Addiction for the topic of Peripheral Vascular Disease, it ranks lower on the topics of Tobacco Control and nicotine addiction. So, if we were to follow WP:NPOV and give due weight to these two publications it would have to be the exact opposite of what is currently done in the article. Mihaister (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As you might expect I disagree with your characterization of my arguments but I'm not going to worry about that right now.

Let me try to summarize your argument: You believe Grana and McNeill are comparable. You accept that the authors McNeill have some competing interests (at least you don't argue against) but you're saying Grana isn't any better. In particular you feel the AHA equally has competing interests, and point to articles discussing that idea (but the articles do not discuss electronic cigarettes) and a lawsuit brought by the tobacco company Lorillard against the US FDA and which mentions Benowitz, one of the authors with Grana (although that lawsuit does not discuss electronic cigarettes). You're not giving any weight to how PubMed classifies the two articles, and consider both to be "reviews" equally. You don't think the status of the journal or its association with the AHA are marks in its favor.

Do I have that right? Zad68 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I support Zad here, there are clear differences in weight in these articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty close, Zad68. Let me clarify a few points, though:

• The extensive discussion on this very page regarding funding sources arrived at the consensus that apparent COIs are only relevant for determining weight if there is a reliable source that makes this issue a problem. In that respect, there is no RS that defines travel reimbursements by a minor e-liquid company as a relevant or potentially problematic funding source. However, the federal court judgement (i.e. RS) found that Benowitz's relationship with Pharma was a conflict with respect to tobacco-related topics, i.e. relevant and problematic in this specific field. Most of AHA's funding is also Pharma, and the articles discuss the fact that such funding constitutes competing interest in AHA's routine activity, though the articles are not specifically about e-cigarettes.
• I recognize the status and impact factor of the journal Circulation (and AHA) with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, I do not think they are a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes. The discussion of domain-specific prominence applies to AHA as well. The weight given by a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight.
• PubMed classification is irrelevant in this case. I respectfully disagree with your contention that only publications labeled "Review" on PubMed can be considered MEDRS, and instead submit that peer-reviewed secondary sources in respectable journals fit that criterion. Moreover, I think you might be conflating the notion of systematic review with literature review. Both Grana and McNeill fit the definition of the latter, and neither fit the definition of the former.
• Attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in the the field as well as the weight of evidence gauged by these RS. Currently, there are few secondary sources for e-cigarette topics and most of these do not agree with the extreme view put forward by Grana: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Chapman (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011).

tl;dr - Based on current evidence, Grana and McNeill are both MEDRS, and part of a small set of available secondary literature reviews on the topic. They both warrant weight in this article, however the weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than acclaim by various organizations. Mihaister (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above very well written and well thought out commentary. The arguments so far for dismissing McNeill seem to be in the "i don't like it" line of argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen 14:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We give more weight to reviews published in high quality sources than non reviews published in lesser quality sources. Circulation is one of the most well respected journals and thus it should not be the least bit surprising that it is used extensively here. This is not a WP:IDL argument but a WP:MEDRS argument.

This critique of WHO is just that a critique. It is listed as a "journal club" on the journals page [3] and is not a review by pubmed [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your commentary here is somewhat fallacious. Yes we give more weight to full reviews. Correct. Circulation worth more than Addiction? Not really - it depends on the what the paper is about, both journals are highly regarded within their respective fields. That argument, is like saying, that a paper in Nature will always trump a paper in Geophysical Research Journal which is utter nonsense. User:Mihaister is entirely correct in his assessment in his second bullet-point - Addiction is actually the more to-the-point specialist journal for this kind of material. As for it being in the "journal club" section - what does that even mean? Are you saying it is non-peer-reviewed? That would be incorrect. That is a classic example of WP:IDL and grasping for straws.

Finally with regards to the WHO report. It is not as highly regarded as a full peer-reviewed paper in a journal per WP:MEDRS, since the report is not a position statement, nor an "official" report (it is supplemental material to a conference). And high-quality WP:MEDRS critiques of such material must be taken into consideration per WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nb. No responses to papers in the scientific literature are marked as "reviews" in PubMed, since they aren't reviews in that sense of the word. So that was another WP:IDL argument. RS and MEDRS goes by secondary sources - not by what pubmed classifies things as. --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Once there are actual review articles available there's no reason to lower the sourcing standards to include critique or commentary. Maybe you missed it but WP:MEDRS does indeed make specific mention of PubMed sources tagged with publication type (ptyp) of "Review". McNeill simply isn't a review. Zad68 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! Could you explain to me how WP:NPOV allows for you to ignore notable critique? --Kim D. Petersen 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is McNeill a WP:MEDRS source?

Since there have been a lot of claims that McNeill et al. isn't a WP:MEDRS, so lets check:

• Is it peer-reviewed. Yes.
• Is it a secondary source per MEDRS. Yes.
• Is it published in a respected journal. Yes (MEDLINE [5] subset index medicus).
• Is it pubmed indexed. Yes. (PMID:25196419)
• Is it on-topic for the journal. Yes.
• Is it by respected authors. Yes.

