Talk:Electronic cigarette

Vapor

Technically, e-cigarettes do not emit vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Prey tell how the emissions from e-cigarettes technically isn't Vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, we have a liquid that is heated to its gaseous form (vapor), with a visible cloud (aerosol) from droplets condensing from the vapor cooling down in the surrounding atmosphere. I would technically call that vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentance of the article lays it out "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" A Vaporizer is a device that creates Vapor. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas" [Cheng 2014] Cloudjpk (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How may secondary sources (reviews) do you want to have that state that it vaporizes liquid? Short list: Brown et al(2014), Pub.Health England(2014), Caponnetto et al(2012), O'Conner et al(2012), Farsalinos(2014) ... just the first 5 papers that were in my personal folder on E-Cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Nb: To be entirely correct both aerosol and vapor are relevant, since the visible part of the emissions definitively is an aerosol, but the process itself is an evaporation one. You evaporate (to vapor) a liquid, that later condenses in the air to make a visible cloud(aerosol). But what we have to go by here under all circumstances is WP:COMMONNAME, and that gives us vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The gist is basically the same - there is a common way of referring to this: Vaping/Vaporizing/Vapor - most e-cigarette reviews use this particular way to describe it, that a single source exists that claim otherwise, doesn't really change it. It is vaporizing - not creating an aerosol, vapor not aerosol etc.

Or in short: The significant majority of WP:MEDRS sources call it vapor - thus we call it vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very simply: The significant majority of the most reliable sources on this topic call it vapor => We call it vapor. Please see WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" don't you understand? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So demonstrate that the prevalence reliable sources (that means not just one), conclude that it is incorrect. What you are basically saying is that your source is correct, every other very reliable source is incorrect. That is why we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRUTH, to solve that kind of problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly; these are standard terms: Vapor and Aerosol. The source cited merely explains which term is the accurate one here. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the prevalence in reliable sources is what Wikipedia goes by. Not by what some editors consider the WP:TRUTH. --Kim D. Petersen 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We can go by what the 2014 source says that clarifies the matter and not what some editors think. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the majority of sources are incorrect, and the one source must be correct, because it "clarifies the matter" to your liking? Can you spell WP:POV? --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What other source clarified the matter and explained the issue in detail? QuackGuru (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you even reading these threads? Or are you simply being disruptive? I've cited 5 studies that specify that an e-cigarette vaporizes/turns liquid into vapor. --Kim D. Petersen 08:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Those studies don't clarify the difference. QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

They dont need to clarify the difference, thats the point. Even if they did we are supposed to use the common words for a general audience per WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are mossing is that WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article, not WP:COMMONNAME which is about the articles Title or name. But even looking at WP:COMMONNAME it shows what WP:MEDMOS says that we should use normal general words, not Jargon. Per WP:MEDMOS "Wikipedia is written for the general reader" and it says to avoid jargon. The article isnt called ENDS but E-cigarette so plain English is preferred. Vapor is plain English. Aerosol sounds like something coming out of a spray can to most common people. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an opportunity for the article to provide that info! What are commonly used terms, what are accurate terms, etc. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thant would go against the clear wording of WP:MEDMOS of writing to a general audience. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still a problem in the article about the inaccurate name. See WP:COMMONNAME: Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

...and if you'd read the rest of this section in wp:COMMONNAME...
"Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.
My bolding so you don't miss it again.TMCk (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You got sucked into a bait and switch. They are not arguing against the name of the article, but words used in the article and using wikipedia guidelines for the name of the article to prove their point which is wrong. WP:MEDMOS controls the wording of the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I'm following this article & talkpage for quite a while. I was just pointing out QuackGuru's unsurprisingly selective reading.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that explains the wording is obviously inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if its inaccurate its in general usage that the General reader understands. Read WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite there not being a consensus on this, several editors now are inserting this into the article as fact (example [1]). Please desist unless a consensus has been reached. --Kim D. Petersen 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviews that do not agree with Cheng:

• Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) provide nicotine via a vapour that is drawn into the mouth, upper airways and possibly lungs [2,3]. (Brown et al 2014)
• Drawing air through the e-cigarette triggers the heater to create vapour which contains nicotine and is inhaled (Public Health England 2014)
• powered by a lithium-ion rechargeable battery that is designed to vaporize nicotine to be inhaled (Caponnetto et al 2012)
• work by vaporizing a solution containing nicotine dissolved with flavorants in a carrier medium (usually propylene glycol (O'Connor 2012)
• They are battery-operated devices, used to vaporise a liquid that may or may not contain nicotine. )(Farsalinos et al. 2014)
• Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems) are battery-operated devices designed to vaporize a liquid solution of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine which also contains water and flavourings and may or may not contain nicotine (Saitta 2014)

I can find loads more. So relying entirely on Cheng is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edditing is even being done without reading the sentence and comprehending what it says. It looks like someone is searching for a word and just changes it. here is a diff with an example. I originally made the edit to say "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper" using a common word to describe someone using a vaporizer. Someone changed it to "The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the aerosol". AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references; your second reference agrees with Cheng:

• affects levels of nicotine transferred from a cartridge into aerosol...dose and speed of absorption of nicotine from the aerosol (Public Health England 2014)
• Your other sources hardly contradict Cheng; e.g. Farsilanos never uses "vapor" merely "vaporise"; the liquid is indeed vaporized, that does not mean vapor is what is inhaled. This is clarified by Hajek [It is also important to differentiate between the chemical compositions of e-liquid and aerosols that users inhale]

Other sources using aerosol:

• [Electronic cigarette aerosol particle size distribution measurements]
• [Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol]
• [Comparison of the aerosol produced by electronic cigarettes with conventional cigarettes and the shisha]
• [EC aerosol can contain some of the toxicants present in tobacco smoke]
• [In vitro particle size distributions in electronic and conventional cigarette aerosols suggest comparable deposition patterns]
• [E-cigarette aerosols may contain propylene glycol, glycerol, flavourings, other chemicals and, usually, nicotine]
• [smoke (conventional cigarettes) or aerosol (e-cigarettes)]
• [quantify the quantity of exhaled aerosol]
• [Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed]
• [Electronic cigarettes (EC) deliver aerosol by heating fluid containing nicotine]
• [Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor)]
• [Variability Among Electronic Cigarettes in the Pressure Drop, Airflow Rate, and Aerosol Production]
• [An electronic cigarette...is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution which then condenses to aerosols]
• [Electronic cigarettes (i.e., e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices that delivery nicotine in an aerosol to the user]
• [ENDS, of which electronic cigarettes are the most common prototype, deliver an aerosol by heating a solution that users inhale...secondhand ENDS aerosol]
• [Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are battery-powered devices that provide doses of nicotine and other additives to the user in an aerosol]
• [Forty-four articles are included in this analysis. E-cigarette aerosols may contain propylene glycol, glycerol, flavourings, other chemicals and, usually, nicotine]
• [Common e-cigarette components include an aerosol generator, a flow sensor, a battery and a nicotine-containing solution storage area. E-cigarettes currently include many interchangeable parts, enabling users to modify the character of the delivered aerosol]

We need not rely entirely on Cheng. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And what amount of those are reviews? (ie. secondary sources) - i can do an indiscriminate search on Google Scholar as well, especially if i can load the question with what i want to hear. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk WE? Can everyone say Meatpuppet?? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO and Grana. Another is yours: Public Health England 2014. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Once more you are confusing usage of a word (aerosol) with the process, where both vapor and aerosol is produced. To give you an example of a similar situation: Above boiling water, you have both vapor (water vapor), and aerosol (the droplets that condense, and which we see as the white steam), the same is the case here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

By checking each, only 2 of your sources are secondary: Hajek and WHO - and the WHO report uses vapour. (example: "especially where smoking is banned until exhaled vapour is proven to be not harmful to bystanders") So, most are unusable as references. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And since you appear to be hard on understanding: There is both vapor and aerosol. You evaporate the liquid (liquid -> gas), and later it cools down and generates a vapor with aerosol drops, because it condenses. [read back, i've written that several times]. So, No, they do not agree with you. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another secondary source: [ASHRAE] "While the word vapor is used to describe what e-cigarettes produce, and vaping is a term used to describe the process of inhaling from an e-cigarette, the emissions out of the mouthpiece are not actually a vapor, which is a gas, but rather they are primarily an aerosol. This aerosol consists of submicron particles of the condensed vapor of glycols containing the nicotine and flavorants." Cloudjpk (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a WP:MEDRS source. As far as i can tell it is (possibly) an engineering journal? Difficult to tell what it really is[2] --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE [About] Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Cloudjpk (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE describes itself as: "ASHRAE advances the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world. With more than 53,000 members from over 132 nations, ASHRAE is a diverse organization representing building system design and industrial processes professionals around the world." - so Not a source usable here. --Kim D. Petersen 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Cloudjpk (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That you really should know by now. Please see WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources. --Kim D. Petersen 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether "aerosol" or "vapor" is the accurate term here is a question of physics, not health or medicine. WP:MEDRS does not apply. Please see WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It dosent matter if its 100% accurate, the articles are written to a general audience using words in general usage whenever possible. Since this issue is style related WP:MEDMOS controls since ists about the body of the article. You want to start pulling links for general usage? I have thousands, maybe even ten thousand for vapor and none of them will use aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for the article explaining how a common usage is inaccurate. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is this based upon trying to fix the misunderstanding that the emissions from an e-cigarette should be water vapor? Because if so, you are going about this wrong. Any gas can be a vapor. The vapor generated from an e-cigarette, is a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerine, some water vapor, and nicotine, and the visible "smoke-like" emission is the condensing of PG and VG. --Kim D. Petersen 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this below, but its also fitting here, so I am copying it in.

The problem is that the common term is a vaporizer and an aerosol is only part of the vapor.

Per Merriam Webster (a common source of definitions for use when writing for a general audience)

aero·sol : a substance (such as hair spray or medicine) that is kept in a container under pressure and that is released as a fine spray when a button is pressed

Full Definition of AEROSOL

1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol <stratospheric aerosols>

2: a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

As this shows the inaccurate term for what is coming out of a ecigarette is aerosol, not vapor. Vapor is an aerosol. It is inaccurate to call it by its generic description because it also could mean mist, fog, smoke, etc. Not only that the most common usage is a spray can, thats what the general reader is going to think we are talking about, something under pressure, only ecigarettes dont work that way, they are not emitting a pressurized vapor. As a side note for the rest of the article, in the context of second hand exposure its not pressurized coming from the users mouth.

This whole discussion is based on its accuracy, but as shown above, its aerosol that is the inaccurate term for the general reader, our target audience per WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The only particulate that I've notice in the "vapor" are from the coatings on the heating element or other parts of the hardware (using Aspire DBC) crumbling and having tiny black junk go into my mouth. If there were true particulates then I would be coughing up junk after chain-vaping, as has happened when I used to smoke cigs. This is just my observations, not based on any sources. Perhaps some cheaper disposable types have particulates (I've seen aluminum compounds mentioned) however when using a tank system I'm not sure there's anything but "vape".~Technophant (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The conversation above and its companion below is incredibly.. fucking... stupid. And what is more stupid is that the article is disrupted by tags on every instance of particle. Infantile. SOLVE THE PROBLEM; DO NOT DISRUPT THE ARTICLE Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Jytdog here. The WP:POINTY and obnoxious tagging of every instance of "particle" was ridiculous. Yobol (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No more stupid than calling fog "particulates" and linking to atmospheric pollution. Some editors in this discussion refuse to realize that we're exposed to many type of particles daily and that some present a health risk, while others are harmless. And it's not particle size that makes for the risk, but rather chemical composition: eg, PAHs in diesel exhaust soot particulates may pose a health hazard, whereas the "particulates" wafting above your pasta are absolutely no cause for concern. Mihaister (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Particulates#Size.2C_shape_and_solubility_matter Cloudjpk (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The sheer number of "particles" in the section is staggering. The campaign to remove the word vapor from the article is insane. As pointed out numerous times, the article is written for the general reader and the general term used to describe what comes out of a e-cigarette is vapor. Its even used in MEDRS. The insanity is that the word "mist" was used in its place in a lot of areas. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed

Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed? We have three options:

