Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Full protection

Why was this article fully protected? That seems a bit drastic. I saw little of what could possibly be described as edit warring in the page history. Everymorning talk to me 23:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is to force the editors here to actually get consensus rather than simply endlessly editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo in Device Generations

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First generation devices e-cigarettes commonly look like tobacco cigarettes and are thus called "cigalikes".

We need to remove either devices or e-cigarettes, I propose

First generation e-cigarettes commonly look like tobacco cigarettes and are thus called "cigalikes".

SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, plus a change to American English They may also be designed as a reusable device with a battery and cartage called a cartomiser to They may also be designed as a reusable device with a battery and cartridge called a cartomizer SPACKlick (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Either devices or e-cigarettes will do, I don't think it makes any difference in this context. So yes I support the proposal as there is a typo in there atm.

With regards to the language variant, American English seems to be the established language on this article so I have no issues with that being changed either.Levelledout (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, these are both improvements. Zad68 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Got these two. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus vs One Report Says

Does anyone with better access to journals than I have a list of the most recent meta-analyses of the health effects, emissions and cessation efficacy of e-cigarettes. looking at a lot of the sources in the article it feels like we're reporting the findings of one study or one reviewers subjective opinion of a couple of studies rather than any form of consensus? I'm eagerly awaiting this analysis due out in January of next year which I think will cover a lot of ground. SPACKlick (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That'd make sense. Metaanalysees are generally much stronger than singlestudies. Half Hat 12:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Smoking Cessation - Ugly wording

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The smoking cessation section's first sentences is;

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated, and the benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[1]

Which I would propose be changed to

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited[1]. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain[2] and has not been convincingly demonstrated.

as it reads in better English. To whichever admin makes the edits, the Harrell source is to go at [2] and the Franck source is to go at [1]SPACKlick (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Franck, C.; Budlovsky, T.; Windle, S. B.; Filion, K. B.; Eisenberg, M. J. (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes in North America: History, Use, and Implications for Smoking Cessation". Circulation. 129 (19): 1945–1952. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416. ISSN 0009-7322. PMID 24821825.

Harrell, PT; Simmons, VN; Correa, JB; Padhya, TA; Brandon, TH (4 June 2014). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ("E-cigarettes"): Review of Safety and Smoking Cessation Efficacy". Otolaryngology—head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. doi:10.1177/0194599814536847. PMID 24898072.

Two different sources made two different conclusions. Combing them together is SYN. The part "therefore their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain" is SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the therefore would be better as a fullstop. I have edited above for the ease of the eventual ediotr and removed the template until consensus is reached. SPACKlick (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use is limited; therefore, their possibility for smoking cessation has not been convincingly demonstrated.[22] Their benefit with respect to helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[5]" This can be done without combining two different sources and conclusions together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is very tiring and demonstrates the reason that this page was protected, This is what SYN would look like:

"As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited[1]. Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain[2] and has not been convincingly demonstrated. Therefore man did not land on the moon"

WP:SYN has nothing to do with punctuation marks or other grammar. Further more neither suggestion combines two sources to reach a third conclusion. Both of the points that are made, whether separated by a full stop or not, are accurately cited to sources. There is no third/secondary conclusion, therefore it is in no way whatsoever WP:SYN. Levelledout (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks levelled, the original proposal was Syn I'd taken A therefore B. And C and turned it into A therefore (C and B). QG the issue with your proposal is that the first sentence isn't written in English. The current proposal is not Syn, well sourced and better written than the current. SPACKlick (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Given the limited available evidence on the risks and benefits of e-cigarette use..." This is about the risks and benefits but the proposal says only that "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited" for the first sentence. The part "therefore" is missing. The previous wording is explaining because the research is limited therefore, the effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid has not been convincingly demonstrated. This is closer to what the source said. You are using two different sources together for the second sentence which is misleading and the first sentence lost its meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really believe you are arguing over one word. I have gone with SPACKlick's suggestion as it seems an improvement over the current wording. You can carry on arguing over the "therefore"! A more serious problem was the double sentence starting "A 2014 review found ..." I assume only one of these should be there, or they should be combined in some way? Perhaps someone could create Draft:Electronic cigarette with the proposed wording (and no edit warring on that page please). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed with the new wording as previously explained. This is not about a single word. Now the first sentence lost it meaning. These are two different sources that should not be combined. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the proposed statements fail to represent the significant and opposing point of view, that e-cigs are relatively safe and effective for harm reduction and smoking cessation, as the high-impact MEDRS sources at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims clearly indicate. I have no confidence in the current set of editors trying to assert WP:OWNership over this article by trying to exclude those sources' clear conclusions in violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sources