Conclusion: It is a WP:MEDRS

We can discuss WP:WEIGHT, but unless there are some arguments on the table that demonstrates that it isn't a MEDRS, then the usability of this paper is not in question. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence it is MEDRS compliant. Lots of sources are peer-reviewed in a respected journal and pubmed indexed. You have not made a good case. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a curious non-argument User:QuackGuru, you've reversed the burden of evidence. Let me be more specific: What part of WP:MEDRS does this source not follow? --Kim D. Petersen 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did make an excellent argument and this was already explained to editors before. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on this source should be pretty obvious by now, but, in case anyone missed it, I agree it is MEDRS. I also agree with Kim D. Petersen that logical fallacies such as the appeal to ignorance and reverse burden of proof are not constructive in this discussion.

@User:QuackGuru - In spite of your claim to ignorance that "there is no evidence", the evidence for McNeill being MEDRS is actually displayed right above your post. Please provide verifiable evidence for your position of non-compliance, or withdraw your objection. Mihaister (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but where was your specific rebuttal to this argument? QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullet #3 in my post above. Mihaister (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The treshold for WP:MEDRS is not whether it is or isn't a review article, so once more a non-argument. That would be a potential WP:WEIGHT argument, but not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively to my above comment User:Jmh649, i would suggest that you cite the exact point in WP:MEDRS where it states that secondary sources cannot be used, unless they are review articles. Reviews are the most useful for medical information, which btw. this isn't about, but they are by no means the only reliable sources by MEDRS. Another alternative, would be if you could demonstrate either that the paper isn't peer-reviewed, the journal isn't reliable, or that the source is a primary or tertiary source per the guidelines stuck out in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Once we have the RS issue out of the way, we can continue a constructive debate on the WP:WEIGHT of the paper, and how (or if) we should use it in the article. But i'm getting a bit tired of the "it is not a MEDRS source", when that clearly isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

McNeill can't be considered "MEDRS" for the purpose of supporting unattributed content (in Wikipedia's narrative voice) in the article. The entirety of the article is in response to the WHO's report, it is not its own independent piece. All it could be used for might be to say, "Researchers from King's College criticized ...". The only argument is about whether this piece of commentary has received sufficient notice and demonstrated sufficient influence as to warrant a mention. So far not enough evidence has been supplied to indicate it has. Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations. Again, McNeill isn't in the ballpark. Zad68 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And once more you are talking about WP:WEIGHT and usage, rather than whether or not it is a WP:MEDRS. As for your statement: "Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations" - that is one hell of a misstatement.. since there is no such thing as a "policy statement by the WHO" on e-cigarettes at the moment. --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion tedious, and as I risk only repeating everything already mentioned I will only say we have a very clear situation where one article is being pushed to give far more weight than it ought to, in addition to not passing WP:MEDRS. Please, let it be, you're wasting time here. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You may find it tedious, and i can tell you that i find it likewise. Especially the blatant disregard for WP:PILLARS that is presented here. You do it yourself here: You are confusing how much weight that can be put on a source, with whether the source is or isn't reliable. What you are all trying to say is: "I find McNeill to be a MEDRS, but i do not think that the content is useful (or has enough WEIGHT) to be used in the article". --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is a piece of commentary and so shouldn't be used to WP:ASSERT anything. At most it might briefly be used to relay the opinions it airs (attributed of course). On a point of detail, the article has not been finally edited/corrected and published yet, so is not yet usable here in any case. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a "commentary" (commentary is generally not peer-reviewed). It is a peer-reviewed response article in a highly respected journal. What you are basically saying here, is that the whole methodology of scientific publishing is to be put out of effect, by MEDRS, since we here (apparently) can safely ignore published peer-reviewed replies to papers. That is impressive. I cannot recall any other scientific field in which this would be the case. Considering that the authors of this reply are responsible for quite a large percentage of the cited studies in the report/paper that they are responding to - then it is most certainly also pertinent. --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That the orignal authors are responding to errors in how their work was used should make it usable. I am beginning understand that my above comparison of those opposed to McNiel to religious zealots is more accurate as the days go by. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@KimDabelsteinPetersen: O it's commentary alright (or, as the authors style it, a "critique"). I – and I don't think anybody – is saying we have to "ignore" it, but when it's published any neutral treatment of it would give is its due, light, weight. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply in the scientific press, is generally not considered a commentary. But i am glad that you now are in agreement that it is a WP:MEDRS, and that it is WP:WEIGHT we should now focus on, now that this issue is out of the way. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling me what I said, when I didn't. I think the phrase "a MEDRS" here is unhelpfully binary, since MEDRS outlines a more nuanced view of sources. It's not though "a MEDRS" for asserting biomedical content, especially in the face of stronger sources. It may be due to use it briefly for an attributed statement of its authors' view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like consensus here might be heading in the direction of a brief “attributed” statement as proposed in the previous subsection, as suggested here, here, here, and here.

