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.
The use of the word circumvent is controversial, please seek consensus before including. It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page... huh. Just because a source has convince YOU doesn't mean it overrides the need to seek consensus.SPACKlick (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No attempt was made to change the wording. You just deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes per BRD I removed your ridiculous addition. Because you added the claim and edit marked it as a response to the ongoing discussion above about circumvention and you added it where circumvention was previously (making a ridiculously long caption by the way) I can only presume it was pointy, tendentious or ownership. The addition of a marketing claim in that caption was inappropriate and the re-addition of a claim about circumvention was downright inappropriate in the context. you do not own this article. Would you like to suggest a location for the given claim, and a wording? SPACKlick (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think there is a better place for it you should not of deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD. You arrogantly inserted without discussion which you've been warned about several times, the correct response was to revert and send you to talk. If you keep making undiscussed insertions, you'll find it happens a lot more often. SPACKlick (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not made a proposal yet. You just reverted without attempting to improve anything. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not include it is a proposal. I'm awaiting your justification for inclusion. The onus is on the addition SPACKlick (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a frequent claim by most websites. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
please provide a justification for inclusion. This would be some form of argument based on WP policy and the goals of wikipedia rather than just blanket statements. SPACKlick (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The source made this conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
2 things, 1) verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. 2) The wording of an inclusion is up to the cnsensus of editors as long as it is verifiable and doesn't misrepresent the source. Please make an argument and proposal for inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the main conclusion from the source. I propose we restore it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You have as yet provided no justification for inclusion, certainly no justification for inclusion in that caption or even that section. SPACKlick (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
See "Eighty-nine percent of websites claimed that e-cigarettes could be smoked anywhere, including smoke-free environments..."[1] That is a high number which makes it interesting. The source discussed it in detail. The experts believe it is notable. See "Marketing that emphasizes using the product “anywhere,” especially where tobacco smoking is restricted, could lead smokers to add on e-cigarettes and potentially increase the amount of nicotine consumed."[2]QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably notable somewhere in the economics section. Second or third paragraph maybe? And we need wording that fits.SPACKlick (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just add anything and editors can improve it. I am not stuck on any wording. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just say use in smoke-free areas? Nobody can disagree with that (can they...?) and it has none of the negative implications of circumvention or positive ones of compliance. Barnabypage (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "circumvent" the text from being deleted. Lol. QuackGuru (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the point of e-cigarettes?
What's the point of e-cigarettes? I read the first few paragraphs and the article doesn't seem to explain this. Why would anyone want to use these? Is it supposed to be fun? Is it supposed to be a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes? Is it supposed to help people quit smoking? What about second-hand vapor (or whatever it's called)? It seems like this should be explained early on. Perhaps it's buried somewhere in the article, but it seems to me that the basics should be covered first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The section on why people use them is in the section "Motivations for use". Many people use them to quit or reduce smoking. For some people it is a recreation in addition to or instead of smoking. It is seen as a cheaper, healthier alternative to smoking. I think maybe some of that motivations section should be summarised in the lede. SPACKlick (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you should not keep "doing" things prematurely before a consensus has formed. The insertion of "Most users' reasons for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, yet a considerable proportion of their use is recreational" is insufficient and A Quest For Knowledge has a good point. They also touch on the general point that the article in general has very poor readability, does not explain the basic essential facts adequately, is too technical, uses language that is too technical and generally is nowhere near as informative as it should be considering the shear size of it. I think that we should explain clearly, probably in the second paragraph of the lead, in no nonsense language why people use e-cigarettes, we should explain more clearly whether they are a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes (i.e. they are likely safer alternative, but it's not been proven exactly how much safer they are). In the lead we could also replace the terms "smoking cessation aid" with "help people stop smoking" and "tobacco harm reduction" with "reduce harm from smoking" whilst still maintaining Wikilinks to these concepts. Either way it clearly needs to be stated in clearer more understandable language how and if these things help people stop and reduce harm from smoking. At the end of the day the lead probably needs a rewrite to make it more comprehensible.Levelledout (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
While in general I agree with the above post I would caution about OVERsimplification of language this is not Simple English Wikipedia. While Tobacco Harm Reduction is not a common term outside of the relevant topic area and may want to be explained when first introduced or replaced in general Smoking Cessation is a reasonably common term that can probably stay without a significant reduction in readability. SPACKlick (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that if we first introduce the terms by saying something like "Help people to stop smoking as a smoking cessation tool" it would be a lot better.Levelledout (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is unclear that they help people to stop smoking thus we should not say that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we should claim that they are an effective cessation aid, I was simply suggesting the type of language we could use to introduce a concept. We could say "It is unclear whether or not they help people to stop smoking by acting as a smoking cessation aid".Levelledout (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Contradictory content and lack of explanation?
The article currently states, "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common; up to 10% of American high school students reported having ever used them at least once as of 2012, and around 3.4% of American adults as of 2011." How exactly is 10% and 3.4% "common"? 10% and 3.4% are small minorities. Also, it says "increasingly". Increasingly compared to what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
OR removed. QuackGuru (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been in the article for some time, and consists of weasel words followed by a breach of WP:NPOV. Basically it cherry-picks some of the highest usage figures available and tries to give a vague impression of as bigger increases as possible.