There's a few spots in the article that use patent filings, press releases and product manufacturer websites as sourcing. Also be careful with press releases disguised as "news" from institutions trying to promote the results of their own research efforts. These kinds of things are generally unacceptable to establish WP:WEIGHT, for hopefully obvious reasons. The filing of a patent application or even its granting is in no way independently notable. These sorts of primary sources can be used carefully alongside good-quality independent secondary sources to, for example, fill in a particular date or name that didn't appear in the secondary, but they cannot be used by themselves. I've corrected this in a few spots but there's more to go. Zad68 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. While I did not run across language that seemed to me to specifically prohibit the use of promotional material from manufacturers of products as a source, I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. It seems to me that we should be using WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and if none exist, the subject matter is not notable. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why this is framed as a WP:WEIGHT issue. A patent application is a perfectly reliable source for a statement like "In 2014, Pat Smith filed a patent application for..." and a press release is a perfectly reliable source for "Company X announced the availability of..." but compliance with WP:WEIGHT cannot be demonstrated with that kind of sourcing. Zad68 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We have perfectly good peer reviewed secondary MEDRS literature review sources. They fall in to two categories: inconclusive, claiming insufficient evidence for a determination, and conclusive, saying that e-cigs are clearly beneficial. The inconclusive reviews cite very many fewer primary studies than the reviews which reach substantive and prescriptive conclusions in favor of e-cigs. All of the primary sources from the past year which discern between 1st- and 2nd-generation e-cigs reach similarly substantive conclusions in favor. Why do we even need to worry about promotional material at all? WP:NPOV is completely clear that all mainstream points of view need to be represented. Period! Furthermore, WP:LEAD is clear that "prominent" controversies need to be summarized in the article's introduction. We are all very aware how prominent the controversy is, so why does the article only represent the "inconclusive, needs more research" point of view? That's against the rules, plain and simple. EllenCT (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Can you please show me where the website says E-cig advanced is a worldpress blog? AlbinoFerret 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, this indicates it's on WordPress. The site appears to be a "community-contributor" driven site, it has "regular contributors" who are simply enthusiasts. Look at the "industry news" section, the news articles appear to simply repeat press releases. Zad68 14:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That link only shows that they used the worldpress for the member blog area, which appears to be separate from the news section. AlbinoFerret 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I can find on the site is

ECig Advanced Transparency Statement
EcigAdvanced.com is a for-profit business. We employ the use of advertising, affiliate links and banners to bring in revenues. Our reviews are done by paid reviewers, paid for their time, not for their opinion. Our reviews are not biased based on the revenue that we stand to gain from a particular product. Our reviews are based solely on the opinion of the reviewer’s experience with the product and nothing more.
While we do employ these banners, affiliate links and other methods of advertising for a profit, we also have considerable expense to cover in order to keep the lights on and the door open here at Ecig Advanced. We have teams of designers and developers, reviewers and writers as well as forum moderators. Ecig Advanced also uses its own funds to partially or wholly purchase products for giveaway to our community members. Further, we use the relationships we’ve established with vendors and suppliers to bring giveaways to our members, in exchange for advertisement and promotion on our pages.