If you don’t agree with the proposed text, can we work together and come up with this “brief attributed statement” that we can all live with? Thanks. Mihaister (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for citing funding sources

The statement "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents" has been repeatedly added and removed from the article. It seems we need to have a discussion about this and reach consensus. Also note, as I stated above on this talk page, a Federal Judge passed ruling that pharma funding does represent a COI with respect to tobacco topics. If you qualify publications in the article based on association with e-cig industry or consumer groups, in the interest of NPOV, associations with the pharmaceutical industry must also be disclosed.Mihaister (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree! I'm fine with that. Cloudjpk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What does the ref say WRT "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Burstyn funded by e-cig advocacy group CASAA that accepts e-cigarette industry funding http://www.marketwatch.com/story/casaa-new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in-electronic-cigarettes-pose-minimal-health-risk-2013- ; Romagna by FlavorArt e-cigarette liquid manufacturers [declaration of interest] Cloudjpk (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction: CASAA is a consumer group (not industry) as detailed on their webpage as well as within the Burstyn study Funding Disclosure statement. The CASAA webpage clearly states "CASAA has no financial or policy agreements with the electronic cigarette, tobacco or pharmaceutical industries." BTW, @Cloudjpk, your link to marketwatch appears defective.

Also, while we're at it, let's also discuss the COI of Benowitz, co-author of the Grana review. Benowitz is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies, a fact which was found to be an unacceptable COI by a Federal judge in his appointment to TPSAC. Mihaister (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to point out the funding source that is a COI, but as Mihaister pointed out we better be sure that funding information is from a reliable and accurate source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

CASAA accepts and receives e-cigarette industry funding [and this is not in dispute]. The corrected marketwatch link [here] Benowitz is actually an optimist on e-cigarettes and health but if his pharm funding is deemed relevant I have no problem mentioning that. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The link says vendors, or those who sell to the public, thats quite different than the e-cigarette industry which to me says manufacturers or producers. The link does say some contributers may have industry affiliations. But it is impossible to stop people from donating because they may work, someone in their family works for, or have done work in the past for some company. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"vendors" here is not limited to retailers; indeed CASAA accepts funding and participation from e-cigarette retailers and manufacturers. CASAA's "Scientific Director" Carl V. Phillips has a long history of [tobacco industry funding]. While CASAA claims no affiliation with the industry, its board shows close ties. And e-cigarette trade groups [lobby with CASAA] However I'm fine with terming CASAA merely "e-cigarette proponents" as in "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents" I take there is consensus that CASAA is an advocacy group for e-cigarettes? Cloudjpk (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that CASAA "is an advocacy group for e-cigarettes." See here their mission statement, which states that they aim to "ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking." E-cigarettes are just one of many such reduced harm alternatives, among other smokeless tobacco and non-tobacco nicotine products. The most accurate statement would be that CASAA is a consumer advocacy group for tobacco harm reduction. Mihaister (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true that CASAA also lobbies for other products, including the ones you mention. That doesn't mean CASAA is not an advocacy group for e-cigarettes, and no one is claiming it's strictly or solely that. We all agree that it has done and is doing advocacy for e-cigarettes. So seems reasonable to describe it as "an advocacy group for e-cigarettes". To decribe it as "an advocacy group for e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and non-tobacco nicotine products in a general framework it characterizes as tobacco harm reduction" might be more accurate, but might not be entirely relevant, and is certainly long :) "Consumer" is problematic here as long as CASAA accepts industry funding and participation and has notable industry ties. Fortunatately, it's not necessary to debate the point; neutral terms are available, such as "advocacy group", "proponents", "advocates", etc. Can't we use one of them? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that in the case of CASAA vendor is a manufacturer. In fact [CASAA does not offer business memberships] only individuals may join. I do agree with Mihaister that CASAA is not just an eciggarette proponent, but is a proponent of reduced harm alternatives to smoking, of which one alternative is ecigarettes. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good; then we all agree that among other things CASAA is a proponent or advocacy group for e-cigarettes. Whatever else it may do, that fact is relevant to its funding of a study on e-cigarettes, especially one whose findings line up with its advocacy. We can leave "manufacturer" and "industry" to FlavorArt. Thus: studies funded by the e cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents. Is that clear enough, or would it be better to identify each study's funding? Cloudjpk (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is only relevant if we apply equal measures to all studies. Such as for instance the Grana review, which is funded by tobacco opponents / advocates for e-cig opposition. But frankly i'd say that we should leave it out, unless there is a reliable source that makes this issue a problem. --Kim D. Petersen 14:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Grana review was funded by WHO, University of California, NCI, and FDA. It would be accurate to characterize them as anti-tobacco organizations, although that's not their primary mission. It would not be accurate to characterize them as advocates for e-cig opposition. However if you think their funding is relevant, I'm fine with mentioning it. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point here - funding can be a problem, but it is not by definition one. Unless reliable sources explicitly makes this an issue, then we shouldn't. (in both cases). --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That rephrase is not agreed to. CASAA is a proponent for tobacco harm reduction and suggests the use of smokeless nicotine products to achieve harm reduction. They list ecigarettes as one product, but also recommend Snus and Lozenges/Orbs and seeks to protect the rights of users of those products to keep using them. To say they are a ecigarette advocate is very inadequate. More accurate is saying they are an advocate for tobacco harm reduction. I also agree with others that if CASAA is used for an example of COI, opponents of tobacco harm reduction through the use of ecigarettes others should be spotlighted for COI as long as reliable sources who point this out are found for either side. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well; what phrasing would work for you? That expresses the relevance of their funding to e-cigarettes? Cloudjpk (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources make the relevance of their funding so important? --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a vested interest, goes to WP:Independent_sources. I'm therefore following WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. That is all that is proposed here. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all WP:IS is an essay, and as such has no real relevance except as advice, secondly even by WP:IS's standard, a peer-reviewed paper is an independent source - so that one falls to the ground. As for WP:BIASED, sorry, but that one doesn't fly for the same reasons. It is the editorial oversight of the journal that makes it reliable or non-reliable, and it is the journals quality (or lack there of) that addresses bias.