1. No POV tag
2. POV tag at the top
3. POV-section tag for the health section

14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Positions

• Support 1 or 3. Do not support 2. Clearly defined issues with the lead are not supported. Just because one editor does not like a review article by Grana published in one of the most reputable journals in the world, Circulation does not mean we need to tag the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 2 since general POV problems in an article, by its very nature is reflected in the lede. I dislike Jmh's strawman above about me not "like[ing] a review article by Grana" since that is not correct. Grana is a significant secondary review article on the topic, but it is not the end-all-be-all article on e-cigarettes, and therefore relying too heavily on the Grana review is WP:UNDUE. He also ignores that there are other POV problems with the article, primarily created by a single editor (not Doc James), which is the major reason for the problems. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 3 1 (misread the list) Coming in from the outside of this discussion (mostly), I'm quite quite surprised by the intensity with which every minor point on this article becomes a battleground. Are people really spending hours arguing about the use of the word "vapor" vs mist or aerosol? Reading the article in its current state, and comparing it to the cited references, it seems to me to be closer to NPOV than the great majority of articles on Wikipedia. Particularly since most of the argument is about issues for which there is little data, and for which much greater clarity will be forthcoming over the next 1-2 years. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 1. I've been avoiding this article for the most part due to the intense disputes that occur over even the slightest wording differences. That we are citing a high quality source like Circulation is a good thing, not a reason to tag the article as has been suggested. I also find NPOV tagging to be used as a "tag of shame" or an "I don't agree with the POV of the article but I can't get consensus to go my way" tag, rather than as the intended use of getting outside contributions. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 1. Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2. Do not support 1, but I may consider 3, if a compelling argument is made. What hangs me up between 2 and 3 is that the lede also shows the POV problem; however, the sections of the article not directly related to health do not appear to be too far from NPOV. Perhaps two "section" tags are needed - one for the lede, and another for the health section - as a 4th Option. Onto the POV problem, I find Jmh's presentation oversimplifies (and adds to) the pervasive slant of the article. The article currently reads like an annotated conspectus of the Grana study. There is continued, unjustified resistance towards a MEDRS secondary-source critique of the Grana study (see [3]). In contrast, health claims and other hypothetical or imaginary scenarios aligned with the overall POV are supported by what are clearly and decidedly primary sources that do not meet MEDRS standards ([4]). In addition, Grana statements are made in Wikipedia's own voice while other significant secondary reviews referenced in the article (those that do not support the POV) are given far less than their due weight and being discussed using distancing constructs such as "A 2014 review found it is safe to presume..." Mihaister (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 1 I see POV tags as being unhelpful and an admission of defeat for WP. Better remove the tag and discuss what the alleged POV is. If no agreement can be reached than have an RfC on that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• 2 perfered, 3 possibly. Grana, is published in Circulation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Very little if any of the refrences in the Wikipedia e-cigarettes article are on cardiovascular medical topics. Therefore it should impact the ammount used in the article and should be in proportion to articles of a similar topic published by Circulation. Grana is overused. With the few review articles published, one should not overrank the others if it expresses views the others disagree with regardless where it is published. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Nictoine is a major cause of heart attacks and strokes and causes about a third of all cardiovascular deaths (in the US). Therefore, any device that delivers nicotine is legitimately "a cardiovascular topic". I agree that it's not exclusively a cardiovascular topic—it should be a manufacturing topic and a legal topic, just to name two obvious ones—but it is a cardiovascular topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    Curious, are you talking about nicotine here or about tobacco? Because if it is nicotine that you are talking about, then it seems to be incorrect:

    Up to 5 years of nicotine gum use in the Lung Health Study was unrelated to cardiovascular diseases or other serious side effects [Murray et al. 1996]. A meta-analysis of 35 clinical trials found no evidence of cardiovascular or other life-threatening adverse effects caused by nicotine intake [Greenland et al. 1998]. Even in patients with established cardiovascular disease, nicotine use in the form of NRTs does not increase cardiovascular risk [Woolf et  al. 2012; Benowitz and Gourlay, 1997]. It is anticipated that any product delivering nicotine without involving combustion, such as the EC, would confer a significantly lower risk compared with conventional cigarettes and to other nicotine containing combustible products.

    — Farsalinos&Polosa(2014)

--Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• • all of that is patently and demonstrably false. It also shows a clear intent to derail the discussion with false and misleading interpretations of the literature. Hmmm sounds familiar [5]. The claims made above refer to smoking statistics, not nicotine by itself, or any other non-combustible tobacco product. In fact, the weight of evidence on NRT shows that nicotine (when divorced from tobacco smoke) is a fairly safe chemical with little or no potential for dependence. Mihaister (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• 2 Of course there should be a tag, there are long-standing POV issues with the article that have been clearly set out by those holding them. A more accurate name for the article would be "Negative Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes"; in other words the article is POV and preoccupied with health effects. An example of this is that the "Health Effects" section is at the top of the article, before even the "Construction" has been described. Another example of the bias is the zillion references to Grana, a study posted in a cardiovascular journal that is simply not the single-most important piece of e-cigarette research ever but is however particularly cynical. Yet another example is the Smoking Cessation section which pays almost no regard to the fact that electronic cigarettes are recreational devices, not medical devices, often used for harm-reduction, not cessation.

With regard to tag placement, the issues affect the lead so keep it at the top, no point in putting multiple tags throughout the article.Levelledout (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• 1 No tag, the purpose of the tag per the tag's own documentation is already fulfilled so the tag is unnecessary. Zad68 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• 1 No tag is necessary. There are a lot of editors editing this article. We should remove the "tag of shame". QuackGuru (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So let us go through the two top problems which haven't been addressed (and in fact just been getting worse) since the tag went up:

• Too much reliance on a single review Grana, which at the moment is cited 43 times(!) as opposed to the 2nd most which is cited 7 12 times. Grana is strangely also the most negative review that we currently have, and most cites are for negative information. That gives us a large measure of WP:UNDUE.
• We are using CDC's "Notes from the Field" to cite medical data, despite that CDC themselves describe[6] these "Notes from the Field" as " may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information." in clear violation of WP:MEDRS.

--Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

At risk of getting sucked into the endless debates here, I'd say the ratio of cites to the two reviews in this Wikipedia article is quite reasonable. Circulation is a first tier journal, and Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety is a second or third tier journal that I run across once or twice a year. TADS is rarely cited by papers in other journals (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199817&tip=sid&clean=0). Circulationis a much more influential journal, whose average paper is cited 13 times. http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=22581&tip=sid&clean=0 Formerly 98 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in Addiction is cited 12 times. (i took the wrong review). And that is a first tier journal for this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem just inst the number of refrences. I have found the ones added mostly have a negitive slant added to them either not accuratly saying what Grana says, placing them in such an order on the page to create something that isnt said, or repeting the same thing over and over. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol:Of course Grana should be cited, just as every other significant secondary WP:MEDRS review should be. The problem is not Grana itself, but the overuse of a single review, to the extent that our article looks more like a copy of Grana (with some sprinklings of other sources thrown in), instead of an encyclopedic writeup that " fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Overly relying on one source is not WP:NPOV --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The Scopus Scientific Influence Ranking, based on citations per article, is 2.2 for Addiction and 8.2 for Circulation. For a benchmark, the NEJM, which is the most widely cited medical journal is 13.5. So Circulation gets cited about 60% as often as the most cited medical journal, for Addiction its 13%. Circulation is by far the more respected and influential of the two. see WP:USEBYOTHERS Formerly 98 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not 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. In contrast, the journal Addiction, for example, ranks #1 for the topic of Substance Abuse (ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2013 [7]). The weight given to a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight.

Moreover, attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in 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 views 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).

The weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than the reputation of one journal in a different field. Mihaister (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mihaister, The topic the article is written on impacts the prominance of the citation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Also one article in a journal, no matter where, does not make the overwhelming refrences against its possistion less.

AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(replace deleted tag)

I also agree with Mihaister and Kim D. Petersen, the fact that Circulation is well respected in the field of cardiovascular health does not excuse the extreme amount of weight that the Grana article currently has here.

With regards to CDC data, clearly, its a primary source, it should be removed.Levelledout (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

One point everyone may have missed. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal .... or that reports material in a different field" Grana is a report on material in a different field than the journal it is written in. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert on this subject but I would just make the comment that on a first reading this article does not seem to me to present an obviously biased view. There are a few overexcited comments about dangerous chemicals but generally the article give the impression that the article gives a balanced view of things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed before the rfc was closed, and there is no clear consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not 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" This would be a great argument if this was just an article about the addictive properties of e-cigarettes. In fact, the health issues covered by the article are much broader than this, and range into areas that are completely outside Addiction's scope of coverage. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Which equally applies to Circulation. But this is really moot, since it is not the publication venue (journals) themselves that determines WP:WEIGHT, and i'm surprised that you'd even mention that. The publication venue is the determining factor for reliability - but not for merit and weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point that the articles scope is in fact more favorable to the argument of weight applied to the topic of articles in Circulation. The additional topics in Grana and the wikipedia article are also outside the usual topics in Circulation playing more into its lessened weight. Publishing articles outside of the usual topics of a journal plays into weight because it is not reviewed by those best suited to review the claims it makes. Your also wrong in that the NPOV problem the article has is that the article reads and is structured to give prominence to health effects. Ecigarettes, while a consumer product has been overtaken by a medical agenda. The overloading of the page with health effects quotes when so little is known, and sources conflict each other is one proof of that. Grana should be used, but the amount of use should be alot less. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UT

Yes I agree with AlbinoFerret that the journal used for publishing research does affect the research's reliability. The Wikipedia article's subject is entirely irrelevant. The point is that the subject of the research should match the speciality of the journal as closely as possible. The idea is that poor research is far more likely to slip past peer reviewers if it is posted in a journal that does not specialise in the type of research that has been conducted. Whether or not this affects the weight is questionable, but it does affect whether the source should be included at all.

One thing I will say is that reading the WP:WEIGHT section, the enormous weight that Grana currently has here seems to go against most of that policy seeing as WP:WEIGHT is actually about:

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

It is also about explaining the majority view, any opposing views and any minority views. I do not believe that one review can become the majority view simply because it was published in a popular cardiovascular journal. The opinions of editors regarding the journal are in any case irrelevant in determining weight. It's just one source.Levelledout (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done a lot of editing to the article this evening including changes of the order of the article to address a situation Levelledout pointed out above that I thought was strange and adding to the NPOV issue. They may make the question this section addresses moot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this, I think it's fully appropriate to use the street vernacular "vaporized", but also to explain the difference between the misty aerosol and true vapor. I should note that this terminology was used for many decades in reference to schemes for heating marijuana without burning it which produced a more genuine vapor. (Speaking of marijuana, we should detail the adaptation of the devices to work with cannabis oil, which is one of the first and most interesting things I read about them) We need a clearer explanation of how a cigarette-like smoke is produced by the devices. The explanation should cover the marketing aspects -- as the advertisements make quite clear, one of the biggest draws of the mist is that people can look so "cool" standing around puffing their addictive smoke in all directions without the limitations that have been placed on tobacco. We should also see if we can answer the question of how far the aerosol particles actually go (rather than just the amount of cotinine in coworkers' blood). Wnt (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know, e-cigs aren't/can't be converted to vaporize cannabis oil (too thick methinks). I think you are talking about dry herb vaporizers not e-cigs... similar concept but not quite the same. As for the advertisement/marketing angle, haven't seen that on this side of the pond, can you refer to some 2ndry sources for this? --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The type specimen for the ad is [8]. Secondary sources... it's not my field and I'm not necessarily hitting them. Searching around I find sources like [9] [10] [11] that are neither very good nor really make the argument that I think is obvious from watching a commercial like that, that the "black and white movie appeal" of the strategic exhalation is something valuable in itself. Regarding marijuana, there are articles like [12] [13] [14] [15]. I am getting an impression from these and some informal sources that the cannabis may be vaporized at a higher temperature than the nicotine solution, even when it is in wax, and therefore there is a preference for metal e-cigs, but how sure can I be of that after just a few minutes of searching? Would be worth pursuing, though. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing order of sections

There has been a change in the ordering of sections without consensus [16] I have thus restored the ordering. Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells us to edit boldly, there is no need for consensus before making changes. The changes were made as a result of a comment in the rfc section though not on the specific topic of that section. The reasons were that it closely matches the order of the lede. The articles name is Electronic cigarette, not health effects of e-cigarettes. The top sections should be about it as the lede does. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, you are the only one of the regular editors who are married to the current ordering. This isn't a medical article, it contains some physiological and effects stuff - but at the base it is an article about a new type of product. Personally i'm all for the reordering. And i'm rather vexxed that you would edit-war without trying to get consensus, or explain why there is a consensus for this ordering, Doc James. --Kim D. Petersen 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. You two are requiring a RfC for the movement of the NPOV tag. And yet are edit warring this change in ordering. No BRD for you two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually you were the one who was "requiring a RfC"[17]. I can't see the need for such, since dispute resolutions haven't run out yet. --Kim D. Petersen 17:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And i'm not seeing any explanations as to why your version should be the consensus one, which is what you claimed in your reverts[18][19], instead you run to a "friendly" board to get backing --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just filed a 3rr edit warring violation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim, I suggest you review what WP:CAN actually says before throwing those sorts of accussations around. Particularly the part beginning with "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." Formerly 98 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And why would an editor call on a board, without having exhausted the possibilities here on the discussion page? Do note that Doc James was the first to cast the WP:CAN stone. I find the lack of discussion here to be confusing. Doc James should've presented his case here, not just do a vexatious claim of consensus, that isn't even apparent.

So present your case as to why the medical section must come first. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so that we ensure that WP:CAN is accurately represented here, I have reviewed what is actually says and note that it also says "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner..."Levelledout (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the new ordering with "construction" first is far more logical. This article is about a class of devices, which should obviously be described first, before any controversy as to effects. 24.16.2.248 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The recent changes to the sections were confusing. AlbinoFerret recently filed a fake 3rr violation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The board is for Edit Warring, you dont need to make more than 3 reverts to be found guilty of that. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to look at this issue is to follow the WP:NPOV advice of looking at how it is being treated in reliable sources. Try the following Google searches:

• NYTimes e-cigarette
• WSJ e-cigarette
• Newseek e-cigarette
• Time Magazine e-cigarette
• CBS News e-cigarette

There are few or no media stories leading off with a discussion of what sort of fashion statement e-cigarettes are making, how they are constructed, what the latest e-juice cocktail is, where they are made, etc. 90% of what you will see in the media is stories debating the health effects. And leaving aside Pubmed, searching Google scholar for "e-cigarette" will bring up no article on the first page of hits that are not health related.