Which doesn't comment on an editing policy. SPACKlick (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions

I've reviewed this discussion in addition to the topic at the NPOV noticeboard. Consensus was against restoring the conclusive statements on the basis of participation and that there were unanswered concerns in the NPOV discussion about whether adding these statements violated due weight principles as it appears these conclusions are not common in the literature, nor are the studies well-cited (at this time of the discussion, anyway). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The edit at [1] replaces statements appearing most prominently in the conclusions as well as in the abstracts of two authoritative WP:MEDRS research reviews which have both been cited in the article for months in support of other statements which the MEDRSs' authors did not state in their summary or conclusions, in favor of statements from other inconclusive sources contradicting the prescriptive conclusions of the more thorough reviews. The conclusive reviews are discussed at [2] and [3]. Should the conclusive statements be restored to the article? EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Could we please stick to 1-2 RfC's at a time? This one is premature imho. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew the Palazzolo et al (2013) RfC as its poster above per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs because the journal had some serious credibility problems of which I had been unaware, and consensus seemed clear enough because of that problem alone. The Polosa et al (2013) and Hajek et al (2014) sources have been discussed thoroughly above. Nobody objects to including milquetoast statements from them or their reliability, but a few editors simply don't want their most prominent conclusions included in the article because they say in plain language that smokers switching to e-cigs are likely to benefit tremendously because they are much less harmful "if at all." EllenCT (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's the central point. There is a group of editors who refuse to let anything into the article unless it's negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. The central point is not allowing in broad statements of health benefits that are substantiated to a lesser extent than those of a typical phase 1 drug that has shown some promising effects in an animal model. This is the EXACT sort of unproven claim that we don't allow for drugs, don't allow for medical devices, don't allow for nutritional supplements and don't want for e-cigarettes, irrespective of whether you choose to call them a medical device or consumer product. Doc James and I have deleted literally hundreds, possibly thousands of unproven health claims from scores of articles over the last several years. This one is no different. You can't say that e cigs are going to help people quit without performing large, randomized trials. It may sound very reasonable, but remember all the population surveys showing that people with high dietary antioxidant content had less cancer, but when randomized trials of supplements were done, antioxidants were shown to increase cancer. You can't jump over the step of doing a large RCT. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs aren't a medical device or nutritional supplement, so your argument is irrelevant. The fact is this: E-cigs are a recreational product with no known health issues, but this article has been medicalized and turned into an endless catalog of hypothetical "concerns" with no real-world evidence. It's POV out the ass.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your opinion reflected in any policy or guideline? WP:MEDRS doesn't say anything like that. It says to trust the peer-reviewed literature reviews when they have been favorably well-cited. That's what we have here. Multiple MEDRSs which agree because they summarize sufficient RCTs to satisfy their peer reviewers, in turn because it is obvious what is going on here. You are taking an addictive drug that is dangerous because it is traditionally delivered with smoke from burning vegetable matter, which everyone agrees is what causes the vast majority if not the entirety of the physiological damage, and delivering it without any smoke or even pyrolites. Are there any alternative hypothesis? No! But you persist in trying to make up new rules from whole cloth ... because why? EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for reliable sources to pronounce any need for any type of study. There's currently no verifiable evidence that "large RCTs" (or any other type of pharmaceutical study) are even applicable to understanding the current use of these devices. The RCT "requirement" opined above is nothing more than another attempt to "medicalize" the topic. Mihaister (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Decisions/statements like that really have to be made on a source by source basis; just because you don't have any in mind doesn't mean they can't be found by a diligent editor. I have a feeling of original research about a statement like that. To make an OR counter-argument (no, I'm not saying to add this to the article unless you find a ref) my main concern is whether N-Nitrosonornicotine can be produced by the degradation of hot nicotine solution by a poorly designed E-cigarette. I looked this up a while back and found there was only a minor amount in the refill liquid [4] but I didn't find data for the level in urine or in exhaled smoke. Probably should have looked harder because there must be something somewhere. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any exhaled smoke, so what are you talking about?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt A flipside to that is that in a fast evolving industry like e-cigarettes, where the first temperature regulating board was just released. I wonder how many of these journal articles are on poorly designed and obsolete hardware and crappy juice from china? AlbinoFerret 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a major problem. Researchers want consistency, so they prefer cigalikes with prefilled cartos because these have the "consistent dose" they think is important. They're self-selecting for shitty equipment and shitty results. This whole stupid debate is over vape gear that nobody in the real world has used since 2012.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Lorillard alone will have sold >$150m worth of cigalikes in the U.S. alone this year. It's a little ridiculous to say nobody is using them. The market may be moving in the direction of later-generation kit, VTMs or whatever you want to call them, but cigalikes clearly sell and presumably are used. They wouldn't be in retailers and coming off production lines in the quantity that they are if this wasn't the case. I'm not arguing they are better - but they do exist as a substantial part of the market. Barnabypage (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, sorry - I meant mist, aerosol, "vapor", whatever, not smoke. As for no one in the real world using the 'cigalikes', you should provide references. In terms of visible advertising presence - TV ads, posters on convenience storefronts and so forth - the "blu" brand still seems to be more visible than the others. Also you should provide some background on what you mean by "shitty" equipment/results. To the uninitiated, it would seem like either you inhale nicotine or not. What effect does the better gear or the fancy customizable features have? Wnt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that someone in the world uses ciaglikes. They are usually a stepping stone to better equipment because of their poor performance. I dont have a MEDRS source that says that, but it may show up in components as its not a health claim but a performance claim. In the UK ciaglike manufacturers are moving to ego type devices because of this as is V2 in the US. I see ego's just as often in stores as ciaglikes now in the US. But from what I have read, most of the studies used early forms of cigalikes, and dont mention the source of the e-juice which from the dates is probably from China. China is notorious for poor quality control in manufacturing. Your comment of finding information based on "a poorly designed E-cigarette" only reinforces the question of if others tested poorly designed e-cigarettes that dont reflect the majority of devices then or today.