It appears you don't like the source, so what you need to do, is not insert your own views and doubts about the source, but find reliable sources that demonstrates that your view is in sync with reality, and thus can be presented in a WP:NPOV way in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; is there some question that FlavorArt has a direct financial interest? Or that CASAA has a direct advocacy interest? Or that peer-reviewed papers' funding is not relevant? Has editorial oversight replaced disclosures of competing interest? Cloudjpk (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To the extent of us writing about it in the article: Yes, the editorial oversight replaces such. If you can find reliable sources that express a significant doubt about the reviews that we present here, then we as editors may consider whether it is a good source to use, or whether we should note such critique in the article. But as a general rule, on WP, this is only used to determine whether or not a source is reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) The essay WP:TRUTH may be useful to read at this point --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That answers my last question. Care to address the others? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The other questions are not relevant, unless you can bring up reliable sources that provide significant doubts to the reliability of the source/sources. If so (ie. you find such WP:RSs), then we can move on, and consider whether the relevant reviews/sources should be given less weight, get a commentary based on those RS's or be completely removed. --Kim D. Petersen 20:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The tobacco industry has a long history of using research funding to generate results designed to mislead the public, summarized in its [RICO conviction] in particular industry funded "research" that kept finding no risks from secondhand smoke. Carl V. Phillips has a history of [taking tobacco industry funding]. CASAA lists Phillipps as its ["Scientific Director"]. CASAA funded Burstyn, a study that claims to find no risk from secondhand e-cigarette aerosol. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN and WP:BLP for reasons as to why your comment above is inappropriate and unusable on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for the references! I see the procedural problem. What I don't see is any substantive refutation. The cited and well documented sources bear directly on the question of what weight to give the source in question. Am I to understand that for procedural reasons we are to ignore that evidence? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SYN you are not allowed to add up all the sources to come to your own conclusions. That is Original Research and is not allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

These are not just "procedural reasons", they are the very foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. (WP:PILLARS see the first two). Alternatively, as said above, you can search for reliable sources that presents your views in such a way so that it can be addressed here, --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! The problem to be solved was: the article cites "research" which has sizeable conflicts of interest that are not mentioned, a notable omission. There are various solutions to this problem. However you have convinced me Wikipedia procedures render the problem unsolveable in some cases, including the present one. I will therefore stop trying to solve it. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And that's what I'd call consensus. Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Classification

Since the Electronic cigarette is not listed as a device with which to stop smoking and has been denied as such by the FDA and the the position of the WHO is they dont work as such. Is it correct to list this article in the medical and Pharmacology sections? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

UK legislation allows, but does not compel, manufacturers to apply for pharma status (I forget the exact terminology). This is not the American Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are e-cigarettes considered a medical device or product in the UK? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's EU-wide, & not quite in force yet, see here: "...This will all change in 2016, when new EU rules will come into force that will improve e-cigarette safety and quality. E-cigarettes that manufacturers want to continue to sell as consumer products will be regulated under the new Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). This means they’ll come with warnings about the addictiveness of nicotine, restrictions on product design, nicotine content, and manufacturers won’t be allowed to advertise them on TV, radio and in print media. But if manufacturers want to make claims that their products can help people quit smoking, their e-cigarettes will be regulated as a medicine (in the same way as nicotine gum and patches). They will have to seek a medicines license from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). And if they’re granted a license, they won’t face the same restrictions on strength, design and advertising as those regulated as consumer products, and will still be widely available as over-the-counter medicines, and potentially available on the NHS." This is easy to source well, and not covered adequately in the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So at present they are not medical devices or products, but consumer products? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can't be advertised as medical yet, but applications for 2016 can be made. In person retail is mainly at pharma counters/shops in fact. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable question then is why a consumer product should be classified on Wikipedia in the medical category? I could see if, in 2016 some e-cigarette is classified as a medical device or product. But thats about a year and a half away and we have no guarantee that any will apply for or be given that classification in the UK or EU. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasonable answer is that most medical products take years to be approved and WP:MEDMOS says nothing about waiting until they are before covering. Also there has been very extensive coverage of the subject in all general medical journals, though evidence-based trials are lacking. No doubt many are under way. Raise the matter at the medical and pharma projects if you still have concerns. I see that according to Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Austria and Denmark already class them as medical products. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Denmark doesn't classify them as medical products. They classify nicotine as a medical product. E-cigs and e-liquids themselves are not medical products, and can be sold freely - just without nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you might add that to the article, but I think anyone selling e-liquids or e-cig cartridges without nicotine would fall foul of consumer protection/fraud legislation, unless this was made very clear. The normal assumption is surely that they contain nicotine. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. 0mg e-liquid is a regular sell in e-cig shops. There are quite a large number of people who have cut down their nicotine intake, but who still want to enjoy the feeling of vaping. You can find 0mg e-liquids in all shops, both online, and in brick and mortar, for that reason. --Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is a guide on how to write content in a specific style, not a list of what content should or should not be included in a category. Both countries you mention have declared that e-cigarettes that contain nicotine are medical devices. The reference for Austria only talks about one device and excludes another. While there has been a lot published in medical journals, I wonder if this page would not be best served by splitting it into a device and a health effects page like traditional cigarettes are. One listed as medical, one not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If it got a lot bigger there are various ways it might be split, but at the moment it seems a reasonable length, and ok as it is, imo. I must say I don't think cigarette is a great model - the "Health effects" section is remarkably short and remarkably low down. There the other article is actually Health effects of tobacco, as there are the other forms. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