The argument that this is not primarily a health-related article flies in the face of what strongly dominates the result of every search you can perform on the internet. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Strawman. By that measure almost every article [if not all wiki content] is health-related; And health-related is the point: It's related only so it warrants a health section just as in "asbestos" and "cigarettes" but it's not a straight and plain med-article!TMCk (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. Do the same searches with the word "e-cigarette" replaced by "Barbara Bush", "equality", "construction", "automobile", or "plastic". There are lots and lots of subjects that the media and academic sources treat without 90% of the articles being health related. E-cigarettes just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I like your point about the wikipedia cigarette article and asbestos article a little better, but what is different in that case is that the health effects of asbestos and cigarettes are not hotly debated. Its settled science that those items pose serious health risks, and everyone in the country including my 5 year old nephew knows it. So it is old news and goes lower in the article. I don't think one has to appeal to MEDMOS to argue that health should be the first section in this article. Just ask yourself, when was the last time you saw an article in the NYTimes or WSJ discussing the design of e cigarettes? Formerly 98 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're funny. So when the health effects are clear, med-mos doesn't apply when it comes to primarily non-med articles but when there is no clear evidence at all like here it suddenly becomes a "strict med article" (like some new prescription drug). Where is making sense here?TMCk (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Ok, I have no feelings regarding e-cigs. I don't smoke, but I don't have anything against smokers either. I came here because of the kerfuffle on ANI regarding edit-warring.

That said, the lede needs work. The second sentence is far too wordy and conflicting. I see both sides trying to win the paragraph and as a result it is a back and forth of pros and cons. The second sentence needs to be reduced by quite a bit. The third paragraph should be summarized a little more as well. The fourth paragraph looks ok.

The order of the sections is off. This is a manufactured product. So you describe the background (History) , the product (Construction), how it is used (Usage) and then effects (Health). Thus the History should be first with the Construction second. Third should be Usage (which should be merged with the Society and Culture section). Health Effects should be fourth with Related Technologies fifth. Arzel (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We had a RfC regarding the ordering of it before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Was the request placed in the medical section? AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the archives and the only official RfC is regarding the POV tag. I see a lot of mention about asking for an RfC, but no actual RfC. Where is it located? Just trying to help resolve your impasse. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My apology. We have just had previous discussions [20] and [21]

This has been controversial for some time. Maybe it is time for a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure medical editors will agree with you. How about a rfc for the heart of the matter, if it should be in the medical category at all. With the widest rfc possible, not just medical editors. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a science RfC and we are asking if it should be considered medical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a consumer device and not asking consumers in a wide group will taint the results. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of non MEDRS sources and claims

In this edit an editor used non WP:MEDRS to place things in the medical section. I have remover them and I am placing this section in case the editor wants to know why or has any questions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, AlbinoFerret. News articles are definitely not reliable sources for medical content. Mihaister (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support It is clearly medical. All one needs to do is look at the sources available. Perfectly reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as it has been doing for some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support If one conducts a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, 90% of the hits are health related. Likewise if one searchs on the word e-cigarette in combination with the name of any major media outlet in regular Google. NPOV requires that we emphasize what reliable sources, and in particular, scholarly ones are emphasizing. Right now, that's the health controversy. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, Given the number and level of authority of the medical sourcing available that covers this subject, especially in comparison to what's available for the non medical topics (I saw how hard it was to come up with acceptable sourcing to even describe the construction, and what's in the article now is built on: medical journal articles), WP:MEDMOS is clearly the appropriate guideline for layout. Zad68 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, there are plenty of sources for construction. That other editors have only focused on the medical aspect is the reason. I have been expanding components and have only been delayed by other matters in the article that suck up my time. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response provides excuses but doesn't counter my main points, does it? Zad68 01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you said it was hard to find good references for components. I said no, they can be found, and I will clarify the last part for you. That editors some other editors have focused in on one section, does not lessen the other sections. Components can me more important than medical claims to some people. I would be expanding the components section but constant editor disputes slows work on the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is sort of artificial because it does not separate the meaning e-cig (usage of) and e-cig (device). More sources exist on the usage of the e-cig because (for obvious reasons) there is more research done on the usage. However, this does not imply that the device itself is a priori medical (some analogy with a syringe). Why not split the article? Jophiel 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel I did suggest that in the my original discussion I started on the classification. There was not enough input from other editors and one editor of the three (including myself) was against splitting. That was based on size of the article. But it wont be long, based on the growth pattern of the article where that argument will not have a lot of weight. These constant edit problems are doing harm to the article. It takes up everyones time that would be better used in improving it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC will not lead anywhere. Decision for an article being "medical" depends on the content (not on the subject itself). Article size isn't large, agree, but there is a good reason for doing a spinout: an obvious and tedious content conflict. Jophiel 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Components is also important and discussed in almost every medical reliable source if not all of them. As long as Health effects is not broken out it will not solve the problems of editor conflicts as almost al of the conflicts deal with health effects. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is a medical related article. A few editors think e-cigs are harmless vapor. That's incorrect. Yes, I know: e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which editors think that e-cigs are harmless vapor? Or is that simply a strawman? --Kim D. Petersen 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is not a brand of printer paper. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to check your printer paper, it may contain BPA Arzel (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good one. *grin* TMCk (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support In RS the health aspect is by far the most important aspect of the e-cig topic, and so must be prominently treated in this article; doing otherwise would destroy the fundamental NPOV we are required to maintain. As a secondary consideration, MEDMOS could usefuly inform the style/structure here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Essentially a medical-related product. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I can see the argument that this is a consumer, rather than a medical product, however as survey data suggests the use of e cigs is mainly to stop or reduce tobacco use (which is therefore a medical use), MEDMOS would apply here. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious Yobol - what you are saying is basically WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to actual content in articles. My stance, which is that consumer products that are primarily used for medicinal purposes should be first looked at from a medical standpoint, isn't so much OR as it is a question of emphasis. If that is WP:OR, most editorial decisions made here on Wikipedia are WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is a consumer product, but one that dispenses a highly addictive substance. If this were the first source of nicotine, it would never pass FDA approval as a schedule II, let alone be available without a prescription. Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: i'm missing something here. Are you saying that Wikipedia can decide on its own what a product is or isn't? Has the FDA rejected approval? --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whether this article is "primarily medical in nature" seems to be a philosophical or even semantic point that only distracts from the more meaningful question here, which is whether "Health effects" should be the first section. Given all that we know about the health dangers of smoking, and the widespread perception that e-cigs may be safer than conventional cigarettes, I submit that far more readers want to know about e-cigs' safety than their history. Per Formerly 98 above, the editors of successful and reputable magazines and news sources evidently agree. Therefore I support making "Health effects" the first section. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support in spirit but not in letter. The WP:WEIGHT of sources says that health issues are very important for e-cigs and there should be significant discussion of health issues. MEDMOS provides a useful structure that the article should follow, but whether "Health effects" or "Construction" comes first is trivial. I actually think that MEDMOS should be changed to place a description of the device first and have noted so on the MEDMOS talk page, since medical devices vary so greatly (unlike drugs). So on the narrow question of the ordering of sections, I would !vote for Construction to come first, so readers know what is being discussed. But I do hear and understand the argument that what matters most is how e-cigs affect you and so that should come first.Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Formerly 98, most reliable sources talk about the health effects of e-cigs rather than their recreational uses. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support The weight of the reliable sources is that electronic cigarettes, when discussed, are in 90% of reliable sources discussed mostly for their health effects. The reliable sources which discuss it in other contexts are usually on the lower-quality end of the spectrum of reliable sources. The weight of the available sources presents this concept as a medical concept. I agree with many who oppose who say that one might expect articles on products to be structured like other articles on products, but in the case of this article, so much more coverage exists on health effects than the actual product. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't it interesting that whenever you pick up a secondary WP:MEDRS review, then the layout of those almost invariably describes the product/construction/usage before it goes on to address chemistry, health effects etc. Even our most (over)used negative review paper (Grana et al. PMID 24821826) does it this way. My conjecture is that they do so because it makes the paper flow better... ie. start with an understanding of what it is, and then gradually move towards reviewing the health material. --Kim D. Petersen 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  The lead of our article should include the basic information about construction necessary to provide context for later sections. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Strongly agree that topic is medical in nature and should follow WP:MEDMOS. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly medical, and leaving medical information out would leave a very short and ill-conceived article, biased article. Most of what is in here is and should be medical. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC is not about removing any information but the order of the sections already on the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose This is clearly not a medical article. If one wishes to write an article regarding the medical effects/benefits/risks of electronic cigarettes, then they should do that. I will point out Cigar and Cigarette, which are also effectively delivery devices of Nicotine, both have History being the first section and Health effects being towards or at the end. Arzel (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons that Arzel provides. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is clearly a consumer product and does not require a prescription. There are no other consumer products that contain nicotine in the medical category. This article should not be in it either. I think the phrasing of the question is a strawman and the results will be tainted by it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you mind naming a few examples of "consumer products that contain nicotine" so I can better understand what you mean by this phrase? For example, Nicoderm and Nicorette both contain nicotine and are sold without a prescription, and I think that many people associate those smoking cessation products with health/medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's primarily a gadget/devise with non-medical purpose. A health section is of course warranted but not in a leading manner. Comparison to layouts like, I.e. asbestos and cigarette should be the guide to place it in proper order.TMCk (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  BTW: If it would be "primarily medical in nature" You would be able to buy devises at your local drugstore. But so far they stick with nicotine patches. TMCk (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK pharmacy counters are where they are found; tobacco outlets very rarely carry them. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And you live where? Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Here's a couple of examples of tobacconists that sell e-cigs in the UK[22][23][24], not particularly difficult to find. --Kim D. Petersen 01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - you may also want to see this[25], where there is documentation that e-cigs are sold in all kinds of stores in the UK (the article is about selling to <18yo.'s). --Kim D. Petersen 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate to say that pharmacies are the main source of electronic cigarettes in the UK. E-cigarettes are available in the vast majority of newsagent (tobacco outlets) and supermarkets that sell tobacco. Just because a pharmacy opts to sell a product it doesn't make it a medicine. Most pharmacies I know of sell beauty products of no medicinal value and I known of one major pharmacy chain that sells Coca-Cola, which the last time I checked was not a medicine either.Levelledout (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about a class of consumer products and the medical agenda is a only a tangential subtopic. As such, it should be structured like other consumer product pages such as humidifier, vacuum cleaner, or iPad; that is, History first, then construction, types, usage, and last any controversy as to health effects. Mihaister (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  This user was requested to particpate a few hours easier here [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  And "th[at] user" has also been active almost every day on this article. Sigh! What are you trying to imply Doc? --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  Apparently the Doc would rather not hear opinion that goes against his POV. thanks for your shiny example of consensus-building. Do you really think I wouldn't've commented on this irrespective of any notification? Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  AlbinoFerret apparently had some doubts. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  If you really looked at who I left a message about the RFC you would see its every editor, except IP addresses who has edited the article for about the past week or so. I only messaged those that had not left a comment. I went back 3 pages of history and included those, based on previous posts, that I had a good feeling would support this biased RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

  Yobol, who stands with the "med-crowd" received the same message and he didn't edit here in the last couple of days. That shows "canvassing" within policy. Not so much what Doc did when you take a look at the 3RR notice board and trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin closing the report.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• OpposeThe article is about a manufactured product and should be structured as such. The health issues may be of great importance but they are not the only aspect of this device. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose E-cigarettes are consumer products, they are not medicine, nor are they sold in pharmacies. Yes, when used with an e-liquid with nicotine, then they do have some physiological effect. But such effects in consumer products are not an indicator of them being medicine. If we take for instance Coffee, then a Coffee machine isn't a medical device, Coffee is not a pharmacological product, even if it can contain Caffeine which is a crystalline xanthine alkaloid and a stimulant drug. On the legal side, both the EU and the US have refused to consider these as medical products. --Kim D. Petersen 12:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Mind you: This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the health effects section, just that this at the heart isn't a medical article. --Kim D. Petersen 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Untrue re the EU - see above. In the UK they certainly are sold in pharmacies and at pharmacy counters; that is where you normally find them. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not really the case. Boots and a few other chemists sell "cigalikes", but where you normally find them is newsagents, tobacconists & specialist shops. The leading models, refillable tanks, are pretty much exclusively sold through specialist shops. The Royal College of Pharmacists state that they're not a medical product.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Which part of supermarkets sells them then? The refillable tanks are mostly sold online, as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are confusing the EU with member countries. I refer you to the TPD (tobacco products directive) of 2014 article 20[27]. And yes, there are a few countries that sell them in pharmacies but as CheesyAppleFlake notes: Even there it is not the norm. --Kim D. Petersen 14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Pharmacies (at least here in Denmark) also sell shampoo (regular not specifically medical), does that make Shampoo a medical product? --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim the shampoo comment is funny. But in the a lot of US pharmacies sell cosmetics, wouldnt the same faulty reasoning make mascara and blush a medical product? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is titled "Electronic cigarette" and that's what it should be about. If people want a medical article they can create a separate one for health effects, but this one should primarily describe the devices themselves.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly if one searches medical journals, one will find medical-related sources with a medical related agenda. However, if you search outside of that arena into places such as the mainstream media you will find issues such as construction, harm-reduction, vaping sub-culture and regulation regularly and readily being discussed.