It says "E-cigarette use has increased" but it doesn't say when it started increasing, by definition you can't have an increase with an indefinite start date therefore it's meaningless weasel words. We should be saying "E-cigarette increased since 2010" or at the very least "E-cigarette use has increased in the past few years leading up to 2014" for example.
In true tabloid newspaper style it then cherry-picks the highest available figure for child use of e-cigarettes available from any source. This happens to be an ever-use figure that only applies to American high school students and is 10%. In the UK "Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use" but we don't put that in the lead alongside the 10% figure because it's not convenient and would actually mean we might comply with WP:NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that child ever-use is also 10% in the UK amongst the general population and apologise for not realising that. I still maintain ever-use is the least-most useful statistic and we should be quoting other statistics in order not to create a distorted impression, for instance "In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%".
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to include ever use it is definitely weasely to tie increased Ever Use to increased prevalence of Use. SPACKlick (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify I don't think it wrong to include ever-use, but I think it's wrong to only include ever-use in the lead or any other statistic that creates a lies, damned lies and statistics distortion.Levelledout (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue there levelled is that there's better data on ever use because more studies for a longer time have been asking that question or collecting all levels of use into one presented statistic. As long as it is clear when the figure is quoted that ever use includes everything from "tried my friends once to see what the fuss was about" to "Blow huge clouds 12 hours a day" then there's nothing wrong with including the one statistic. Like most of the information in the article the issue would be how it was presented, not that it was presented. SPACKlick (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Note
In the future there will be a review of the source (PMID25814920). QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Where? When? Found that source a very interesting read. SPACKlick (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Motivations for use
@Doc James: last edit,with my two grammar tweaks resulted in the following sentence.
Most peoples' reasons for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, with a considerable proportion using them recreationally.
I have a small concern that this implies that users using them to quit use them recreationally. The original sentence implied more that some use them to quit and others use them recreationally. I can't work out from the source which is a more accurate implication and would appreciate thoughts. SPACKlick (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That is why I used "reason" not "reasons" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Aah, because it was "reason for using are" I made the noun agree with the verb. Reasons is definitely better because i don't think it's controversial to say there are multiple reasons certainly across multiple users and generally within single users. I know it's a bit wordier but inserting "of vapers" makes it clear what the considerable proportion is a proportion of. Most peoples' reasons for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, with a considerable proportion of vapers using them recreationally. I'm not a huge fan of it but I like it more.SPACKlick (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The source did not verify the claim it was multiple reasons. I fixed the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
From the source Dawkins et al also found that motivations for using e-cigarettes were mixed. whilst most use is quit-related, a substantial proportion is recreational Fixed sentence.
There are different reasons but for each specific reason it is a singular reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes so across several USERS plural there are multiple REASONS plural. As for the fact that each individual USER singular usually has multiple REASONS plural I'll see if I can find an RS for that trivial claim. SPACKlick (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
[www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/10/10345/pdf pdf download link]>This study has useful information in this sort of area (but it is primary). SPACKlick (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The link does not work. What do you think is missing from the section? I have a lot of PDF files. I might be able to expand the section if I knew what was missing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, hence why I noted next to it (but it is primary) and didn't suggest including it in the article. It was a note for me (and other editors if they want to) to follow the citation trail to see if it led to anything worthwhile. SPACKlick (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Sanctions
Hi all - I'm an uninvolved admin intending to start patrolling this page. Please pay special attention to the terms of the probation, comment on the content and not the contributor, etc. Given the historic state of this page I am probably going to be kind of harsh. I will not be taking action on past postings (although I could) unless they are really out of line. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
To circumvent smoke-free laws
Not sure about this change. How was it a correction? QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Vaping isn't banned in areas covered by smoke free laws. No law is being circumvented. It is therefore false to imply people use e-cigarettes to dishonestly avoid being stopped smoking. SPACKlick (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There are significant WP:NPOV issues here. Whether somebody is "circumventing" smoke-free laws or "obeying" them by using an e-cigarette where smoking is outlawed is entirely a matter of opinion. I have no objections to using the words that a source uses, but if we are going to do that then as of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it should be a direct quote of the source and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.Levelledout (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a non-controversial claim. They are even advertised to e-cig users as away to circumvent smoke-free laws. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But if QG says it's true then it must be. Seriously, "circumvent" is judgemental and/or has negative connotations to any reasonable person, therefore it should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. WP:NPOV is a core non-negotiable policy that we should not be trying to circumvent (!) in any way shape or form, so even to be on the safe side it can't do any harm not to quote something in Wikipedia's voice and to quote it directly. In this instance I think it's pretty clear cut that needs to happen.Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Citation provided for mundane claim. See my last edits. I have other sources that say a lot more. Would you like me to provide more citations to confirm it is a mundane claim? The word "circumvent" is clearly accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes Quack, given that the content is clearly controversial, please provide several sources on the talk page before re-inserting. Await consensus before re-inserting. You know, follow SOP for wikipedia. SPACKlick (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Had missed that previous discussion. I do think there is a legitimate claim of impartial here. Since other sources use other words like Publich health england "replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited", and I disagree that the previous discussion reached the consensus you claim and nor did the NPOV notice board. Both conversations were leaning to finding a more neutral term when they petered out. There were several calls for more neutral wording than either circumvent or comply. (i also agree that comply puts a wrong spin on it) I'm open to suggestions but I do think circumvent, even if not always implying negative connotations, does have a slightly negative slant to it. SPACKlick (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Manufacturers are heavily marketing "use anywhere" in the face of smokefree laws and policies; a way to get around those policies. "Circumvent" is "get around" (just in fancy latinized form :) The previous discussion had many other terms proposed, but none gained consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree that "smoke anywhere" and "avoid smoking ban restrictions" are reasons why users use and that marketers sell on. That is uncontroversial. The only controversy with the original text was the language. Several users (at least 6) felt that circumvent was a POV term before. Add me and levelled and that's 8. Surely we can find a different word which doesn't even slightly suggest nefarious/deceptive connotations? I've made my suggestions in the article by using the longer phrasing.SPACKlick (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources can't be POV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
sources can indeed be pov and biased in language. There are about 5 policies that apply. Wording in WP voice needs to be careful of POV. Since there are several ways of phrasing the content desired to be included and the term clearly carries some POV connotations the sensible thing to do is discuss a paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So you think editors can override what the sources says? QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So you think paraphrasing in neutral language is over-riding? Quack, have a discussion or move on. Wikipedia is not for you. SPACKlick (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but from some of this discussion you could get the idea that the source said "use in smokefree places" and an editor changed that to "circumvent". Which would indeed be NPOV. But that's not what happened. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cloud: You mistyped your signature there, I left it for you to sign. However nobody is claiming the source doesn't say circumvent. Some sources say circumvent, some sources use other wording "Smoke Anywhere" is the one I see most often. circumvent has several negative connotations for many readers.SPACKlick (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a high quality source. I see no reason to exclude it here, or to prefer other sources Cloudjpk (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As has been stated by multiple editors, because "circumvent" does not read NPOV and there are paraphrases, as used in other sources, which do not suffer from the same issue. Do you feel the current wording misleads or misrepresents the claim in the original source? SPACKlick (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you could elaborate on how so, I'd happily try to offer some more accurate wording. SPACKlick (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the source's word. Given how long this discussion has gone on without finding a better term, I doubt we are about to stumble across one now. Please restore the word the source uses. If you want to have a discussion after that and can gain consensus on an accurate paraphrase, fine. Cloudjpk
I'm not happy to give up that easily given that it violates NPOV, half or more editors in all three discussions have thought so and only 4 editors have seen this discussion. I note you still haven't elaborated on how you feel the current wording falls short. SPACKlick (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I see now. You deleted this because you thought it was violating NPOV. At least you could of rewritten it. It is notable because almost all websites make the claims. The word "circumvent" is often used. I can add more information about it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No you don't see, you are again conflating two discussions. The text I changed was changed over NPOV concerns. The text I removed was removed because it was not relevant to the section it was added to, not discussed for consensus and I didn't believe it was relevant. Please discuss that in the section below about it. SPACKlick (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Editors disagreed with you the last time we has this discussion and long after the discussion you change it.
I did forget that discussion ever happened and I don't remember making my one post in it. Analysing those two discussion numbers were slightly for on the talk page, numbers were overwhelmingly for change on the NPOV page, the contents still presented NPOV concerns and I didn't delete the content, I paraphrased. I'm still awaiting any specific objections to the paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The appeal is to use them to "circumvent" the smoke-free bans. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The appeal is to use them to enjoy the recreation (partly nicotine, partly behavioural) where it is prohibited with cigarettes. Circumvent is not an NPOV word for that. I still await specific objections to the paraphrase. SPACKlick (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Citations are needed. Do you still want more citations? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Did I say citations? No I said I wanted a reason the paraphrase was not considered to accurately reflect the source given we have sources using various different phrasings what is the justification for using the one that causes NPOV concerns? SPACKlick (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a controversial word. I was discussing a possible compromise on your talk page but you reformatted the section. They are heavily advertised to "circumvent" smoking bans. This is one of the main reasons people are using them. Last time around editors tried to delete it. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_20#Proposed_removal_of_POV_text. QuackGuru (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't reformat after discussion started. I paraphrased before any of this discussion started and didn't edit those two parts of the article again after. You're also now changing the claim. The users are motivated by a desire to engage in the recreation where smoking is banned is different from the users are motivated by being told they can engage in the recreation in areas where smoking is banned by advertisers. You seem to be conflating these two claims. SPACKlick (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You reformatted the discussion on your talk page. I think one of the sources conflates these claims. I'm not making this up. QuackGuru (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Quack you've been conflating it the whole time. And you weren't discussing a compromise, you were obstinately refusing to discuss anything. The discussion of what advertisers say and what people's reasons are were separate for everyone but you. It really smacks of a POV need to include a word the majority of editors who've commented feel is NPOV or raises some NPOV concerns. And you still have yet to give a concrete objection to the paraphrase. To explain what it doesn't say that it should or what it says that it shouldn't.SPACKlick (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You made that comment in an ENTIRELY unrelated section of the talk page. However in response to your "Compromise" one use of controversial wording isn't a compromise when the only objection is to the wording. That's making an unrelated, 'so-called' concession. I still await any actual objections to the paraphrase that aren't WP:DONTLIKEIT. SPACKlick (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I'm still waiting any objections to the source's word that aren't WP:DONTLIKEIT. One challenge to getting consensus for a paraphrase is likely the fact that there's nothing wrong with the source's word. C.f. What word does the reference use? It uses circumvent. "and as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 20 December 2014 I'm not saying it's impossible to find an acceptable paraphrase, that retains the meaning. I am saying it's difficult, and there's little reason to take up the task. That effort might be better spent improving the page. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then read the discussion. The word has negative connotations that raise NPOV concerns implying deceipt or illicit behaviour. A half dozen or so editors have said so, a couple of dictionary sources have said so. Many sources if not most refer to the "Vape anywhere" "Vape where smoking is banned" rather than this terminology. There is certainly reason to be cautious of using the word. SPACKlick (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I've read the discussion. And not just this time, but also the discussion from months ago. So much discussion :) I seriously can't believe we're still discussing it. This is not complicated: the NPOV issue would apply if an editor had introduced the term. But the term is from the source. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't stop NPOV from applying. If a source with generally good data calls mormons a cult WP would not call them a cult in WP voice. Also WP is international, and this sort of meaning variation could be regional</speculation>. Also on reading the passage again, why is that picture there? It doesn't demonstrate anything relevant? SPACKlick (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with SPACKlick, I do not have an objection on principle to saying "such a such a source claims that e-cigarettes are used to circumvent smoke-free laws". My only problem with that though would be that not all sources use the term circumvent, so if you really want to describe in the article the disagreement over the language used between sources then we could do that. But a simpler way would be to simply use a neutral term. The picture is obviously there to add to the impression created by the passage, that people use e-cigarettes to evade or circumvent the law. It serves no useful purpose as far as I can see other than that and is therefore also a breach of NPOV. With respect to the caption for the picture it is unsourced and if legislators wished to add e-cigarettes to smoke-free laws then they could very easily do that and apparently have in some parts of the US. And at that point it becomes a bit like saying a common reason people use bicycles is to evade road tax.Levelledout (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Specific edits for consensus
Lede Image
I'm not tied to this one, I'm just not a fan of an image at the top of the page with a reasonably prominent logo in it. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the current image is fine. It is an image of an e-cigarette resembling a tobacco cigarette. I didn't notice a logo. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The white bit clearly says volt. I'd also suggest a 2nd gen e-cig will be more recognisable but as I said, I'll await other editor input I'm not over-fussed either way SPACKlick (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest File:Lava_size_02.jpg which shows various forms of e-cig.—S MarshallT/C 21:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Quack, I'm well aware of that. This section is about what image to use in the lede.—S MarshallT/C 09:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Lava_size in the lede because it doesn't have either of the two most common styles of e-cig in it so people who see it who aren't overly familiar might not recognise that as an e-cig. Cig-a-likes and Ce5-eGo's(pen style) are the two most common styles as far as I can tell from what shops sell. I think we should have an image of one or both of those. SPACKlick (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a second image to the lede of a later-generation device. Most users start with a first generation device that looks like a cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Youth trying to quit
Electronic cigarettes were not regularly associated with trying to quit tobacco among young people.<ref name=Car2014/>
I believe this sentence is specifically about motivation for use among young people, moreso than about the effect on cessation so I moved it there. Opinions? SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is about usage not motivation or cessation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote is that the MOTIVATION for YOUTH was not TRYING TO QUIT. Care to reconsider? Also, that still means it oughtn't be in cessation section.SPACKlick (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote from the source is "E-cigarette use was not consistently associated with attempting to quit tobacco among young adults."[6] I don't think that is about motivation. The title is "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison." That is clearly about the usage. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"attempting to quit" is a purpose, reason or motivation for usage. Not attempting to quit is about the motivations for usage. It's plain as day in english Quack. SPACKlick (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not about a motivation for starting or quitting the use of e-cigs. This is about the prevalence of attempting to quit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarette use was not consistently associated with attempting to quit tobacco among young adults. The young adults were not consistently using the e-cigarettes in order to attempt to quit tobacco. Their motivation for using e-cigarettes was not consistently trying to quit tobacco. Honestly Quack I don't understand how you don't see this. The sentence is clearly about why the young adults were using e-cigarettes and draws the negative conclusion that it was not consistently to attempt to quit tobacco.