cigarette imho is a perfect example of how to split an article. The health effects was split off and a small section that sums up the new page took its place with a link to the other article. The ecigarette is a consumer product that imho is being taken over by a medical agenda. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate language

The phrase "put into the air" keeps getting edited into the article. This expression is clearly an underhanded tactic to use loaded language and make a reference to illegal drugs. This prejudiced POV is unencyclopedic and must stop. Mihaister (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A [Google search] shows the drugs usage is rare. There is not one reference to illegal drugs in the top 100 results returned. The vast majority are rather references to air pollution, which is the topic here. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please! this is a well known and widely used slang phrase in reference to drugs. Regardless, there are countless more appropriate, accurate, and neutral ways to express the notion that aerosol emissions may contain whatever. Mihaister (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realise "may" contain is original research? QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing it's used in reference to drugs. What the Google search shows is the far more common use is in reference to air pollution. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with User:QuackGuru as to WP:OR. That was not a good choice of wording on my part. The statement should reflect the reporting in the source, something along the lines of "Studies found some e-cigarettes aerosol to contain known carcinogens, ultrafine particles, and heavy metals..." Here, the qualifier "some" is not OR, since the studies in question obviously did not measure emissions from all e-cigarettes, thus a generic statement about all such devices is unsupported. Mihaister (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some" is problematic as it implies some others are emission-free. I would agree that a generic statement about all devices would unsupported (and indeed would be hard to support, with hundreds of brands on the market and more arriving all the time), but no such statement is made: "all" is not used here. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not using "some" would imply that all e-cigarettes emit these. The studies referenced in Grana are not usable to make such statements - in fact Grana's statement about Heavy metal in e-cigs is derived from a single studyWilliams et al.(2013) which tested 22 cartomizers from one manufacturer. This is not a generically usable result. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not as strongly as "some" implies "not others"; in general in English lack of a qualifier is probably the best you can do. In this specific context perhaps "tested devices were found" might serve; would that work for you?Cloudjpk (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We cannot make generic claims without supporting literature, and that we do not have here. We have evidence for one type of product from one manufacturer - thus we cannot make a generic claim. --Kim D. Petersen 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And just as a side-note: There was/is a previous consensus on not using Grana et al. alone, but to compare it to other reviews, since earlier we've had way too much WP:WEIGHT put on that review. Editors seem once again to be cherry-picking from the Grana review, instead of focusing on the broad view within the scientific literature. --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another review is used: [Burstyn 2014] Cloudjpk (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which specifically states "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern.", so we most certainly shouldn't make such an inference in our article, if we want to adhere to WP:NPOV (and we must!). --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article states and provides citations for both the measurement of the pollutants and the belief that they're not a health concern.Cloudjpk (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading you comment, I added this. The word "some" is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we now have a review that specifically states that metals are not found in any amount that warrents health concerns - we can't let the statement stand as it is, per WP:NPOV. And it would be nice if you could cite the specific place in Burstyn where you "the majority" comes from? Not that i disagree with the sentence - but i can't find any support for it in the review. --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nicotine is present in most e-cigarette liquids and has TLV of 0.5 mg/m3 for average exposure intensity over 8 hours." QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you. Can you now comment on the metal issue? --Kim D. Petersen 00:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not find that quote in the paper linked to. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I found it later, search doesnt work on that page AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Done. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Erh? No. WP:NPOV is not equal time for all sides. We need to establish the WP:WEIGHT here. We most certainly can't imply with one hand, and object with the other. --Kim D. Petersen 00:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Both text use in-text attribution: A 2014 review...