At least from my comments above, and CheesyAppleFlake's when you are testing old "shitty" equipment and juice from a country with notoriously bad quality control you are going to find problems. I would really like to see a study use a kanger or aspire tank (that dont use any solder) on any battery and use one of the popular ejuices made in the UK or US that use strict quality control and only use pharmaceutical grade components except for flavours for comparison. AlbinoFerret 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still have no idea what "poor performance" really means. Do you get less nicotine, or have they been shown to produce contaminants or bad taste or something, or does liquid come out where it shouldn't, or... ? I just don't have an idea and the article doesn't really give me one. Politically (a goal we should facilitate, but not follow) there would seem to be a relationship between the potential for regulation and the nature of the problems people experience. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because, no offense, you have no idea about the subject in general. Nicorette inhalators deliver more nicotine than most e-cigs, but users don't like them at all. OTOH, a lot of very keen hobbyist vapers are using low-nicotine juice despite having been very heavily addicted smokers. You insist on approaching it from a medical point of view where it's all about dose. That's wrong. There are all sorts of ways the newer devices beat cigalikes, none of which have anything to do with nicotine. Cigalikes give a low volume of vapor. They come in a restricted range of flavors, which are usually not very good flavors anyway. They don't let you adjust power output. They're expensive because you have to buy proprietary cartos or entire new disposable devices. Tobacco companies like them because they fit their existing business model and distributor networks but their sales are falling sharply, both overall and in market share. But tobacco controllers still obsess over them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor performance is the amount of vapor. That does affect the way they are viewed by the user and may lead to reduced levels of nicotine than advertised. That could be why we see so many people stop using them as a way of quitting or for duel use, that hasnt made its way into a review, yet. There are concerns (about nicotine delivery) in a journal article or review, not sure which off the top of my head, but is already being pointed out. The main point I made before is that the old saying of garbage in garbage holds true. Garbage hardware = metals in the vapor, already in a review. Garbage liquid can equal all sorts of things that were never intended to be put in them by using impure non pharmaceutical components. the Juice comparison isnt in a journal article yet to my knowledge, I hope we see something on it soon. One of the big names of cigalikes is even starting a new juice line from the better e-juice makers hopefully that gets it in a study soon. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the common complaints is that the perceived nicotine "hit" from a cigalike e-cigarette is less than from a supposedly comparable tobacco cigarette. Testing has also found very wide variations in the actual nicotine content of e-liquids at supposedly the same concentrations. I don't have a view on whether either of these points is valid or not, but they are among the widely-made criticisms. Barnabypage (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I welcome any such data you can cite, but the ref I cited above [5] actually said the bottles were generally accurate, so you have some convincing to do. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This, for example: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/26/ntr.ntu080.abstract but I'm really not interested in doing any convincing here. My point is that this is one of the aspects of "poor performance" that people talk about - whether or not their talk is grounded in reality, it still influences opinions, in the market and in policy-making. Indeed this relates to how, on a broader level, the whole article needs to recognise that views can be influential and important even if they are are not grounded in established scientific fact. (Not that they are important merely because they are widely-held - but if they are held by people in positions of power or influence they can be.) Barnabypage (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is persuasive; since as I've said I think contradictions are good it may be worth having a sentence or two with both sources. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 That sounds eerily like statements from the pharmaceutical industry. I know I havent added any quitting claims, and I cant remember one in the article, but we have dozens of unclear, unproven, and more studies needed claims on quitting. Its over doing it. AlbinoFerret 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What is eery about it? There is nothing out of line with Wikipedia medical sourcing guidelines, high-quality evidence must be summarized by an authoritative, independence source before an article like this one can make a health claim based on it. Zad68 04:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just the way its phrased, it reminds me of something I read, cant quite remember where. It will come to me if I stop thinking about it. As I said, I dont think anyone regularly editing the article is placing those claims. I would remove them if I did see an unreferenced one, and would be very sceptical if one was referenced. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC Comment - This RFC's statement does not meet the guidelines for RFCs because it is not a neutral statement about the dispute. The idea that a conclusive source should be used in preference to an inconclusive one is mistaken. In the general sense, if the inconclusive source is a better quality source than than the inconclusive one, that's because the conclusive one is making conclusions it shouldn't be drawing. Zad68 04:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for this yet you keep adding it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus among those who choose to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, but not among those who allow their personal opinions to interfere with following that pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just like there is no consensus on adding more from Grana to the article, but the number continues to rise? AlbinoFerret