If you rephrase it into better English you get something to the effect that most young people aren't using e-cigarettes to help them quit. That information belongs in the section about young people.—S MarshallT/C 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"not consistently associated with" could well mean that there is no established pattern, i.e. some studies show an association, but others don't. One thing that's problematic about this particular citation is that it appears to be sourced purely from the abstract which is bad practice and not recommended. I'd be interested to see what the full text actually says and also whether this sentence applies globally. In any case I would agree that Cessation would be an appropriate place but that it could also fit into the Motivation for Use section. I don't think we have a Young People section do we?Levelledout (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't have a youth section, but I prefer motivation to cessation because the cessation section is about the effectiveness of e-cigs not about whether or not people us them for cessation (except in as far as motivation impacts efficacy)SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is now it the young people section under usage. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Now we got information about appeals for young people in the motivation section. Would editors prefer I or another editor rewrite the text in WP voice or do editors prefer the quote. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate sentence about feel
The users of e-cigarettes disagree whether it was a benefit or a drawback regarding the way they feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes.<ref name=Pepper20>
was deleted as a direct duplication of half of
Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, whereas others thought this was a drawback.<ref name=Pepper2013/>
I don't think we need to say it twice in the same paragraphSPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"The users of e-cigarettes disagree whether it was a benefit or a drawback regarding the way they feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes.[25]" The current wording was shortened from the previous version to avoid duplication. The part feel or taste is different than resemble. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
They need to be combined into 1 sentence, they're almost exact duplicates from the same source. SPACKlick (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you combine them it would be SYN because one says "Some traditional cigarette users..." while the other says "The users of e-cigarettes disagree..." The sentence are making different points. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be Syn quack because it says some of both. Get over yourself man. The users of e-cigarettes disagree = some users feel one way and some another. Also it's hardly controversial that cigarette smokers disagree over whether the similarity to cigarettes is good or bad and e-cig users disagree. I'll be honest, the sentence says several people disagree over an opinion and should likely be removed as irrelevant but I'm taking baby steps with you here. SPACKlick (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Both sentences should be deleted. Neither sentence adds anything to the reader's understanding of the subject.—S MarshallT/C 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the article is currently bloated and these sentences add almost nothing to inform the reader.Levelledout (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
User:SPACKlick, do you have a proposal that would not be considered SYN or OR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Removal of both as uninformative bloat is my first choice. However following that Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, others thought this was a drawback.<ref name=Pepper2013/> would do. SPACKlick (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Current wording: "Some traditional cigarette users and e-cigarette users liked that e-cigarettes resembled traditional cigarettes, whereas others thought this was a drawback.[25]" The only difference with that one sentence would be the removal of the word "whereas". The other sentence is clearly different when it is saying the benefit or a drawback is in regard to the way they feel or taste. Resembled traditional cigarettes is about appearance. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
resemble is not exclusive to looks and therefore covers the information in both. You still haven't justified including these sentences by the way. Because frankly "A group of people are not unanimous in whether a property of a thing is good or bad" is pretty useless info. SPACKlick (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
These are relevant to the section for motivations of users. It is interesting information for short stubby section. The sentence about resemble/looks is different than that of feel and taste. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Partially substitute
The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can at least partially supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. (emphasis added) These three words were removed because the source says
these data suggest that e-cigarettes may deliver nicotine at levels that are sufficient to substitute, at least partially, for cigarettes.
Which is talking about partial substition of cigarettes for e-cigarette use not nicotine for nicotine but it also says
current e-cigarette smokers are able to achieve systemic nicotine and/or cotinine concentrations similar to those produced from traditional cigarettes.
I believe the removal more accurately reflects the source especially as the retention of dual use is also within the paragraphSPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I slightly changed the wording to make it more clear. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I still think it now highlights the less important point made. We have many sources and several sentences saying that they're used to replace or only partially replace cigarettes. That fact doesn't need to be in the article again. This source makes the claim that the e-cigarette can replicate the blood cotinine of the cigarette. That fact should be in the article. That fact is relevant to an intro to cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Could replicate the blood cotinine of the cigarette is making a different point that is in the safety article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If we already state the first bit in the article then no need to duplicate it, just add the reference as another source where appropriate. And yes I do think it is informative to the reader to remark that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine at similar levels to tobacco cigarettes.Levelledout (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes deliver nicotine at similar levels to tobacco cigarettes in the blood is not smoking cessation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Except it is, the reason that fact is relevant to the audience is that NRT is used for smoking cessation and this shows it can be used as an NRT because it can substitute for cigarettes at delivering blood nicotine. SPACKlick (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've never used an e-cigarette, but I do have experience with NRT. I gave up smoking about four years ago using patches and gum. The thing with NRT is that there are three letters for a reason. I'm sure e-cigs can deliver the nicotine replacement, but they aren't a therapy ---- or at least, not here in the UK. A therapy is a treatment recommended by a medical professional and as far as I know, there aren't any medical professionals who recommend e-cigarettes to their patients. I think it's absolutely essential that we don't describe e-cigarettes as NRT in the article. They aren't therapies: they're devices for delivering a nicotine hit which could potentially, if they get past NIHCE's careful scrutiny, form part of a therapy in future.—S MarshallT/C 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
True and I should have said "for nicotine replacement showing potential for future use as an NRT" rather than just "as an NRT" although sidebar: I always thought the t stood for treatment. That said I wouldn't use either phrasing in the articleSPACKlick (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Rahman 2015
This one I have the most strong feelings about
A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with smoking cessation and reduction from a limited number of studies.<ref name=Rahman2015>
The finding in Rahman not already discussed in the paragraph is
studies reported that the 12-month quit rate achieved using NRTs was approximately 10%, and would not exceed this level in the longer term.[3, 4] Our meta-analyses demonstrated a higher smoking cessation rate of 20% achieved with e-cigarettes
Hence I wrote a 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of NRT.