There is a lot of discussion on this among reviews. I think I can include even more statements on this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there really? Demonstrate it please. I find it interesting that Grana et al. doesn't quote any of these reviews then? Bustyn(2014) specifically rules out these concerns in the "Key conclusions" section of that review. And that goes for Grana's rather vague statement about carcinogens as well. --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I usually review PUBMED for sources. Bustyn (2014) does not rule out the concerns. What Bustyn (2014) said was "inferred" or assumed. Side note: Other editors can continue to suggest sources (or text) for me to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since as far as i can tell, none of the 7 studies resulting from your search are reviews... then i'm really confused. (are you doing WP:OR?) Burstyn's Key conclusions section does rule out side-stream carcinogenity as an issue - such as TSNA's => no measurable risk for cancer etc; In fact the only concern that Burstyn sees is with the high levels of Glycerine and Propylene Glycol, which aren't carcinogens or toxic, but where the magnitude of the exposure is novel. --Kim D. Petersen 01:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what we need. Continuing to make good suggestions. Done. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it curious that you did not reply to any of the substantive arguments in my comment, and instead choose to singularly focus on something peripheral, and then insert it into the article, without due consideration of what is actually in the Burstyn paper. How you get Burstyn's argument for further study on long term exposure to PG and VG to be A) A side-stream issue, B) important enough to single out (per WP:WEIGHT) is to say the least ... curious. And that you then argue that it should have been a suggestion ... Hmmmm. --Kim D. Petersen 06:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a question for further study WP:FUTURE in Byrstyn, not a result, fact, or a finding. As such it it has no weight and shouldnt be in the article imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The reader understands "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[4][5]" The research is still the infancy stages but we have to tell the reader the current state of knowledge.

The text is a sourced assumption from the Burstyn source based on the current evidence. If editors want to tweak the text (without altering the meaning) or expand it that would be fine with mean. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a finding, its speculative. Until you have research on it from a reliable source, it has no place here. The reference you use says there is no problem but that if levels rise to a specific point some research should be done. Since it hasnt been done its in the future. We have no idea when or if such a study will even be done. There isnt even a date or a discussion of when it may possibly be done. What you have is a suggestion. As such its way to soon to add the excerp that raises questions when the source itself says there is no evidence of a problem at present. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FUTURE: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,..."

It is sourced research from a reliable WP:MEDRS compliant systematic review (PMID 24406205). Sources can make assumptions and we can write about it here. If there is an issue with the current wording please improve the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here let me put the whole sentence you cut off "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Seculation about causes, maybe, but speculation about something that hasnt been proved to even happen isnt proper.

The full section from Burstyn that you pulled the statement from

"By the standards of occupational hygiene, current data do not indicate that exposures to vapers from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern. There are no known toxicological synergies among compounds in the aerosol, and mixture of the contaminants does not pose a risk to health. However, exposure of vapers to propylene glycol and glycerin reaches the levels at which, if one were considering the exposure in connection with a workplace setting, it would be prudent to scrutinize the health of exposed individuals and examine how exposures could be reduced. This is the basis for the recommendation to monitor levels and effects of prolonged exposure to propylene glycol and glycerin that comprise the bulk of emissions from electronic cigarettes other than nicotine and water vapor. "

A little later in the same section.

"The cautions about propylene glycol and glycerin apply only to the exposure experienced by the vapers themselves. Exposure of bystanders to the listed ingredients, let alone the contaminants, does not warrant a concern as the exposure is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than exposure experienced by vapers. "

Its a recommendation to do something if specific things happen. But it hasnt been found to happen yet and the resarch has not been done. Since it hasnt been done,its in the future, speculative in questioning if something should be done, it has no weight. Not only that but the source says there is no concern for anyone but the vaper further down. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, the original quote was about the vaper, not second hand aerosol so its out of context and does not prove the point made. Since that is the case, I removed it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why are you cherry-picking sentences within the paper, that have a lot more context than we can provide here, instead of summarizing the "Key Findings" section? Here the context is: If it had been within a work-space environment, then the amount inhaled would be so high that, despite not being a health risk, one would try to minimize the exposure ... But it isn't, it is a voluntary exposure, and all Bustyn concludes from this, is that more research should be done into what physiological effects this might have. Not to mention that you've put it into the "second hand aerosol" section, when it is rather clearly isn't about side-stream vapor but instead about directly inhaled vapor. Finally: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository if information, we don't just pick and choose things that we personally find interesting. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Marked off second-hand aerosol section as NPOV suspect

I've marked off the section as not NPOV, since there is now an almost singular reliance on cherry-picked aspects from the Grana review, with no apparent real attempt at seeing what the general weight of the issue is in other reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided other reviews to add balance to the section. I am more than happy to expand the section or add content to balance the section. You have not provided additional information from other sources and there is no weight issue. You haven't shown any problem with anything. Please provide other sources for editors to add more information. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Other reviews discussing the topic of 2nd hand exposure to e-cig aerosol, which should be added to the section: McNeill et al. (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), Bates (2014), West et al. (2014), Burstyn (2013). Clearly the weight of evidence stands against Grana et al., so, until these are properly reviewed and discussed, this section cannot be seen as compliant with WP:NPOV. Mihaister (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources are in the article and what is the reference number for each source in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to look at the way some of these quotes are being used. I removed one quote that was out of context, I believe the heavy metals is out of context as well. Looking at Grana the heavy metals are not in the second hand exposure section. Aerosol doesnt always mean second hand, it can indicate what is coming from the device. As such it would be wrong to place in the second hand section unless studies found it to be in exhaled vapor. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When it is not second hand aerosol the text can be moved to the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What i'd rather like to know, is why you want to focus on heavy metals at all? Given that Burstyn addresses this, in a review that is specifically addressed at examining the individual risks in vapor, and comes to the conclusion that "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern" and this with the context of saying that the papers on this topic are non-conclusive/non-comprehensive (by for instance confusing table-salt with sodium [see section Inorganic compounds in Burstyn]). And since Grana is a non-specific paper (about all aspects of vaping including policy recommendations), and which doesn't actually cite or quantify the "risk". I have a real hard time understanding why any WP:WEIGHT is given to this. Quite frankly it seems cherry-picked to me. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern" I did summarise this point per weight. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And once more you completely ignore my question on WP:WEIGHT and why you think this is something that should go into the article. And further why the Burstyn (the specialized review) is quoted second, while the Grana (broad, unfocused paper) is quoted first. You also haven't addressed the questions about other reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you split up the two thoughts, so I just edited them next to each other.