I think that it also must be recognised that bodies such as the EU have specifically declined to classify e-cigarettes as medical devices under most circumstances and that the vast majority of e-cigarettes are simply not medical devices, are often not used are such and are not allowed to make medical claims about their products in many jurisdictions. Therefore medical guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are inappropriate across the whole article. The medical community feels very strongly about e-cigarettes and this can be recognised in the health section, which rightly should be subject to medical policies and guidelines.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Very vague oppose. MEDMOS gives a recommended list of sections, which may be good advice for this or any medical article. But it's not going to write the article for you. Any change made to follow that advice has to actually be a good change; you shouldn't make it "just because MEDMOS says so". Philosophically, from the history, we could say that Gilbert's non-commercialized nicotine vaporizer from 1963 made it a consumer product, not a medical product, that could have replaced the tobacco. (A moment of silence to contemplate the millions of lives that could have been saved, had a common sense way to reduce cancer deaths been pursued with resources. The magnitude of the sacrifice our society has made on Moloch's capitalist altar!) The Chinese product was introduced for "smoking cessation and replacement". Smoking cessation is clearly a medical product - smoking replacement is obviously not a medical product. The philosophical ambiguity since then remains unabated. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Electronin cigarette is a consumer device, not a medical one. Also, if you take a look at cigarette, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. And that article - if any - would have all the reason to acclaim itself as a medical one. I think it would be quite logical to benchmark cigarette in this case. Levelledout is also making a good point while explaining how EU has declined to classify electronic cigarettes as medical products[28]. This is something we certainly should not ignore. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is an electronic cigarette. It is not an endoscope or a central venous catheter. -A1candidate (talk)
• Oppose Electronic cigarettes are as much of a medical topic as regular cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, or potato chips. The fact that the majority of sources the article uses are medical publications is one of a series of serious WP:NPOV issues that need to be remedied; moving the "Health effects" section to the bottom of the article where it belongs would be a good start. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As many have stated above me, e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a pharmaceutical product or other drug. Health effects definitely have a place, but they are not the primary focus of the article.Doors22 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if WP:MEDMOS - and more particularly, WP:MEDORDER - gave clear section headings and an order for medical devices (which it doesn't), those headings and that order are a guideline only. Of greater significance to me, and the main reason for my !vote, is that I think it serves readers better to discuss what an e-cigarette is and how it's made before discussing its impact on health. That said, the construction section is very long and it would be better if it was split out to another article and just summarized in this article. By doing that and putting construction first, the health effects are still near the top and not buried way down the page. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james Do you think it would be an alternative to split out the health content to an article "Health effects of the electronic cigarette"? Jophiel 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel, I know that splitting out the health content is on the table and has been discussed at length. Personally, I think the details of the way these items are constructed, which is included in the Construction section, is a fairly specialized topic that bogs down the flow of the article. IMHO, putting the Construction section before the Health section gives the article the best flow but that flow is interrupted by all the details in the section. That's why I'd split off the Construction section before splitting off the Health section. At some point the Health section will need to be split out but I'm not convinced that it needs to go out first. Ca2james (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james Yep, I had a look at the archived talk pages. Would it be feasible to ignore article size and doing both splits, i.e. having this article referring to the respective spezialized articles (legal, construction, health), and thus relieve the dispute tension? Jophiel 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel, yes, I think so. Both sections are fairly long and are specialized and detailed enough to stand on their own. Shorter versions of both sections (but especially the Construction section) would improve the flow of this article as well. Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping Health effects and forking off other parts will not solve editing disputes. Almost all the disputes are in the Health effects section, so keeping it defeats the purpose of the proposed split. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret It won't end the discussion on the health issues. But this discussion right now is in the section of an RfC raising the question if WP:MEDMOS for this article should be followed and a split could be an answer to it, i.e. applying MEDMOS to the split out article. Jophiel 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We may not violate WP:NPOV and split off a topic just because there are editing disputes regarding it. Zad68 14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

It's a matter of definition and terminology. The electronic cigarette is not a medical device a priori. It can be used as such (beneficial for health) but it can also be used just for leisure (possibly harmful). Recently EU decided (wisely) that electronic cigarettes and the liquid solutions are not medical unless their presentation or function is medical:

"Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated by this Directive, unless they are - due to their presentation or function - subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) or to Council Directive 93/42/EEC (*3)." [29] (2 = Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67), 3 = Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1).)

So, there are three aspects: 1. The technical (about the device), 2. the medical usage (for smoking cessation), and 3. the non-medical usage (for leisure, possibly harmful). Most sources are, of course, on the health issues i.e. on the usage (2. and 3.), but this does not make the device a medical device a priori.

If you call this article "electronic cigarette" you should focus on the device and its technical aspects (1.). If you call this article "health effects of the electronic cigarette" the focus should be on 2. and 3. (i.e. on usage). Split the article. Jophiel 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Would someone take a minute and explain to me why this article cannot be split - disregarding article size and following WP:IAR. Applying the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." could mean here splitting and using all the energy consumed in unfruitful discussions for improvements and maintenance. Jophiel 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question, and a very good suggestion, IMO. Mihaister (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC) re

Ill second its a very good question, and since most of the problems revolve around health claims, it should be the section split off to a new article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason the health content may not be largely moved off into a subarticle is because of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which requires that the emphasis in the article match the emphasis found in reliable sources. As has already been demonstrated, a survey of the available reliable sourcing shows that the reliable sources place heavy emphasis on discussion of health-related topics. Therefore the health-related topics must feature prominently in the main article. Zad68 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The article could be summarized somewhat while still maintaining NPOV. Legal issues regarding them appear to be the major issue in reliable sources, yet this is relegated to a summary and side article. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like legal, at the time of the split, it wasa source of editing disputes. The same thing applies to Health effects. Its the source to almost all the editing disputes. Keeping it will only keep the problems. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are content issues, they need to be resolved using the WP:DR processes. If there are behavior problems with editors they need to be worked out at WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI or other venues that deal with editor behavior. It is unacceptable to change article structure to avoid dealing with these issues. Zad68 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I don't understand why splitting off the health section would necessarily result in a de-emphasis on the health information in the article. A summary of health concerns could still feature prominently enough even if the details have been split into another article. Personally, I'd split the Construction section first, but I could see both being split off at the same time. With respect to dispute resolution, I don't understand why splitting off parts of the article is an unacceptable solution to dealing with the content issues here; part of the WP:DR process is discussion, which is what's happening here. Also, dealing with content issues and splitting need not preclude dealing with editor behavioural issues. Ca2james (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the disputes wont be avoided, but they will be on a talk page of an artile that deals only with health issues. The section can still be proment proment on this page, it will still contain the major points. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern that the split of the "health section" could be construed as WP:POVFORK, though I do not agree that's what's being proposed here. I'm inclined to view this proposal along the same lines as the "legal status" section split (as noted above), which was forked as a content fork to a separate article without causing NPOV problems in the main. Wikipedia content guidelines consider this "acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Mihaister (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above splitting the article could be an (alternative) answer to question raised by the current RfC (which, I think, won't have a useful conclusion). Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking. Jophiel 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 Reading what is being written gives the impression to me that editors are aware of the rules. Why not give some space for pondering on how to apply them? Questions are raised not because editors don't understand the rules but because they do. May I give a quote to you (not just an abstract WP): "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." Jophiel 19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123, let me make sure I'm understanding correctly: You are suggesting we invoke WP:IAR to avoid following WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia core content policy, mainly so that we can avoid having this particular article's Talk page host the main discussions about the medical topics, because you find them upsetting? Zad68 20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

As this is the third time we are discussing this about time to have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This RFC is to narrow and does not get to the heart of the matter, if the article should be in the medical category at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The first bit is a question of "is this article medical" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But the request is only going to medical editors. It should be in the widest pool. Its like the mouse guarding the cheese. The article was placed in the medical catagory by a editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. It was not a medical article for over 4 years. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a math science and technology RfC. There is no medicine RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then this RFC will be tainted, its like asking only a group of Republicans who should be president. The wording is also is a straw man, no one has said it doesnt have medical resources, but should a consumer device that doesn't require a prescription, be in the medical category when no other consumer product with nicotine is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The health effects of cigarettes and cigars are well established and not controversial. Its 40 year old news that my 5 year old nephew knows. That's why health isnt' in the first section of those articles. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd statement to make. WP is not here to promote a specific point of view. Your argument seems to be that because they are new people need to be told of the health effects right away so that they know that they are bad for you. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not for warning anyone about anything. I'm for making sure the article gives different subjects the same weight and priority as is extant in non-Wikipedia sources as demanded by the WP:NPOV rules. I offered speculation on why the cigarette articles and cigar articles might not put health effects as the first section, but ultimately whether or not those articles are correctly formatted is immaterial to this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither of them is listed in project medicine yet all are effectively the same device. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that MEDMOS is probably unncessary here. But I think that the health section should go at the beginning for now, because that is what people are discussing outside of Wikipedia. If it turns out they are harmless and the health aspect becomes a non-story, I'd move it to the end. But for the next 2-4 years I think health issues will dominate the public discussion. JMHO Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, legal issues are what I hear being discussed. Regardless, I think you are taking the wrong approach here. The actual device is nothing more than a tool. What I am hearing from the support side is really related to the effects of the liquid being used. In any case, the "Support" argument does not justify illogical article structure. Arzel (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about what I "hear people talking about" . I said that I did 6 different e-cigarette Google searches focused on what are generally considered reliable sources and all were 90% dominated by health issues. Because the weight given to issues by reliable sources (and not by one's friends, co-workers, and family) are is the standard that WP:NPOV sets. WP:BALASPS In any case it is clear that we will not agree. Welcome to the argument discussion, you're now a member and an outside observer no longer. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We write for our readers, right? I'm a long-time editor but also a reader and as a smoker I looked up our article on those e-cigs. What do I get? Non info! First I get the usual "it's bad for you" advise (w/o scientific backup either way) and only if I scroll down I get a glimpse of what those devises might be and (even so only potentially) could do for me. To get real and unbiased info I have to do my own research with WP only being of help in providing opinion disguised as fact. That'll work for dumb people but dumb people don't check or listen to WP at all and smart people check the sources and come up with a different conclusion than provided. The result is to feed those who are already with or w/o knowledge against something [in this case e-cigs] what they want to hear. You see? You make no difference at all -- you [the ones who see only their POV] only embarrass yourself writing this non-educating stuff up. NPOV means... not what is happening here.TMCk (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of legal issues, US District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:09-cv-00771-RJL, 2010) ruled e-cigarettes were not medical devices [30]. Mihaister (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law and our purposes and guidelines really have no reason to be in line with a given court ruling. Zad68 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but Wikipedia doesn't invent its own classifications, we have to follow reality. Otherwise we'd be doing WP:OR. Remember that is what our policies say. Wikipedia cannot on its own decide what a product is or isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What we need to do is follow the sourcing. In the case of the subject of this article, multiple authoritative bodies and top-tier medical journals have provided lots of high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and surveys of the sourcing show a heavy emphasis on medical sources, as others have pointed out here on this Talk page. A court of law has its own context and purposes, but again, we are not a court, we are an encyclopedia. Zad68 02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how willful ignorance of court ruling having the power of law meets encyclopedic standards. Please explain. Mihaister (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Be happy to reply when you address my point. Zad68 03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Let see if I get this straight. The verifiable fact is that FDA (or any other entity in the US for that matter) cannot define vaping products as medical devices, because that would be illegal. However, Zad thinks that fact is of no encyclopedic consequence, because some "high-quality" medical literature can be found about these devices, which somehow makes them medical devices. Surely I'm missing something, cause that doesn't quite make sense for me. So, I'll ask again, please explain. Mihaister (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So because medical sources describe the medical aspects of e-cigs => medical. Erh? Something here went circular. --Kim D. Petersen 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said either. Zad68 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seem like that is exactly what you were trying to say. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement, but I come to the same conclusion, Arzel (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply because there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources out there, it does not really follow that WP:MEDMOS should be applied. As I'm sure you are aware WP:MEDMOS is a style guideline for medical articles that has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS sources. If the article isn't primarily medically related, then it isn't appropriate to apply WP:MEDMOS. This is the question we should be looking at, based on the subject and structure of the article.Levelledout (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are WP:MEDRS sources used in health sections of a lot of consumer products. The health sections are not at the top of the page, they dont follow MEDMOS. A prime example is Cigarette. It even provides a lot of nicotine and even worse chemicals. Is it a medical device? How about a Tobacco pipe? Its a device for concentrating the nicotine from a source for inhalation by the user. is it a medical device? Should it have a Health section at the top and follow MEDMOS? I can buy both at Walgreens, a drugstore. But I see neither is treated as a medical device on WP, but for some reason e-cigarette is? The lack of consistency is confusing. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making the same point Doc James, Formerly 98, Alexbrn, Jinkinson, Blue Rasberry are making. Formerly 98 makes this same point particularly well. Zad68 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not a medical device, but I still think the medical concerns should be in the beginning of the article because that's the subtopic that CBS News, the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, the Times of London, and the majority of academic papers published in Google Scholar have focused on, whether taking a "pro" or "con" position. I don't know that its in a guideline anywhere, but it seems odd to me that so many here are upset that Wikipedia should cover this topic in the same way as the rest of the world. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd logical falacy. Of course the history and contruction of the tool is not going to be described over and over and over. By you logic, almost zero articles on WP would have any remote semblence of logical thought or presentation. They would be a mish-mash of information presented in order of their prevelance without any regard for how anyone would read about a subject. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, formerly is making an argument about how much WP:WEIGHT to give health concerns. How do you determine WEIGHT? (real question) thanks. Jytdog (talk)

Please check yourself. I have made no determinations of weight with regards to what should or should not be covered. Formerly is making an argument that since Health Effects are the most covered aspect then that section should be first. Taken to the logical conclusion this approach, throughout WP articles, would result in absurd articles that have no logical structure. I was simply pointing out the logical falacy that Formerly was using to try and justify why Health Effects should be first. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry what do you mean "check yourself"? also would you please answer how you determine WP:WEIGHT (regardless of what you think Formerly was talking about). thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are changing the core principle that Formerly was making and then linking the new line of discussion to me as a question. I don't want to get into a tangential discussion about how much weight should be given to the health section. My argument has been the flow of the article not the content. As for Formerly, there is no question as to what he was saying. He made a specific statement, that since the majority of discussion about e-cigs is regarding health, that health should come first. That is a logical falacy which if applied to almost any topic would result in illogical article stucture. He even weakens his case by agreeing that e-cigs are not medical devices which makes the classification as a MEDMOS article less justified. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

this is not productive. stopping. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so random break

COMMENTS and a question - the RfC is unfortunately framed, for two reasons.