I also combined this sentence with the previous as they follow on about developing data on cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The text was written according to the conclusions. I'm going to read the source again for comparing the difference with NRT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote is right there from the conclusion. As I say, we have plenty of statements about e-cigarettes being used for cessation the fact in this review that's not replicated is the improved cessation over NRT. SPACKlick (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The Conclusions begins with "This systematic review and meta-analyses assessed the findings of six studies which reported smoking cessation after using e-cigarettes. We found an association between nicotine-enriched e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, suggesting that the devices may be an effective alternative smoking cessation method."[7] Where is the statement you are quoting? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies it's in the discussions, not the conclusions. Which you'd know if you could use Ctrl-F. I don't see why I should have to do your digging for you as well as cleaning up your mess. SPACKlick (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've read this carefully and tried my best to understand what the objection is, but it just makes no sense to me at all. What's the problem with this proposal?—S MarshallT/C 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The study reveals, among other things two conclusions. 1) e-cigs with nicotine may be an effective quitting method. 2) e-cigs are more effective for cessation than NRT's. I believe 2) is the more informative and relevant conclusion to put in especially as 1) is implied by it and stated elsewhere. SPACKlick (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I get that part. I don't understand the objection to putting it in. Obviously it needs a dose of editorial judgment. Rahman is one isolated study and it shouldn't be given prominence over the scholarly views that say otherwise, but this conclusion is pertinent and should certainly appear in the article.—S MarshallT/C 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that 2) is indeed more informative and does indeed imply 1).Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't need to be overstated however it's the most recent metaanalysis of more recent reviews and the numbers are pretty significant. I believe it is due a fair amount of weight over say the likes of Grana which is out of date and full of red flags. SPACKlick (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I restored the NRTs. Grana 2014 is not outdated. Different sources say different things. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Current wording I restored: "A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[89]" QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Grana was published before a significant number of tests had even been designed, before people realised that traditional autosmokers don't work with e-cigarettes. It concludes e-cigarette use in the real world is associated with significantly lower odds of quitting smoking cigarettes. which is clearly false now. I mean I have a laundry list of issues with that particular study, like it being based on 5 studies which don't study the rate of smoking cessation among smokers trying to quit with e-cigs and drawing conclusions about e-cig effectiveness for cessation. But thats all by the by. SPACKlick (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
According to who it is clearly false now? QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
note correction of quoted sentence, still had an old clipboard stored Pretty much every paper on cessation via e-cigs since and several before Grana came out. Pretty much every 2015 source in the article. General consensus among scientists studying e-cigarettes. SPACKlick (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources that are just a year old are not dated because you think there is consensus among scientists that the one year old sources are wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, when scientific consensus is moving as quickly as it does with a new consumer product with a lot of interest sources can become outdated very quickly. When any paper draws conclusions which are now seen as not in line with current consensus it's appropriate to refer to them as dated or outdated. Grana is an example of that. Consensus is now against mosta lot of what is said in Grana. This is ignoring the fact that several people published responses calling it a hatchet job and tearing its methodology apart from the date of publication. SPACKlick (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not shown the recent reviews are outdated or a minority view or even unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and I'm not going to try and convince you Quack, you're dogmtic with limited comprehension of english. I have better things to do with my time. I'll wait for competent editors to show up. SPACKlick (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is surprised you think the recent 2014 review is not reliable or is somehow wrong. It has not been withdrawn from pubmed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's quite simple Quack, I think it's outdated because many of its claims are contradicted by multiple studies with better methodologies published since. I think it's not reliable because the method was flawed and it reads like it was written with a preconceived conclusion. It's a bad paper. Now it's unreliability I wouldn't use to stop its inclusion on wikipedia, there isn't a general consensus among scientists that it's a bad paper (it's not Andrew Wakefield levels of bad) but the fact that more recent better sources disagree with it means any claim sourced to it needs thorough checking against a wider consensus prior to inclusion. Plenty of bad or outdated science stays on pubmed BMJ well beyond its time or even permanently, they have no incentive to remove things unless they are fraudulently bad. SPACKlick (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE the 2014 review is reliable. Your personal opinion of the review does not trump MEDRS. Sources often disagree. We don't pick and choose which source is "better". QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And I quote it's unreliability I wouldn't use to stop its inclusion on wikipedia, there isn't a general consensus among scientists that it's a bad paper Did you miss that point? Now as to whether or not we pick and choose which point is better. WP:Weight, WP:redflag and WP:ONUS say we do. We decide how much weight the content deserves based on the consensus of sources. We need to check sources that make claims that go against consensus very carefully. We need to establish that the source and the contents warrant inclusion. That's how wiki works. SPACKlick (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Removal of redundancies
Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement treatments for smoking cessation. Previous paragraph mentions studies found no evidence although that phrasing could be strengthened.