What would you consider to be a neutral statement of the dispute? What evidence is there that the two conclusive sources, which have been included to support other statements in the article for months, "shouldn't be drawing" their most prominent conclusions, with which they both actually conclude? If you have an issue with authoritative MEDRS sources, then you should seek a position as a reviewer for the journals that published them. As Wikipedia editors, we follow the MEDRS policy which does not allow us to second guess the decisions of those peer reviewers. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have asked about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of the respondents there did not raise reliability issues with the sources or the statements, instead saying that inclusion of the proposed statements is an NPOV issue, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT, so I asked those questions at WP:NPOVN#Electronic cigarette health claims. EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Responses

Support reverting [6] to replace the summaries of the conclusive sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Support AlbinoFerret 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose No, we do not place in Wikipedia's voice material that is contradicted by other MEDRS source, we do not replace material in text just because it is "uncertain" (uncertainty is a part of science), and we certainly do not value more reviews that come to a "certain" conclusion when the vast majority of sources do not do so. This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Which sources do you suggest contradict the MEDRS reviews? Both of them are from journals with above-median impact factors, and both of them are reviews of many more primary sources than the uncertain reviews on the same topics. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose mass WP:ASSERT violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Would you please elaborate? EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Yobol. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Based on the preliminary discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Electronic cigarette health claims, I propose replacing the conclusive statements in question prefaced by the phrase, "A 201_ literature review in the journal [Journal Name] said ...." EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What sentence exactly are you trying to replace with what sentence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PEACOCK in 2nd generation