• 1 "medical" vs "health": On the face of it, there are only a few countries' medical regulatory bodies that classify e-cigs as medical devices. There are some - so for those !voting "oppose" above, saying flatly that "e-cigs are not medical devices", this is not true so flatly stated. But those "oppose" votes have a wikilawyery, narrow point, in that in most jurisdictions, e-cigs are not regulated as medical devices. I say that the RfC is unfortunately framed because MEDRS and MEDMOS are primarily concerned with Wikipedia content about health. And a) most regulatory bodies that have said anything, have said something about health; and b) most coverage in the media and in the biomedical literature (and there has been a lot of both) have discussed health issues. (As a side note, per WP:WEIGHT, health issues should get a significant amount of coverage in this article.) The discussion on this page has become stupidly polarized and in a context like this, writing usefully nuanced content becomes impossible. I ask everybody to take a deep breath and try to walk away from the knee-jerk reactions that folks are giving. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

• 2 Use of guidelines: by framing it as "should MEDMOS apply", the question of why it matters is lost, and nobody is discussing that. MEDMOS is a very useful guideline for structuring articles with a strong health focus (I know MEDMOS says "medical" but please don't wikilawyer the point) I very much recognize the importance and utility of following guidelines but we don't apply them mindlessly, and if local consensus develops to not use them or depart from them, that is fine, but the consensus should be based on reasons why it matters. So I'll ask - Why does it matter to folks which section comes first? Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

my answer to my own question, by the way, is that it doesn't matter. The article would be fine either way. I am interested to learn why other editors think it matters.Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, there's an underlying NPOV issue here. One wished-for change among some editors here, as I understand it, is that this article should be de-medicalized (or de-healthified) to focus on non-health aspects of e-cigs: construction, social changes, flavourings, user experience, uptake statistics, etc. This would go hand-in-hand with shunting the health information off to a separate "Health effects of e-cigs" article. I fear this could make Wikipedia engage in e-cig advocacy, by unduly de-emphasizing the not-so-helpful-for-advocacy health information. Whether that fear is founded or not, I think it's important for NPOV that this article mirrors the RS coverage of e-cigs, which is largely health-based. Whether the precise details of MEDMOS are followed is a mere secondary detail. Unfortunately, the RfC failed to make a distinction between the importance of the first part of the question ("is this article primarily medical in nature") and the second part (so "use MEDMOS?") Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most people understood the issues here. I am new to this page and I did. We have had a neutrally worded RfC, let us stick with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Jytdog has made some excellent points, and has nicely cut through the bullshit on both sides, as he so often does. The discussion has been way too polarized, there is too much focus on "winning", and we've spent too much time arguing about symbolic issues.

• As a "pro-medical" partisan, I think I can summarize my concerns as follows: 1) I think the main issue covered in the news and science articles has been health, and so I think that should be a big part of this article, and 2) I'm a little concerned that the size and detail of the design section makes the article read like an article in a vaping enthusiast magazine or even a vendor website.
• On the other hand, I think Jytdog may be correct that the order of the sections does not matter, so long as the length of the article is not so long overall that most readers never scroll down far enough to see "Medical". I could see that section go 2nd as part of a larger compromise.
• I'd be also be willing to see the negativity of the health section toned down as part of a compromise. The main thing we know about these things is that they are almost certainly healthier than cigarettes, and almost certainly less healthy than not vaping, though the size of that difference may not be large compared to being obese or eating a lot of hamburgers. We can probably turn down the level of obsessiveness about trace amounts of metal microparticles and the like. We all breath that kind of stuff daily just walking down the street.

I'd like to hear a reasonably concise summary of what the key concerns of the anti-"over-medicalization" faction are, and where there is room for negotiation, compromise, and turning down the confrontationalism. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This will probably be in the TLDR domain, but here we go:

First let me state what i'm in agreement with in your comment: Yes, a medical section must exist, at least until such time as the article get unwieldy and should be split, and i also agree that health aspects, with the same caveats as before, must be a significant section. I also (although i can't determine if you think so) that the health section should be based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS.

On the other hand, i do not agree that WP:WEIGHT is a useful measure in applying/limiting the amount of content there should be in individual non-similar sections, that is why we have WP:SPLIT. WP is not paper. Weight is a determination for us to measure contrasts between views within a scope. (ie. i can't see weight as being an argument for limiting any section of the article, let the sections take up the amount of space that we have individual aspects to write about).

I can't agree that E-cigarettes are medical products despite your insistence on them being so, they are several things: a leisure product, a tobacco replacement, a hobby, a cessation tool. Only one of these would fall into the medical category (sessation). And not to put too fine a point on it, but e-cigarettes have several meanings: The battery(mod), atomizer, and usage - and only usage could ever fall into the medical category, and only some usages thereof would be. So no - putting them down as medical in nature is simply false. (TLDR section done)

Finally to your primary question: The main reason as i see it to restructure the article is because it will flow better for our readers, and while i acknowledge that much of the media seems more interested in the medical stuff, an e-cigarette is more than just a health issue. Thus using MEDMOS for the whole article (as opposed to the health section(s)) is the wrong take, imho. I can't really see the NPOV issue with either way of having the structure though, that seems more to be perception rather than reality, i have other POV problems as mentioned earlier but structure is not one. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would go with a compromise. I think we all agree that it is not the purpose of this article, or WP in general, to warn people of the dangers of ECs any more than it is to promote the products. I supported the structure change because I think it is more appropriate for a manufactured object.

Regarding the pro/con medical opinion I think we must avoid saying what we do not know. Editors here cannot assess the relative merits of peer reviewed journals or other quality publications. I suggest that we state the generally agreed health position on the subject but word more contentions claims in a way that shows that there is some dispute over them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim, with regard to your comments on WP:WEIGHT in your 2nd paragraph - that section says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Can you please explain how what you wrote in your 2nd paragraph squares with that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: yeah, that might have come out confusing :) What i'm trying to say is that the article as it stands, really is a collection of different topics, and if e-cigarettes keep continuing their expansion then each will probably have a seperate article, ending up with this as a summary article, since they aren't really about the same thing. Within each of these topical areas, weight certainly plays a role. But between these different topical areas, i don't think that weight is supposed to be considered this way, weight is basically an aspect of NPOV and it doesn't scew the neutrality of the article to have more health stuff, or more battery stuff etc. I'm a bit down with a cold, so i'm probably rambling :) Hope you can see my point despite that. --Kim D. Petersen 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry you are sick, kim. in my experience WEIGHT applies to the overall structure of the article, as well as perspectives described within any given section. i do hear you that the article is sprawling, and WP:SPLITs are likely! Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The test of whether MEDMOS should be used is whether using it is beneficial to the article. For example, when I read this discussion I discovered there were the recommendations for headers, so I tried applying some at Acute flaccid myelitis, an article I'd just started and hadn't really figured out an organization for. And what do you know, they actually seemed to work! Except for a few which I didn't really come up with an edit I liked, so so far I haven't done those. That's the way it is with guidelines: you try their advice, and if they help they help. But we still have to write articles ourselves, and when the flow of an article obviously fails -- as with the current jump to health effects here -- it's time to try something else. In part it fails because they're not really medical; in part it fails because, despite being new, electronic cigarettes are very much a historical phenomenon, being controlled much more by community knowledge of tobacco's health problems, economics, regulation, and liability than by medical science of the product itself. There's an exception in MEDMOS for having the history first; I say we use it.

I would like to see us start with the Gilbert idea and a deep explanation (if we can find it) of why it failed. Some tie-ins I'd like to see explored, if sources can be found, would be with the idea that tobacco company regulation of nicotine content was used as a basis for liability (per Brown & Williamson's more modest effort to increase nicotine/tobacco ratio with genetically engineered tobacco) and the risk of regulation of nicotine inhalers as a medical device. Of course there might be simpler economic or technical reasons, I don't know. Then -- what changed in China recently to make this a viable idea? There are some obvious socioeconomic reasons, and of course the degree of tobacco use in China that might play into that, but a little explanation there might help. You have to background, of course, with some discussion of when tobacco health effects were known and how they affected the market, as well as other nicotine delivery methods.

Once the history is laid out, I think then you should move on to cover the varieties of the device that now exist, how they work in more detail (how do they produce "smoke" exactly?).

Then you should cover the health effects, which you've started to introduce in the history - evaluate how they've reduced tobacco mortality; also how they retain nicotine addiction. Hmmm, I ought to search to see if they're used in Parkinson's and whether they have any unique role due to the controllable dosing... I think I'm about done with this anyway :) Wnt (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... I should have looked first before saying that! Despite a burst of recent talking head activity, apparently people suspected and tested nicotine for parkinsonism two decades ago. As briefly reviewed in [31] there still is no real progress in actually protecting patients with nicotine, despite some signs of neuroprotective effects and some wacky (who knows maybe true) ideas like PMID 24753353. One reason: as described in PMID 25217056, Parkinson's disease simply makes it easier to quit smoking! Wnt (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649, per my comment above, may I suggest that you withdraw the RfC and start two new ones, along the following lines

• 1) Per the policy WP:WEIGHT, how much weight should content on health have in this article? Please !vote and provide reasons based on the policy.
• 2) Should the "Construction" section or the "Health effects" section come first? Please provide reasons based on policies and guidelines and if you are providing a !vote based only on your preference, please state that and provide the best reason you can.

I would be happy to launch the new ones, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Starting a new rfc when the premise is faulty from the beginning is wrong. The Electronic cigarette article is not in a medical category. The talk page has been adopted by a group to keep an eye on it and show interest in it. But the article itself is not subject to any medical guideline other than a health section on any page is subject to WP:MEDRS. Secondly weight goes to the size of information and weather a source is included, it never discusses placement of sections, and should not override the style of articles on similar subjects.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The dispute here is the strict application of MEDMOS on the section ordering, once we either decide on one or the other, things can continue down either track, and figure out how to handle it. As for your 2nd bullet: Policies don't decide what order an article should be in, nor is it general for MOS' to specify that sections should be ordered in a specific way. MEDMOS (and probably other specialized ones do, but they are usually also targetted towards a particular article type)... not something that i've generally come across. Lets cross the bridge of further RfC's once we reach the point where they are needed again, much could be resolved if only the talk-page was used more. --Kim D. Petersen 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kim and AlbinoFerret, I disagree somewhat with you. WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". I don't have a official definition for what is meant by "prominence of placement', but to me the most obvious aspects would be "higher or lower in the list of subtopics" and "having or not having its own heading". I think both would be involved. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of things that you cite from WP:DUE. Where i don't agree is that on such a diverse topic as this, where we have several diverse areas of interest such as Mods (which is a HUGE topic), Atomizers (again HUGE topic), Batteries (probably the most controversial aspect at the moment, because of interchange of chargers causing LiIon failures sometimes with hospitalization), and Health (which is also a HUGE topic), that this is what UNDUE is about. I think each section should be allowed to grow to the point where the article can WP:SPLIT and the sub-topic summarized. I have nothing against a large health section, and i can also see your point about prominence, even if i disagree with it (i basically think that readers will read the lead, and then jump to the sections that they are interested in).. but currently the article as an entity flows wrong, i don't know how it should reflow, perhaps with history first or construction? But as it is at the moment it (imho) fails.

From my view (and experience on other articles), i would say that DUE is mostly about similar aspects, and the prominence of placement is mostly within sections/paragraphs/sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Back at you: I'm not sure more is necessarily better. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive textbook. My gut feeling is that the medical section drones on endlessly trying to gaze into the crystal ball and figure out what will be readily apparent 5 years from now, and that the design section is dangerously approaching the appearance of something put out by the Electronic Cigarettes Manufacturing Association. I'm sure you will disagree, just my humble opinion.