One of these reviews stated that to encourage e-cigarette use as a cessation aid in cigarette users is premature. This is not information about cessation, it's about legislative and medical-professional advice
Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation. Ignoring the fact that this is no longer correct, it doesn't need repeating. SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
note: if I removed A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore called for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. I apologise, it was an accident. I had considered moving some more things around but had to leave the computer for a while. I don't have any strong feelings on these as yet.SPACKlick (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to assume good faith it was an "accident". Previous paragraph are not comparing e-cigarettes to other products. Theretofore, it is not redundant. I deleted the premature sentence and I deleted another sentence from harm reduction that did not add much. I disagree with deleting the sentence because an editor may think the source is wrong or incorrect. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not proposing deleting it because I believe it is incorrect although I can find dozens of sources since that one that show that there are studies comparing e-cigs to NRT and showing them similar or better several of which are already in the article. However the issue is that we ALREADY have sentences on e-cigs and NRT.SPACKlick (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation." What other statement repeats this? QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A 2012 review found e-cigarettes could considerably reduce traditional cigarettes use and they likely could be used as a lower risk replacement for traditional cigarettes, but there is not enough data on the safety and efficacy to draw definite conclusions. for one. Besides which we also have, from a more recent review, Evidence that they are more effective. Hence why it would be better to use Rahman to compare e-cigs to NRT. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That statement is making a different conclusion and are contradicting each other somewhat. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This goes to the heart of the contentiousness around this article. I think we should present the best source for both sides of this one. Rahman: "E-cigarettes may have some potential as smoking cessation aids." This sentence should appear as an exact quote with in-text attribution. Drummond: " ...there are no data demonstrating the efficacy of electronic cigarettes as a tool to achieve cessation." This sentence should also appear as an exact quote with in-text attribution.—S MarshallT/C 21:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is better to try to avoid quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Because...?—S MarshallT/C 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Using quotes instead of paraphrasing the sources does not have an encyclopedic feel. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
According to what or whom?Levelledout (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
According to how most articles on Wikipedia are written. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended use of quotations: "In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example, when dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be from Wikipedia."
It is good editorial judgment to make use of quotations in this case.—S MarshallT/C 23:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There is in-text attribution. See "A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking.[15]" That's how most of the sentences are written throughout the article without quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That in itself is part of the problem. The article in places is 5 or six sentences in a row beginning "A 2014 review said..." "As of 2013[update] this group found..." so that needs to be reduced, quoting is a way to do that if used wisely. Direct contradictions in current findings is an appropriate situation for that. SPACKlick (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You see it is possible to provide WP:PAG rationale and S Marshall's post is what it looks like. The fact that you have chosen to ignore that WP:PAG by asserting how "most of the sentences are written" QG, is irrelevant. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV clearly states that we should use direct quotes for controversial ideas and subjects.Levelledout (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
When sources disagree such as in the lede we don't use quotes instead. Quoting decreases the quality of the article. A bunch of quotes is unnecessary when we are already using in-text attribution. I disagree with replacing summaries with quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You're trying to vote to go against policy Quack. I'd be careful there. SPACKlick (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) Unfortunately your disagreements do not seem to be based on any WP:PAG, certainly once again you don't mention any, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in fact instructs us to use direct quotes in this situation. I suggest that disagreements with this policy be raised at the WP:NPOV talk page and not here, we don't have the authority to over-rule it here.Levelledout (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the entire be replaced with quotes every time sources disagree? QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No I am suggesting that you please stop being so obstructive, stop filibustering, stop trying to circumvent WP:NPOV and rejecting the guidance at WP:QUOTE and stop making objections that aren't based on WP:PAG.Levelledout (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Quack, I need to correct a misapprehension here. In-text attribution is defined at WP:INTEXT. "A 2014 review found" is not in-text attribution, even if the reference is otherwise well-cited, because nothing in the text is attributed to anyone in particular. "According to Drummond and Upson (2014)" is in-text attribution. Therefore the article does not currently contain much in the way of in-text attribution.
My proposal is not to introduce large numbers of quotes into the article. It is simply to deal with this extremely contentious point: Do e-cigarettes have a role in helping people to stop smoking? There are two opposing views. I propose to insert two specific quotes with in-text attribution, each giving a phrase from the conclusion of a recent scholarly study, with one phrase to support each view.—S MarshallT/C 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We are paraphrasing the sources rather than using quote for better readability for the readers. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
... which is the wrong call. Precise quotes are the best way to deal with this. Stop being obstructive please.—S MarshallT/C 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We should not use large numbers of direct quotes. We should paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about using "large numbers of direct quotes". We're talking about doing it once and possibly occasionally at other times for the most controversial claims and counter-claims in the line with the guidance here. Regardless of that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV demands that we detail both sides of the argument and use attribution to do so.Levelledout (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm advocating one use of direct quotes, at this most controversial part of the article.—S MarshallT/C 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Realised I've been staying out of this one for kind of WP:POINTy reasons. I agree with Quack that this isn't controversial enough to require quotes. A well balanced sentence (or two) could elaborate that some limited data shows it is possible that e-cigarettes could have significant benefit as a cessation aid while other data shows little to no benefit. under the header that most of this should go under of The overall picture is uncertain as there have been limited studies on this novel device particularly of the long term effects and efficacy. SPACKlick (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Notification of ArbCom Case Request