The second generation section opens with

Second generation devices are often used by more experienced users. These devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.[50]

The first sentence is unsourced and feels like it's there to peacock users of 2nd gen devices. I propose

Second generation devices are larger overall and look less like tobacco cigarettes.[50]

SPACKlick (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, I doubt that any usage figures actually exist yet that are broken down into user experience and device generations so there's no real way of telling.Levelledout (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the source cited supports the content, the source says There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers). In the source it's in a paragraph discussing 2nd generation. I think it's reasonable to explain the difference in the users of first and second generation, don't see a reason to remove it. Zad68 15:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spot that, however I'm still not overly sure on the feel of the sentence as is (I know horrible fluffy wording here). The concept almost seems to be backwards. However, proposal dropped. SPACKlick (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. The previous wording that was in the article was something like "more advanced users", which I really did think was fluffy peacock, because it implied that e-cig use was on some sort of promotion/advancement track. "More experienced" I think is fairly neutral, it just describes the amount of time a user has been vaping. Zad68 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Zad pointed out, its in the source, I think its fine as it is. AlbinoFerret 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes create vapor

In the title section, it says EC do not produce vapor.

Interestingly, the Oxford dictionary on "vape" disagrees, it states: "vape: Inhale and exhale the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device."

This is reconciled very simply; there are 2 definitions for vapour - the everyday definition and the scietntific definition.

See Oxford Dictionaty on "vapour." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vapour "vapour 1 [MASS NOUN] A substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid: 'dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour' "

But then the dictionary states:

"[COUNT NOUN] Physics A gaseous substance that is below its critical temperature, and can therefore be liquefied by pressure alone. Compare with gas."

Bottom line: as EC produce vapor according to ordinary english in the way even Oxford understands, the title section should mention that it produces vapor. The technichal definition may be discussed in a separate section.

We are using a review rather than a dictionary for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if our readership learned their vocabulary from reviews instead of dictionaries. EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ignore MEDRS sources in favor of unreliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you think using dictionary definitions are unreliable for avoiding "words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary) EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The MEDRS trumps a dictionary. One might argue to add the word vapor to the list of misused words and we are following what the source did say for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't trump anything. In fact WP:JARGON specifically notes that we shouldn't use technical language if avoidable. I don't know where you get the "MEDRS trumps a dictionary" from? And of course as noted below, you ignore that even in the MEDRS literature there isn't consensus on using aerosol as the descriptive word. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See above, MERDS only refers to the technical definition of vapor, Oxford dictionary brings a separate technical and everyday definition for vapor. MEDRS do not include language journals and by no means takes priority with regards to the regular use of non-technical English over the Oxford Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But at the same time you are ignoring all the reviews that use vapour exclusively. Fact is that even in the MEDRS literature vapour is more used than aerosol. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a massive, ongoing Rfc on this very issue higher up on this page. Please just comment there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

1RR proposal

I like the peace that has come to the page through the protection. To make a more lasting peace I think this page should adopt a 1 Revert Rule. This would help eliminate the edit wars. I also propose an addition to the 1RR rule that if something is reverted a talk page section be created and a revert by any other party not happen until consensus is determined. Of course spam and obvious vandalism is not covered by this rule. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does verify the claim

"Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes."[7] QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The review does not verify the claim! Even the real world does not verify the claim (smoking among youth is on a new low)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Non consensus edits by QuackGuru