I aslo did some editing on the conitinine claim to reflect what the study actually did. It orignally said this

Nonsmokers when exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood.

I replaced it with this

"Nonsmokers when exposed to e-cigarette aerosol produced by a machine and pumped into a room were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood.[2] The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper, so the results may be higher than in actual second hand exposure." AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But your reply still does not explain why you used a study that was clearly about first hand exposure in the second hand exposure section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You can move any text to the appropriate section when it is not second hand exposure. The sentence beginning with "Nonsmokers when exposed" is about exposure into a room and it also compared it to the actual second hand exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just did as you suggested, editing out things already covered in the safety section so as not to duplicate and add excess weight. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The second hand section now reads as:

Second hand aerosol

Although research is limited, it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed. E-cigarettes do not smolder the way traditional cigarettes do, so they do not emit smoke, but bystanders are at a potential risk to the exhaled e-cigarette aerosol. Generally e-cigarette aerosol has notably fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke (other than particulates) and is likely to pose less harm to others. Other studies concluded that the current evidence indicates that the levels of contaminants are not of significant health concern for human exposures by the standards used in workplaces to ensure safety. Nonsmokers when exposed to e-cigarette aerosol produced by a machine and pumped into a room were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood. The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper, so the results may be higher than in actual second hand exposure. There are concerns about pregnant women using e-cigarettes or are subjected to second hand e-cigarette aerosol.

It looks more balanced to me, lets let others chime in AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is fine me but we can expand it with other reviews as suggested. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Other reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest? AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12659/pdf Passive exposure page 3. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What little there is in that section, is already covered in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Much more balanced, but i find the first sentence to be more a personal/bias comment. What does "detectable levels of nicotine metabolite..." mean? Quantity is important... The Grana review has been criticized for exactly this kind of non-specific and vague commentary, so i don't think we should include that "as-is", rather find a more specific and quantitative description. --Kim D. Petersen 21:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to second guess or question reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you are strawmanning what i said (i do not second-guess any source), assessing reliable sources, and judging what parts that are useful is exactly what we should be doing per WP:MEDASSESS(WP:MEDRS) and WP:WEIGHT(WP:NPOV). We can't just cherry-pick what we like and defend it on the basis that "it is in a reliable source"... editing involves making judgements and assessments of what material we use. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It means that they detected continine, a chemical that shows nicotine was present but the body broke it down. But I do have a nagging question in the back of my mind. Isnt a machine working an ecigarette and the aerosol pumped into a room first hand exposure instead of second hand? AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is (sort of). But the reason that i stated that rhetorical question is because of its non-specificy, and because i just read a paper that examined just this[6](not a WP:MEDRS - we will have to wait until it gets mention in a review) - and they find a cotinine level that is so low that it couldn't produce a physiological effect (such as heart-rate acceleration). --Kim D. Petersen 22:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Grana says its 0.5 ng/mL for e-cigarette. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is afaik below the lowest observed adverse effect level for nicotine. Quantity matters. --Kim D. Petersen 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Cotinine states that "Cotinine levels <10 ng/mL are considered to be consistent with no active smoking." and below levels for moderate passive exposure. Unfortunately no reference is given. --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough Grana here has an error, since the Flouris et al(2013)[7] study finds serum cotinine levels for passive vaping at 2.6 ± 0.6 ng/mL. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that Grana has errors. :) AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Still well below the 10 ng/mL threshold you mentioned so the error is a moot point. Either way, I'm inclined to agree with Kim that quantity matters for the reasons she mentioned above. If they're present at detectable levels, but below levels known to be physiologically harmful (or if they're above and at levels known to be harmful), then I agree that this is important information and merits mention in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, if the whole section isnt considered a moot point because of the level and removed, then it needs to be addressed in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other reviews

• Hajek et al. (2014) Passive exposure page 3

• Farsalinos and Polosa (2014)

• Bates (2014)

• West et al. (2014), Burstyn (2013).