I also think that we are to some extend blending the very different concepts of placement, quantity of text, and tone. I suspect that some of the anti-medicalization faction would be less upset with the medical section being on top if it were less negative in tone. I would object less to the design section being on top if it were not so lengthy. Both position and volume of text make implied statements about what is important. Given that the health aspects are still unclear and that this aspect has been the subject of so much attention in the media and journals, this worries me a bit. Its always the non-verbal communication that controls what the audience walks away with. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head for one of my problems with the health section. An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries. What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics. But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus. There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article. Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret please discuss content, not contributors; please focus on what sources say, and please frame arguments with regard to what policies and guidelines say, all per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not name anyone but addresses concerns of mine about the reasoning on guidelines. Ill try and rephrase some of it in the future, but the erroneous viewpoints are part of the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. AlbinoFerret was indeed addressing article content and how it looks to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I also have to agree that AlbinoFerret was raising a valid point that relates to article content. I do think that it is import to maintain WP:AGF. I don't think that it should be off the agenda so to speak to discuss exactly why it is of such enormous importance to some editors that

• The health/medical section must appear first
• The rest of the sections must be structured according to WP:MEDMOS even though the sections on the WP:MEDMOS page bear very little relevance to the article's subject and its current sections.
• Any attempt to split the article from the health section must be vehemently opposed.
• WP:MEDRS must be applied even when it isn't needed (such as to describe construction)

All of that stuff affects the article's content profoundly. If we are going to find a way forward, I don't think it is inappropriate to ask why the feeling is so strong about blanket applications of these policies and guidelines across the whole article.Levelledout (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Leveledout, as frustrated as you may be feeling I think its probably better to focus on 1) what we agree on, and 2) exploring differences in a detailed way to see where hidden points of agreement and willingness to compromise might be found.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done a strikethrough on my comments, I admit that I had not read this discussion in its entirety before posting. After doing so I realise that my previous comments probably don't add much to the debate at this particular stage.Levelledout (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks AlbinoFerret. I agree that the article should not be targeted to a medical audience, and disagree with what I think you said or implied, that the article should instead be targeted to users. I think the article should be targeted to the average person, who is neither a medical professional, an anti-tobacco activist, nor a vaper. In this regard, I think the suggestion above from Wnt (I think) that the article should have more history, somewhat less detailed medical speculation, and somewhat less detail on the finer aspects of design might be a good direction to go in. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something that sounds to me like progress towards consensus. I agree that the article should be targeted at the average person, as well as needing more history and less medical speculation. As far as ordering of sections goes, I find these comments from above [32], [33], and [34] make a reasoned, balanced, and compelling argument. Finally, I don't think the two new RfC's proposed are likely to provide constructive results at this stage in the discussion, for the reasons presented here and here, but also because this discussion here appears to be already getting pretty close to resolution. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if he will accept the task, but I propose that we ask Jytdog to prepare a WP:BOLD revision of the document (here or in his sandbox) based on the discussion in this section (rather than on his own opinions), followed perhaps by a straight up or down vote on whether to accept it. He got this conversation started, is a non-combatant, and does not seem to be overly tilted toward either side. I'm sure I'll find many aspects of his draft objectionable, but it will probably be better than another 2 weeks or more of acrimony. Anybody have any thoughts on this?Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Answering your previous post, but I dont want it to get missed. No, I did not imply that the article should be specifically targeted at users. But that users are a growing segment of the population that may read the article. I also disagree that the components section is to fine on detail. That section is dealing with 3 different generations of devices in a rapidly expanding and innovating marketplace. Each generation has benefits and problems, mostly benefits over the previous generations. Components is a very much detailed section when dealing with any device. There are even people who are just interested in design of things with no intention of using them. Should the article be targeted to them? No, but Wikipedia isnt a paper enclapedia and there is more than enough room for information that is concrete and verifiable. I wouldnt put up speculation on design, or concerns about what may or not be with respect to flaws in hardware, or any place else. Such information is speculative. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess the difficulty then lies in where we can find room for compromise, assuming that is still our goal. I don't know what the detailed concerns are of the other "medicalists", but I suspect they are variations of my own concern that this not become a "look at all this really cool technology" article with a subliminal message that "this is cool and you really ought to try it". Examining my motives, my push for the medical aspects to be highlighted is partly in response to the size and detail of the design section and this fear that the article begins to seem almost promotional.

I'm sure you think that's silly, but that's my concern and it probably won't change just because you tell me I'm wrong.

On the issue of facts vs. speculation, I think that you can take that argument a mile down the road, but it won't get you all the way to Omaha. We prepare for all kinds of things based on speculation, whether it is war, pandemic flu, or economic downturns. In economics we estimate the financial impacts of future problems by multiplying their cost x their probability. I'd not allow my kids to vape nor would I do so myself for the reason that I think the percent risk of bad health outcomes x severity of problem > benefits of vaping. Though neither may be huge, I think arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to which is greater. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "reading between the lines" idea isnt helpful to anyone. I dont think its a good motivation for any edits. No one is a mind reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some amount of speculative material should be there, but there are degrees, speculation on extreme outside chances, is unnecessary... Picking unique speculation from one review, combining that with even more unique speculation from another review etc makes for rather bad material.

But to mention something else that i realized today: Virtually all of the review articles that i've read about e-cigarettes (ie. all WP:MEDRS sources) start with a section on construction, history, usage etc. before they reach the medical review, Grana as a good example (for once :)). It simply flows more naturally, you want to know what the thing is, before you go into what it might effect. Made me realize why it is that i feel that the flow in the article is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I don't think having the med section first is a point that I'm going to fight to the death over. But compromise is compromise. So far all I seem to be hearing is that it would be great to move the medical stuff down, make it less negative, and keep all the stuff that I've expressed concern about 100% intact. Apparently I'm a lousy negotiator. Time to climb back into the trench and load a fresh belt of ammo into the Vickers? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your concerns. But I dont think anyone is glamorizing the hardware but sticking to facts. What someone may think about the hardware descriptions, and perhaps use it, as long as they are an adult, its out of our hands as long as we are not commercializing it. I also think that lowering information to stop an adult from using something is not something that wikipedia should do, but I am unable to pop off a reference off the top of my head. It sounds like censoring to advance a social policy. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ௐ ௐௐ ... ௐ ௐ. ௐ .. ௐ ௐ .. ௐ ..ௐௐ

Rata-tat-tat-tat ▻▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ ௐ ௐ

▻ ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ. ௐ

▻▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ௐ ௐ . ௐ

ௐ ௐ.ௐ .ௐ ௐ.ௐ ௐ ௐ ..ௐ ௐௐ ..ௐ ௐௐௐ.. ௐ

Formerly 98 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: regarding your post above - I find this rather problematic. It seems to me you already have made up your mind regarding e-cigarettes, enough to make what appears to be a quantitative (albeit WP:OR) determination about risks ("bad health outcomes") both in terms of their probability, as well as severity ("of the problem"). Further you suggest you've also quantified the benefits (unspecified) and basically found that e-cigarettes are a problem with bad health outcomes that outweigh any benefits. To advocate this WP:POV you inserted some text in the article citing a press release from AAPCC as the source. I find this goes against at least 2 of the WP:5, many general WP policies, and pretty much everything WP:MED stands for. Mihaister (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Phrasing of the RFC

New version to address concerns:Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Previous versions
Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or a consumer product like all other types of cigarettes? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Should a consumer product, in which the article itself is not in the medical category, follow the page order for a medical device AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is completely inappropriate as the original wording neutrally asks the question as to what type of article is it without prejudicial language. You wouldn't like it if I added an alternative phrasing of "should a drug delivery device used to administer a pharmacologically active substance follow the section order for a medical device", but your own rephrasing is equally prejudicial. I'd urge you to revert this edit, after which I will revert this one. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But by that criteria a beer glass is also a medical device! E-cigarettes aren't medical devices. They don't treat any medical condition. They are not prescribed by doctors. They are sold & used as consumer products, & that's what producers, distributors & users insist they are.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

CheesyAppleFlake, this is not true. A "prescription" is whatever your doctor tells you to do. It is not limited to writing a pharmaceutical prescription that you take to a pharmacist to get a regulated drug. Doctors "prescribe" diets and exercise. I know of one who "prescribed" whiskey sours as a muscle relaxant. If your doctor tells you to switch to e-cigs (e.g., for harm reduction), then e-cigs have been prescribed to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:I think that this is dependent on where in the world you come from. Here in Denmark, a Doctor can't prescribe anything that isn't a government approved medication. He can advice you to take a non-medical product, but not prescribe it to you. --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that every Danish doctor that has ever written orders for a stroke patient to be given a low-sodium meal in hospital—and that's probably all of them, given the way medical training works—will disagree with you. The dictionary isn't too hard to understand on this point. If a physician or surgeon orders anything for the purpose of addressing a health condition, then he's "prescribing" it. I doubt that the Danish government is going around "approving" low-sodium foods and calling them "medications". If you want to continue this claim, then I suggest that you back up your claim with reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See BEK nr 1671 af 12/12/2013 §1 of "Bekendtgørelse for recepter" (law regarding ordination/prescription")[35] --Kim D. Petersen 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As an example can be given the legality/non-legality of prescribing excersise, which has only within the last 10 years been a possibility, and has been tried in test-runs[36], so No. Doctors can't simply decide on their own what they want to prescribe in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A parallel situation has to do with medical cannabis in the U.S. The federal government prohibits the physician from "prescribing" marijuana; so they make an "oral recommendation" per free speech, and by extension a "written recommendation" which may end up being required for a special state (not federal) ID license card for marijuana, then there's a crackdown on doctors writing recommendations without seeing patients or meeting various other standards... no doubt a third term will eventually be invented. You might say the English language is always the first casualty of law. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The original wording suggests its a medical device by asking if its medical in nature, not if its medical or consumer, that shows a bias. The original wording also points out the creators own suggested outcome. Another problem is that the creator only placed the question about medical classification in the medical category when its a consumer device and medical editors are not the only consumers. Its a subtle form of canvasing WP:CANVAS called votebanking, asking medical editors if they should keep the article in the medical category. Its like asking mice if they want to keep cheese. This whole rfc is flawed. If the original statement stands then the rephrasing stands imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The original RfC was neutrally worded and has got a good response. This is an attempt to reword it in a non-neutral way. Let it run. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that AlbinoFerret posted the alternate wording to the village pump; I came here because I thought it weird that an RfC would have "alternate phrasing". Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the original wording is biased because it only mentions one option and does not correctly summarize the issue. I have edited the alternate phrasing slightly to only ask the question of its formatting. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, the advice given at WP:RFC is that if you are unhappy with the wording then you should ask the originator to rephrase it. But be aware that although the original was slightly suggestive (perhaps inadvertently), sticking "like all other types of cigarettes" in there is mixing question with answer. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure that there is any "page order for consumer products", I think this probably falls under the general WP:MOS. So the best you could hope for might be "Should the e-cigarette article follow general Wikipedia page order guidelines or the medical guidelines?"Levelledout (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will adjust it a little more to address your concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

AIHA white paper

Material sourced to this dubious publication, which I removed, has been reverted into the article. First of all, this is not peer reviewed, or PubMed indexed; also not a reliable MEDRS. The sheer number of spelling and grammar errors in that text should give any unbiased editor pause. Mihaister (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Per MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

The American Industrial Hygiene Association is an expert body recognized as an authority on occupational exposures by

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• The EPA
• OSHA
• The Department of Energy, and
• The U.S. Navy

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, not this argument again. Are you honestly equating the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Sciences or WHO (as "prominence" is exemplified at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations)? Mihaister (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the comment again please. This citation is MEDRS compliant if it is an official statement of a nationally recognized expert body. I have demonstrated that. I said nothing about the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Science, nor do I need to to show that this is a MEDRS compliant citation. Please don't put words in my mouth to set up straw man arguments. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The link posted by Mihaister clearly compares a reputable major scientific and medical body to those with similar stature to NIH, US National Academy, NIH et cetera. The AIHA is a run of the mll non-profit/trade association and not a nationally recognized expert body. This edit should be removed. Doors22 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly98. If other high quality sources find the AIHA guidelines useful, I think a one sentence addition is warranted. Yobol (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doors22 is a WP:SPA account that is upset with edits, made by myself and supported by two other editors, to the Finasteride article. Doors, please review WP:HOUND, you don't want to go down this road. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case, then that is an issue for WP:ANI - not one writing about here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this one incredibly amusing. Had this been information from ASH UK, a british health organization working closely with the UK gov. on tobacco issues, then it would have soundly been removed, as has such information in the past. Standards are great to have, so double standards must be doubly good. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be more useful to move this discussion forward to discuss the specific source presented rather than a hypothetical source no one has mentioned. It appears the AIHA guidelines is viewed as reliable by multiple government agencies, so I'm at a lost as to why we should not view them as reliable as well. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's wonderful Kim. There's nothing in life that gives me more pleasure than biased editing, selective application of sourcing standards, and deliberately producing NNPOV articles. And like so many others, I judge the success of my diabolical efforts to mislead and distort by the extent to which the articles I edit diverge from your own excruciating neutral and unbiased viewpoint. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside (which was amusing): I was talking about the fact that consensus so far on this article has been: Only WP:MEDRS secondary sources, preferrably reviews. In the odd case out, important organizations such as the FDA, WHO and CDC could be cited, but primarily for position statements or official reports. But this appears now to have changed. Or has it? I will with amusement watch when a harm reduction statement from an organization is proposed :) --Kim D. Petersen 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As a good example of why i'm commenting on double standards read this discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of non-peer reviewed white papers in a WP:PRIMARY aspect is not helping the situation. When you strongly argue MEDMOS and then include sources which do not comply, yet work towards your POV it becomes difficult to reach a compromise. I suggest you self revert. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Position statements by recognized organizations (as appears to be the case here, where AIHA guidelines are used by multiple different governmental agencies) can be used per MEDRS. Note that this paper is not a primary source as you appear to be suggesting, but a secondary source. (Primary sources would, for example, be the paper that first analyzed the content of the e-cigarette aerosol; this white paper is referencing those type of studies, so is a secondary source). Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For this use, while I would not rank the AIHA white paper on the same level of authority as the WHO or the NAS, the links Formerly 98 provided do show the AIHA enjoys a high level of respect and its recommendations are influential in the forming of policy. Agree with Yobol that the one-sentence use is appropriate here.