I thought perhaps the protection would change how things are done, apparently not QuackGuru has been busy in his sandbox and when he found the page unprotected did a massive edit. diff and then without discussion removed the POV tag. diff2 AlbinoFerret 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the NPOV tag removal. I'm still wading my way thru the other massive edit, and I find some of the changes helpful, but many are not and deepen the NNPOV slant. At this point, I think this should be reverted and invite QG to make small incremental edits to facilitate discussion and consensus for each item. Mihaister (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should be reverted, I am asking for protection now. AlbinoFerret 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the issue with any of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reasons? The POV tag, you didnt discuss its removal even though its been gone over before. The reason you gave for its removal isnt a reason to have it removed. Your other edit is massive and hurts the page POV, you didnt discuss such a massive edit, you just did it, there is no consensus now for adding so much to slant the pov even further. You have not added one positive, all negatives. Looking at your sandbox, you have been planning this since the protection was enacted but didnt come here and discuss them , but waited to ambush everyone. AlbinoFerret 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, QG! The burden of proof lies with you. And massive edits like that are against WP:CAUTIOUS, particularly on a controversial topic such as this. You should've anticipated that such an action would be inflammatory. Mihaister (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, QG, that the edit you did is all the proof we need that you are not acting in good faith. You didn't discuss a single one of those edits here while the page was protected. You are making the article more to your taste, not closer to the consensus version. I will freely admit that any edit you make to this page will receive more scrutiny from me that the average edit and if it's even slighlty out of line with consensus expect to find a revert and section on the talk page asking you to justify it. SPACKlick (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than feelings

The opening of this article states: (...) a battery-powered vaporizer which has the feel of tobacco smoking.

I've been vaping long enough to say that I don't get the "feel" of tobacco smoking... It's a different feeling.

All of this to say that this statement is subjective and should be rewritten. TheNorlo (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found a review to fix the unsourced claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Which ignores what TheNorlo said - doesn't it? It is not about it being "unsourced", but instead about whether it is correct or not. I agree with TheNorlo, it is not the same. --Kim D. Petersen 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it has the appearance of smoking, but feeling is subjective. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears to not be in the source used I am placing a verification tag on it. If it exists, the original claim and page number need to be given here. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When you added the tag this was the text: "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking.[1][not in citation given]"[8] You added a FV tag to sourced text. Did you read the source? The part "has the feel" was originally removed by me. By adding a FV tag you could be confusing other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Produce the line and page number from the source for verification please. AlbinoFerret

What do you think is unsourced based on the link to the source. The objection was the part "has the feel" and that was removed. What was the tag for when anyone can verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide the location in the source for the claim. Since you found it, provide it. 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have the exact wording, it appears to be from the Abstract. Per WP:MEDRS

When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.

The section in Capponetto that is relevant is

"The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine-delivery device resembling a cigarette designed for the purpose of providing inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution to the respiratory system. This device provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no smoke or combustion is actually involved in its operation."

It uses sensation. Feel, feeling, and sense are synonyms. The sentence should be rewritten based on this, not the abstract. Perhaps

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sense of tobacco smoke without tobacco or burning tobacco." AlbinoFerret 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence in the lede says "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." We do not need to repeat something similar in the lede. The word "sense" is practically the same a "feeling". The current wording is better. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Only the " emulate"wording is contrary to clear instructions of WP:MEDRS if you dont like the suggested wording, suggest something else, but it cant be based on the abstract.

"An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which gives a sensation of tobacco smoke without tobacco or smoke." is more like the original and can be sourced from the body of the review. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From the body of the PDF file: "Electronic cigarettes look very similar to the conventional cigarette and are capable of emulating cigarette smoking, but there are differences." ... "Hence, handling an electronic cigarette feels very different from a conventional cigarette."[9] The next sentence in the e-cigs page still say "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco,.." The lede also says "They do not produce cigarette smoke". The part of your proposal "without tobacco or smoke" is repetitive text and the word "sensation" is not accurate when there are differences according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the PDF is wrong. None of mine look even vaguely like a cigarette. No Gen 2 or Gen 3 device does.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid Doc James's change but I undid it wrong and put in simulates instead of emulates. I've left simulates pending discussion from other editors SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)