Which sources are already in the article? Please point to where they are in the article. What is the reference number for each one in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(PMID 25083263) QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of studies on a limited group being used to make statements about the general population

Is it appropriate to use studies that deal in numbers less than say 5k to make assumptions about the general population? AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. But it depends on the study and how it is presented/considered in the secondary literature. If several reviews point out data from such a study, and if there is no real contradiction within these reviews, then it most certainly is appropriate --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we shouldn't be using primary research anyway, I agree we should wait for secondary literature to make a pronouncement on the study sizes. Mihaister (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To which study do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

At this time the question was general in nature. 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinoFerret (talk • contribs)

Dual use

I've reverted this[8] simplification by User:Jmh649. My reason for doing so, was that:

• It is not supported by Grana, the citation given - the maximum Grana states is that dual use is "High" or "Major".
• Even if correct, it may oversimply. Here i mean that if the typical pattern (which i don't know is correct) of usage is that people start with dual-use, then singular use and finally stopping - then that pattern might have high dual-use, but still be within a cessation pattern. And thus the text could mislead us.

--Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm i have to correct that a bit - since Grana does state that "The epidemiological, population-based studies indicate that, across countries, e-cigarettes are most commonly being used concurrently with conventional tobacco cigarettes (dual use).", which i apparently overlooked. But i'm still not convinced that we can A) put that as fact in WP's voice B) singularly base this on Grana C) do it without promoting a narrative that might mislead. Discuss? --Kim D. Petersen 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

it appears that User:Jmh649 is making a lot of major edits without consensus, including taking a referenced section out. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has stated "The majority of e-cigarette users continue to smoke traditional cigarettes." for a long time. Thus I was simply restoring the previous language.

We have a long standing agreement that we will use high quality secondary sources. In fact consensus supports this. Not sure when this entered the article [9] but it is not a review and it is not even pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While the article may have said "majority" for some time, the reference, Grana makes no such claim. In fact the word "majority" is only used once and that instance deals with the length of time ecigarettes were used. The sentence that we can find in Grana is "e-cigarettes are most commonly being used concurrently with conventional tobacco cigarettes (dual use)" and "The most common outcome was dual use of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes" the words "most commonly" are used. I changed the article to match the reference rather than remove the whole thing because it wasnt referenced. I will be changing it back to reflect what Grana actually says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally your edit of "According to a 2014 review, although the evidence is limited, research suggests high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes with traditional cigarettes, no proven cessation assistance, and a rapid increase in youth awareness with e-cigarettes" removed what Grana actually says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We must paraphrase. The previous wording was a little too close to the source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Emissions in lede info being removed

@AlbinoFerret and Mihaister: Both of you removed the statement "The e-cigarette aerosol emissions contain the addictive drug nicotine, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals. (Grana)" from the lede, saying to check the talk page. This seems like a reasonable enough addition to that space. What is your objection to it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary was "Undid revision 628952674 by Jmh649 (talk) read talk page before reverting". This was incorrect. There was no specific discussion to remove it from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it; it's in the (good) source so in lieu of a very good reason for exclusion, we should relay what the source says. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is already being discussed in the talk section and its not settled. Additions could have been better served on the talk page to reach consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See ongoing discussions here and here. Mihaister (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no ongoing discussions to delete the sentence from the lede and no rationale argument is being made to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite: consensus has to be rooted in our WP:PAGs; vexatious objections don't count for anything. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest you propose your addition in the working draft of the LEDE under discussion above on this page, so that we may reach consensus. Mihaister (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article may be edited at any time by any editor in line with our WP:PAGs; forming a local consensus on a big topic like this is futile and making it a choke point to deflect unwanted edits smacks of WP:OWNership. I note you are now edit warring your preferred version of the lede, and you have been warned accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I disagree with your characterization of the situation, and rather consider that the current edits to the article lede are part of the typical WP:BRDC. However, I'm inclined to view the continued B edits to the article lede as intent to sidestep the DC part of BRDC. That being said, I do wish to continue having a civilized discussion on this topic, and, if others consider that a prerequisite of continued discussion is to have this statement in the article lede, so be it. Mihaister (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems an important (and short) addition and worth having. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While it may be important and short, it was already in the article, it was just copied and placed in the lede. Perhaps more should be just copied and pasted into the lede, and we can then have one that has mammoth paragraphs. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not copied and placed in the lede. It is slightly different than the text in the body. The lede should summarise the body. Your objection is not the specific text. Your objection is the entire paragraphs lede. You obviously disagree with Wikipedia's WP:LEADLENGTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well in for a penny, in for a pound. If we are going to add things in the article already there are a dozen or so Id like to add in the intrest of NPOV. We can keep it to four paragraphs as you pointed out in WP:LEADLENGTH, but they might get to be big ones. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Framework Convention Alliance policy statement

On 7 October 2014, FCA released their briefing for the upcoming FCTC COP-6. You can read it here. Do you think this fits the MEDRS definition of reputable scientific body?

Even if it doesn't, I find this is a rare document by a notable organization that portrays the complexity of the public health debate surrounding the topic of e-cigarettes without appearing to advocate for one side or the other. Interesting read... Mihaister (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how the FCA helps in the formation of the FCTC negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization and also monitors compliance with the treaty I would say it fits that section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)