As a compromise, I would also be OK with attributing the statement directly to the AIHA: instead of Industrial hygiene and indoor air quality reviews have found... use The AIHA states that..., as long as the use of the Offermann source is refactored appropriately. Zad68 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree direct intext attribution to the AIHA would be more appropriate in this case. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the attribution of AIHA as disucssed here and as now in the article. Refactoring Offermann does not mean removing it. Please stop doing so, unless and until there is consensus for its removal. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another primary used

Another edit today placed a source that the editor noted in comments it was not a MEDRS and the reference itself says its preliminary. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a primary source, it's a press release; but, apparently citing press releases as reliable sources is OK when they promote a certain POV... Mihaister (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please point out any primary or press releases in the medical section, I may have missed one. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct the record, this material was not "placed" today, it was replaced after it was removed by an editor who stated that "it failed MEDRS". MEDRS states that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The material was restored with the explanation that a phone call count does not constitute biomedical information and thus the source did not need to be MEDRS compliant.

How we got from this set of facts to the description above escapes me. Nor how this episode came to be described as "the source itself described the result as preliminary" without the important detail that the text added to Wikipedia also noted that it was preliminary. Does every difference of opinion need to be described in such a partisan manner to tell only half the story and make insinuations about those you disagree with? This is not helpful in any way.

I removed the text from the article, not because MEDRS covers the act of counting phone calls, but because it was largely redundant with other material in the same paragraph. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The only removals in the recent past that I can find that come close is mine But the citations were to news sites. Those are defiantly not MEDRS. Since the editor who placed them there only had one edit, the one I removed in part, I also placed a section on the talk page in case they had questions. This is not an attempt to censor information. The reason I said placed is that the edit you did had a different set of numbers and used a different citation. I did not remove the edit, but came here to discuss it, because the editor, you, has more experience. If discussion is a problem...... AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant to remove it but apparently screwed up. Its gone now.2605:E000:1C0C:80F7:5DD:E900:F922:9F25 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

By far the most repellent thing about the "medical" approach to the article is the use of MEDRS to oppose sources. When someone writes that "More than 2,700 people have called poison control this year to report an exposure to liquid nicotine, over half of those cases in children younger than 6, according to national statistics. ", that's news. That's something that happened. We don't need a cabal of doctors to wave their magic prescription wands over something like that to make it real. That said, one should not give something the tone of established medical fact based on a news report, i.e. "In severe cases, a child may experience increased heart rate, high blood pressure, coma and ultimately death if too much is ingested." But of the two, the removal bothers me much more than the lack of caveat on the other data. You shouldn't need MEDRS every time you write that some chemical is poisonous; it's just how you do it. Wnt (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the misuse of WP:MEDRS as a weapon... but then that is a two-sided issue. But this particular item is simply silly. Of course there has been a rise in calls to poison control, since there has been a rise in usage. It is a statistical inevitable thing.. If you have a rise in usage of bleach, then by statistical necessity you'd have a rise in calls to poison centers about bleach. There is no perspective/context on this "news", there are no caveats etc. Basically it has no information value, only POV value. --Kim D. Petersen 11:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand: This is in fact where the requirement for WP:MEDRS secondary source (imho) has value - it ensures that we use sources/references that put such information in context and perspective. --Kim D. Petersen 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect an article about marijuana legalization might include data about how many poison control center calls and emergency room visits were made after kids got into edible cannabis. Such impacts are often cited as an overall measure of costs, without making a medical claim about them (since after all it really isn't all that dangerous) The same rationale applies here. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd only expect such material to be there iff there is actually a perspective on the "overall measure of cost". Without a perspective or context it is simply WP:RECENTISM. While such information may be interesting politically, or news-cycle wise, it doesn't have much merit seen from an encyclopedic perspective. --Kim D. Petersen 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Recentism doesn't apply, because you'd want to see how the incidents increased even a long time later. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry. That is not wikipedia's job. What is here has no information content, it is a statement without context and perspective. and thus has no other value than as POV. ("see! those e-cigs are daaaangerous!") --Kim D. Petersen 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be most of what the last paragraph in safety is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems absurd to say it has "no value but POV", when it documents actual incidents. How you interpret those incidents is a matter of your own POV: a person might say that if 2000 kids eat something and don't die it's not all that hazardous really. Excluding factual, sourced data because it "has no value but POV" seems POV in itself, because our objective should be to document all sides, not suppress one or more. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that there is no information content. How many would we expect? What is the exposure level? Data in an on itself is not useful, you need more to interpret it. See also WP:GEVAL for the problem with your last sentence. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your contention that there's "no information content" just isn't true. Yes, more usage means more kids potentially exposed, but then again, child safety mechanisms might drastically decrease the rate. And I don't see this as a matter of "giving equal validity to both sides". You're acting as if the number of visits is "one side's data". It's not though - all it is is a piece of sourced data that is informative to cite. If you start trying to negotiate truces where you trade back and forth excluding "one side's data" and "the other side's data", pretty soon you're left with a bland blurb whose overall slant represents the relative power of editor groups in some backroom deal. No, just no. We have room for all the data that people can find and source and add for us. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything you say here is WP:OR and a narrative that isn't present in the data itself. You've build up a POV. And that is the reason for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

ASHRAE isnt a MEDRS source in any way shape or form. The info in it is in the article already sourced to MEDRS sources in at least one other area if not more. I removed the revert of its removal. If anyone wants to discuss it. Here is the spot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Not only is the Offerman paper an un-reviewed editorial in a non-MEDRS, non-PubMed source, it even lacks basic copy editing. Sigh... At this rate we'll soon be faced with citations to anti-smoker blogs held up as "notable MEDRS organizations" for sources... Mihaister (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ETA: I note Cloudjpk, a WP:SPA ([37]), has engaged in edit warring his addition of this source. [38], [39] Mihaister (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the ASHRAE source, convenience link here, appears to be published in ASHRAE Journal, which appears to be peer reviewed and is clearly a secondary source, specifically a review article (a literature review in format). It, however, is dubious with regards to being MEDRS compliant; I think publications like this would be fine in a non-health related section if it were discussing only emissions. However, using it in a health section and discussing the health effects probably crosses the line into health related material, and am fine leaving it out of that particular section as it is not MEDLINE indexed and health discussion is outside the scope of this journal. If someone were to create a separate section about aerosols which did not describe health related material, this would probably be an excellent source for that. Yobol (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As an aside, you really have to admire the chutzpah of Mihaister calling out someone else for being a SPA.

The thing is, all the claims are already in the article by MEDRS sources. Its not really needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It adds environmental health expertise Cloudjpk (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesnt its engineers. This isnt AIHA which has some medical reference, though low. Engineers are not medical in any way AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Environmental_health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No its not, they are not doctors or health experts but engineers. The argument may have worked for AIHA, it doesnt work for ASHRAE. They work on heaters and air conditioners.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations have already been provided on this Environmental Health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have placed a link to a section posted on a page that says they work with standards groups. They are not a prominent health body as described on WP:MEDRS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the content on the page. ASHRAE has recognized expertise in environmental helath and is active in applying the best science to protecting health and safety. ASHRAE standards based on this protect the health of literally millions of people. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What you need is not a statement on the ASHRAE site, but on a site of a prominent medical body like the CDC or WHO recognizing them. Anyone can put things on their own site saying anything they want. That they help design standards in buildings does not indicate they have medical expertise which is what is necessary to make health claims. They dont have the credentials for that, they are engineers.Perhaps if they were talking about airflow, or filtration and fan systems or heating and air conditioning you could use them in a non medical claim or section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

All the standards ASHRAE has produced deal with airflow, heating, and air conditioning. They have no expertise in Health matters. The claim is about Health risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that ASHRAE has no expertise in health matters. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health, and are used for exactly that by [health departments]. It has developed expertise, and it is accepted as a source of expertise, in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The link you gave says ssites them and their standards for ventilation and heating and cooling buildings. That is not medical expertise. The only way they can be a WP:MEDRS source is if they have medical expertise. and are recognized by prominent groups as having medical expertise. You can not have a medical claim in the Health effects section without a WP:MEDRS source with medical expertise. Having expertice in general, airflow, or about heating and cooling does not give you the right to make claims like this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that they were doctors. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and why they are different. Please understand if he does not know; that's not his field. Medicine is not environmental health. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health. Their standards development process is based on science, medicine, toxicology, and health and safety research. They are recognized for their expertise in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, they need to be medical refrences to make health claims. Thats why you cant use the ASHRAE citation for the claim. They are not recognised by anyone except as experts in airflow, aand heating and refrigeration. But a medical refrence is needed, you are running out of time to find one. 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Medicine is not environmental health. The source provides expertise in environmental health and indoor air quality risk evaluation specifically. This is not a purely medical question. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and see :) Cloudjpk (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE is a recognized expert in air quality whose [standards] are accredited by ANSI, widely adopted, and become the basis of law, code, and policy. It has related expertise in Environmental Health. Its standards and expertise in indoor air quality are referenced by industry and government [OSHA, [CDC]. ASHRAE Journal is a high quality [peer-reviewed journal]. It is relevant to questions of indoor air quality and recommended policy responses. It is cited here with regard to those questions only. I would be fine with placing it in a separate section on aerosols only. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if we grant you that everything you state above is true... then there are some serious problems still. The article is based upon their interpretation of a single primary source (Goniewicz et al (2013)[40]), which is referenced in all of the newer WP:MEDRS secondary review articles, including Burstyn(2014) which covers the same topic area, and which comes to the contrary conclusion as your article. And that means that per WP:MEDREV your reference simply doesn't qualify as sufficiently good material. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)As a note: Even Goniewicz doesn't reach that conclusion, although Grana does, and Grana is cited for this already in the article - this is not a pile-on. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It provides peer-reviewed environmental health analysis and expertise; Grana does not. It complements Burstyn(2014) nicely by using NSRLs and CRELs where Burstyn uses TLVs, which is also why WP:MEDREV doesn't apply: the same question wasn't examined. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wasting time arguing when you should be loooking for a WP:MEDRS source. The claim wont last long without it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I explained why the expertise is relevant and the source high quality. Removing it is not supported by consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal is supported by consensus if you dont have a WP:MEDRS source. Saying it isnt will not change the facts. You are wasting time you would be better served finding said source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have requested temporary page protection because of Cloudjpk's actions' AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I have tagged it as needing a WP:MEDRS one should be found or the claim will be removed. Persistent revert/replacing against consensus will result in a edit warring notification on the Admin edit war/3rr board AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I take exception to so marking it. Environmental health expertise is cited appropriately. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Take exception all you want, but you are going against consensus. Everyone here, even Yobol says it isnt MEDRS. Find a citation that is WP:MEDRS, or it will be removed tomorrow, if you replace it I will file a notice on the Administers war edit/3rr board for your actions for going against consensus and consistently replacing it (an edit war). AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus for excluding it. I see multiple editors who believe it should included. Please note that whether it's MEDRS not the same question. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Every editor here has said it doesnt belong in the health section, Aresol is a subsection of Health effects. So what you are saying is untrue. Even if it wasnt in a health section, by making health claims a MEDRS is needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there are editors who have not said that. However I said I would be fine with placing it in a separate section for Aerosols, and I'm still fine with that; is that something we can work with? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless where its placed in the article, if it makes health claims, which it does, it needs a WP:MEDRS source. There is no one that supports its use without a WP:MEDRS source. You are going against consensous, I am giving you time to find a WP:MEDRS source, if you cant find one it will be removed. If its replaced without a WP:MEDRS source, you will be reported for edit warring. Site one in this section that does. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me the consensus for excluding it. Or help develop a consensus for placement. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Read this section, no one says they are a MEDRS. No one but you. Not even Yobol who usually stands with the medical editors and pretty much agrees that things like risks should be included. That is consensus. There is no way to make the information you want to include, health risk claims, included without a WP:MEDRS source. You need to find one, and fast. The placing of the tag isnt an indefinite allowing of the claims to stay, but it is giving you a chance to find a source. Do yourself a favor and find one, or remove it yourself, because it wont be long. Per WP:NOCITE if you dont find a source in a reasonable time, and a day is reasonable, it can and will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, please read I wrote. I didn't say the source was MEDRS. I agreed with other editors that it is a reliable source for the content in question. There is no consensus to exclude it. If you do so, you are the one acting without consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is going in circles, by your own admission its not WP:MEDRS I could remove it right now. You still have time to find one but you are wasting everyones time going round in circles. No, you can say I dont have consensus, but you cant point to one other editor in this section who agrees with you. You saying something isnt proof. Find one or remove it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I can point to editors who agree that this source should be cited. So can you. It's right here on the Talk page; couldn't be plainer. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think you realize how accommodating I am being giving you the time to find one. I am trying to work with you by giving you the chance to find one, if you cant I will have to remove it per WP:NOCITE. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to work with you and others, and have already offered a way to move forward: what section would this be apppropriate in? If you wish to achieve consensus, there's a way to do it. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This section cant be used in any section because its making a medical claim of risks without a WP:MEDRS source. There is consensus that medical claims cant be used in an article without one, and a secondary source. Your arguing and asking and not doing the easiest thing, which is finding the WP:MEDRS source. If you cant find one its likely it doesnt even pass WP:WEIGHT. Your not working with anyone, working with the other editors would entail you finding said source, or removing claim. I have went over and over this and you still dont get it. So find a WP:MEDRS source, or it gets removed per WP:NOCITE. This isnt using anything as a weapon, but following WP guidelines and policy. WP:RS of wich WP:MEDRS relies is one of the 5 pillars, there is no way around it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your view; other editors see it differently. If you would like to work towards consensus, offers have been made. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Name one, at this present time, in this section other than yourself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to name other editors who agree this source should be cited. Tell you what though, how about you do that? They're right on this page.

I'm also happy to discuss which section is most appropriate. This is the third time I've offered that as a way to build consensus. You have yet to respond. Do you want to build consensus? Cloudjpk (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WNT, Yobol, Kim, Mihaister, and myself all disagree with you that ASHRE can be used to make medical claims. There is no one left. I have told you how you can work with everyone else to build consensus multiple times, by finding a WP:MEDRS reference for the medical claim you are making. There is no other way short of removing all medical claims in the sentence and that will leave basically nothing. These ongoing circular arguments will make great diffs later if you dont find a WP:MEDRS source and then replace the section when it is removed per WP:NOCITE because its disruptive to consensus building. 12:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WNT, Yobol, and I agree this source carries weight and should be cited. There is ongoing discussion on where it should be placed in the article. If you would like to build consensus, you are welcome to join that discussion. If you would rather engage in WP:MEDRS wars, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Yobol and Wnt say that the source could be used to make claims that are not medical in a non medical section. But you are making claims that are medical so no matter what section you place it in it needs a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a personal dislike for ASHRAE because I blame them for pushing ridiculous, self-serving air quality standards that leave modern buildings sounding like one giant fan room, and make a mockery of claims of improved energy efficiency. Nonetheless, this source is valuable and should be kept. You can say that it is not a reliable MEDRS source, and in a sense that may be true - I would prefer to pass through to the original primary studies the author cites. Nonetheless, the organization is (rightly or wrongly) trusted and certainly should be cited by Wikipedia for routine engineering measurements like the level of formaldehyde in the air, and for introducing scientific concepts like the distinction between a vapor and an aerosol (this was discussed on this page a few topics up, and this is a good source for it). If you must invoke the loathsome MEDRS, I would at least see it confined to the narrow space of actual health claims, as opposed to how the e-cigarette works (which it also explains) and so forth. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS sources are only really needed in the health sections, Aresol is in the health section and full of health claims. Each claims in the ASHREA statement are all in the article sourced to MEDRS sources. This is a problem of duplication using a non MEDRS source to make health claims. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that goes back to the RfC above - I don't think we should have the basic description of the consumer device, which was not designed by doctors, under a medical section at all. It should be an early, separate section that simply explains what it is and how it works. Wnt (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment, in the article as it is now, MEDRS sources are not required in say the Components section if they dont make a health claim. 23:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Placement of Offerman(2014)

Offerman(2014) has been recognized as a source worth citing in the article. However, there has been some disagreement as to exactly where to place it. I am open to suggestions. I'm starting this section for clarity and with a view to building consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the discussion. There is no agreement that Offermann's editorial should be cited anywhere. That article is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the same data presented by Goniewicz et al. (2013), which is already discussed in the article. There is no evidence that the Offermann article has even been peer-reviewed; and all of the statements that could possibly be made based on it are already covered in the article using far more reliable sources. The rest of the claims are already covered by the AIHA internal paper, which is already in the article. There is no reason to insist on the Offermann paper unless you're pursuing some vested interest or specific POV.

As an aside, note how Offermann manufactured a bunch of risk criteria for his calculations, for compounds that do not have established CRELs. This is an indication that no peer-review has been performed or that it's been woefully inept, as such practice of inventing risk thresholds for GRAS chemicals (such as propylene glycol) is not only inconsistent with risk assessment guidelines, it is academic misconduct. Mihaister (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. Offerman(2014) is not an editorial. There are multiple editors who agree that it carries weight and should be cited. The publication is peer reviewed. And please take your bashing elsewhere; I have created this section for discussion of placement of the source. I am working toward consensus. If you would like to be part of that, you are welcome. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Offerman has been recognised as a possible source for non medical claims. But that is not how you are using it inside a medical section. Offernam is part of a journal for ASHRAE or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. They are not a medical group. All editors in the section above except you say its not a WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not, ASHRAE is a society of engineers who expertice is airflow, refrigeration, heating , and air conditioning not health care. Find another source or the claims and the link will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! What would be examples of a non medical section? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

History would be one, but since your using it for medical claims it doesnt matter what section you place it in, it would still need a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we were using it for research and analysis on environmental health and safety, not necessarily medicine? What section(s) would work for that? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a medical research regardless of the setting, and a any mention of risk or implying that there is a danger is a health impact claim would need a WP:MEDRS source. The only use of ASHRAE is air flow, refrigeration, heating and air conditioning if you can find some way to use that in an article. Offerman holds a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. If you couldfind a paper by ASHRAE on the vertilation needed in a room full of people vaping they might be used, but this article is way beyond that, and doent have any of that information. 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the question is about environmental health not medicine. Both are good for your health; the two are not the same thing. And the question in view is which section(s) of this article would be appropriate for information on environmental health. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this organization is somewhat comparable to the people who write Material Safety Data Sheets (which are almost always pure guesswork where human toxicity is concerned, for obvious reasons). The MSDS may call a chemical an "irritant" or "poison", which is somewhat a medical claim, but it should still be citable if it represents how safety regulators treat it. We just should be clear that X considers it so, not that it is scientifically proven so. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Even maximum exposures are medical, and engineers dont have the expertise to decide what a minimum or maximum exposure is because that is a health question because it has a health impact. ASHRAE is not recognized as medical by anyone. The only ASHRAE standards recognized by anyone are airflow and heating and cooling.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying this. It wasn't true the first time you said it, either. Ample references have been provided. Nothing is stopping you from reading them. If you would like to help get to consensus, that would be helpful. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats what really stops ASHRAE from being used, while they are in some way scientific, they are only recognized as experts because of standards they have set that are recognized. Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals. They are about airflow, or heating, refrigeration or air conditioning. This limits what they can be used for to the expertise they are recognized for. So, no, they cant really be used for exposures to chemicals because exposures are decided by medical study. The way the claim in the article is written, its pure medical. In the U.S., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees MSDS and it is a major medical organization just like other countries they are part of the Health department, full of doctors and medical study, MSDS is a WP:MEDRS source because it is recognized as such by other major medical organizations and governments. But you couldnt use a MSDS journal (if one exists) to write a citation on how an airplane flies. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal .... or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not medical and not recognized by anyone as medical, ASHRAE is a society of engineers whos expertise is airflow, refrigeration, heating , and air conditioning not health care. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals oh wait

not health care "Among the references most often cited by a majority of existing standards, both national and international -- even though it is not legally binding -- are the norms published by ASHRAE...the acceptable quality of indoor air required for its occupants in order to prevent adverse health effects" Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, 1998. Stellman, Jeanne M (Editor). Emphasis mine. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You definitely have too rosy a view of MSDSes. It's hard for me to argue with you on ASHRAE because as it happens I do personally think they promulgate an absurdly strict standard on indoor carbon dioxide and particulates in order to sell more HVAC equipment (compared to the typical wigwam with a fire inside and a hole in the roof). Still, while I may not like their standards they're still data, and data is good. MEDRS can turn into a petty exclusion of non-medical viewpoints, and even when I feel those viewpoints are wrong (as in the carbon dioxide example) an encyclopedia should still document them. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree! And I'm open to where in the article this one should be placed. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Cloudjpk. This is not only an issue of MEDRS, which Offermann clearly is not, but even if it were, there is a much bigger issue of WP:WEIGHT. There are actual review articles available on this very topic (as defined by PubMed publication type) and they are thoroughly discussed in the article; there's no reason to lower the sourcing standards to include this dubious and controversial publication. To put Offermann's piece on equal footing with the reviews currently cited by the article is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, in particular WP:GEVAL and would push the article even further from WP:NPOV. Wikipedia gives more weight to reviews published in high-quality sources than non-reviews published in lesser-quality sources.

In this particular case, the Offermann source is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the Goniewicz data, which is already discussed by multiple reviews already cited in the article, including Grana and Burstyn. You are pushing the Offermann article to give WP:UNDUE weight to a low-quality source aiming to contradict or modify conclusions from high-quality reviews. This is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Mihaister (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A re-analysis does not seem like a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is used in the future Mihaister, McNeil should come in. In fact I am thinking use of AIHA may have already opened the door. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the previous discussion, the 'version of record' has been published: it's time to introduce the arguments from that review. Mihaister (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That was not a review and it was rejected. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dream on, Quack. The consensus was to add "attributed statements" once the VoR gets published, and it now has been. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic wording

A 2014 review, "while not listing them" stated there are concerns about pregnant women exposure to e-cigarette mist through direct use or via exhaled mist. The part "while not listing them" is unencyclopedic wording, unnecessary, and the source did say this. Every time a source does not list the specifics we don't need to say what the source did not say. I think at least women readers will know when a women is pregnant there is a concern for the fetus being exposed to the chemicals such as nicotine from the e-cigarette. The part "while not listing them" is POV editorialising and possibly OR. See Electronic cigarette#Aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful using any unsourced information even if it presented in a review... Do remember that such sources contain both a summary of the science as well as the personal views of the researchers, this is particularly visible in the policy recommendations, and is another reason that one should never rely entirely on one review paper. Finally as for your "I think at least women readers will know...."... There is a general scare in the lay-population of anything that is "chemical" and using that as a reasoning is pure WP:NPOV. I've been wondering where that pregnant thing comes from, but no references are given to it (afaik) - so if it is a real and valid concern then we should have some background for it. --Kim D. Petersen 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I added more information from another source. QuackGuru (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tobacco Harm Reduction

I see a lot of biased edits happened today, removing harm reduction claims and placing them elsewhere, and moving Harm Reduction. If Harm reduction is moved under safety, so should cessation because its done to remove all risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved down the discussion of harm reduction as the emphasis in secondary sources is in discussion of smoking cessation and safety profiles. Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources and receives less emphasis, so it should be further down in the list in a discussion of health effects. It also makes more sense to discuss harm reduction after introducing the smoking cessation and safety issues, as this gives context to the harm reduction position, that they would not understand without introduction to these topics first. Yobol (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that accusations of "biased edits" do not further a discussion of how to appropriately improve the article, as it fosters a WP:BATTLEground mentality. I would suggest you lay off the accusations. Yobol (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: I'm sorry? I did a spot check of your claim that "Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources" was correct. Lets see: Saitta et al(2014), Hajek et al(2014), Palazzolo(2014), O'Connor(2012), Farsalinos&Polosa(2014) all have "harm reduction" in their keywords. Polosa et al(2013) and Cahn&Siegel(2011) directly are about harm-reduction and have it in the title. And that was just the reviews from the top part of the left column of our references.

Could you rephrase that in a way that is accurate please - since reality doesn't match your claim. Could you also explain why it should be the only thing discussed in the source? --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While harm reduction may not be as much on the radar in the US. It is very much part of both the scientific and the political debate in Europe. And quite a lot of our sources are European, and they mostly do take a focus on harm reduction, as opposed to many of the US ones. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The bias is removing clear claims of harm reduction from the section. Also making it a subsection. It deserves a section on its own under Health Effects, and not under Aerosol, which is second hand exposure. If a clam is about harm reduction, it should be in that section. Even if it has other parts, the harm reduction part should remain there are other parts placed in the section that fit, not be completely removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since safety should come first, I moved Cessation under it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to start removing any duplication of any chemical or source soon if the Harm Reduction has referenced claims removed again.AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Yobol is involved in an edit war AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you are too. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I now see your point about the last paragraph now in harm reduction, you are right, that belongs there. I misread the material there. Yobol (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I never reverted to a previous version of the page. I have removed duplicates from other areas. I am glad you see it is talking about harm reduction. There wasnt a section like it before so some claims of harm reduction are spread all over the page. Some of them I didnt remove from other sections because they deal with multiple things.AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You restored the previous version and then deleted sourced text. If the text was in the wrong section it could of been moved to another section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That section never existed in that location in the past so it cant be "restored". But the problem Yobol had was that the claims were duplicates, he later said they belonged in the Harm Reduction section. So since they belong in that section I removed the duplication from other areas. Up untill reciently there was no Harm reduction section and harm reduction claims were scattered accross other sections. The same has happened with Aerosol, and soon the duplicates from sections will have to be delt with. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording not consistent with source

Sourced wording was replaced with OR.

"A 2014 review concluded that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that would justify health concerns.[10]" The wording was changed and now the sentence is misleading and OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide that link, also please provide the text of the claim from the cited material. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide verification for the current text. There was no problem with the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide the correct diff. I found the line in the citation. "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." It looks like a good paraphrase and not OR. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You still could not verify the text because the source did not assert that. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Read my previous responce above yours. It has the exact wording copied from the source, it most certianly said what is in the article. But its a paraphrase, we cant use the exact wording because of copyright issues as a few have explained to you a few times.AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of consensus

The source that was not a review was added against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for leaving it out; mostly it's just you.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I envite you to look at the section discussing its inclusion after the final printing, which has happened, It was said to be used with who said it. There is even a link included in the comments for the edit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus to include, so reverted, feel free to have an outside closer review that discussion if you'd like. Zad68 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)