A case request has been submitted to ArbCom that concerns a regular contributor to this article and may be found here— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The case request that was submitted here was declined 8 votes to 3 by the Arbitration Committee. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Studies on which this Newspaper Article is based
Can anyone identify the papers this Guardian article is based on and Identify if they are RS? If they are it could be a useful addition to the cessation section. Hilighting the difference in effectiveness between 1st and second gen devices. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As they are both individual primary studies and we already have multiple high-quality secondary sources covering effectiveness of e-cig use for smoking cessation, they wouldn't be usable for that purpose per WP:MEDREV. Zad68 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I suspected it would be reporting primary data. It's a shame because we don't really have secondary data on the difference between first and second gen on cessation. Will have to wait to see if this are continues to be looked at by later studies and picked up by a review at some point. It's an aspect it would be nice to include once data is firmer. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I love the new intro
I never thought I would say this, but apart from an extraneous "limited" and a few much more minor quibbles, I think the new intro is almost ideal. Good job, editors! EllenCT (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I clarified the wording a bit and added some details such as "They are available as one-time use products or as reusable products.[4]" I also mentioned in the lede that e-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is available for obvious reasons. I also added a second image to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. A vaporizer fluid with and without propylene glycol seems to me as much as a (non) distinction as "low tar" cigarettes compared to the difference between smoke inhalation and breathing vapor without the pyrolytic combustion products. EllenCT (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"some studies claim that propylene glycol (PG) vapor can induce respiratory irritation and increase chances for asthma" -- so can dust. I stand by my characterization of the relative risk differences. EllenCT (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In the very same paragraph that QG gets the "most" manufacturers part from it also states that "At worst, PG was found to be irritating to the throat upon constant inhalation. Some users reported upper airway irritation following short-term use of EC, claiming this was due to excessive exposure to propylene glycol. Current FDA-approved Nicotrol Inhalers also have this side effect on users." - as an anecdotal sidenote i'll note that this "throat irritation" is actually one of the reasons that many chose PG liquids, because it reminds them of the feel of tobacco (aside from the fact that PG is a better flavor carrier than VG) --Kim D. Petersen 23:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it would it appear that whilst it says that "most EC manufacturers are moving away from PG due to concerns" (loose quote) it doesn't say what the concerns are but does say give some specific evidence about PG being relatively safe. Thus if we are going to quote it we should also say that the concerns appear to be unfounded, which is basically what the source says. Surprised that the researcher does not seem aware of the basic manufacturing process and thinks that EC manufactures produce e-liquids. Would also like to see evidence of this alleged moving away from PG of EC manufacturers, who do not manufacture e-liquids.Levelledout (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well if it says it that way then it is plain wrong. First of all because most e-liquids aren't made by "EC manufacturers", and secondly because of the "most" part. Most producers of e-liquids also produce VG only liquids, but primarily because of the dripper market. --Kim D. Petersen 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent change to lede
User:Levelledout, I noticed this change to the lede. The source also explains the difference between e-cigs and nicotine replacement products. See "and ...comparable
in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products[28]."[8]QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't actually find that quote in the source. But I can see one that is very close to it that says:
The data noted above suggests that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes [28] and comparable in terms of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) levels to conventional nicotine replacement products [37]. Despite these important results, large and well conducted long-term studies will be required before a complete answer regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes can be formulated [20].
In other words the levels of TSNAs are similar to NRT. But I don't think that's the same as the overall toxicity being similar to NRT. TSNAs are just one class of carcinogens that are specific to tobacco, e-cigarettes contain ingredients that tobacco doesn't and therefore wouldn't be covered under the umbrella of TSNAs even if they did turn out to be toxic. Either way the author does not explicitly state that their overall toxicity is similar to NRT, so if we were to state it ourselves then it would be WP:OR, so we shouldn't. In the conclusion of the study the only thing that the author(s) mention of any relevance is that e-cigarettes are likely to be similar in risk to smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
So what do you think is sourced for the safety/toxicity compared to nicotine replacement products or do you think the source was too ambiguous to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what question you're asking but I don't think that the source is in the least bit ambiguous. The source clearly says that TSNA levels in e-cigarettes are similar to those in NRT but that their overall risk is likely to be less than smoked tobacco and similar to smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a further note that I'm going to add into the article also that the study says that having a similar safety profile to smokeless tobacco equates to about 1% of the risk of conventional cigarettes. I think this is important as many people will not know the risks of smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is an "aroma transporter"?
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of readers will have no idea what is meant by this term, it certainly confuses me. E-liquid is not designed give off aromas, so what on Earth is an "aroma transporter" and what's it doing in e-cigarette vapour? I'm fairly sure that this WP:JARGON and other terms like it should not just be left in the article, confusing the hell out of readers. By the way "aroma transporters" neither have a Wikipedia article, nor do they even turn up many Google search results.Levelledout (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The term was removed and replaced with "flavors" here by QuackGuru. I don't believe that the two mean the same thing but no doubt that's an improvement and less confusing. Unfortunately in the next edit "propylene glycol" and "glycerin" were replaced with "humectants" adding to the confusion for readers.Levelledout (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG"[9] The source also said flavours as well as aroma transporters. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed it back to "propylene glycol" and "glycerin".[10]QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please explain why it's a good idea to have two very similar lists of chemicals in the lede. Please also explain this revert: why is it necessary to adhere that closely to the source? Your edit summary says "according to WP:V", but there's certainly nothing in WP:V which requires that and indeed sticking too closely to the source is contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. (I personally began the anti-copyvio section in WP:V in 2010, in the wake of the Rlevse incident.)—S MarshallT/C 15:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The liquid usually contain 95% propylene glycol and glycerin, along with nicotine, and flavorings. Your edit reduced the list when there are more chemicals in the liquid. These are the basic ingredients in the liquid. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Proposed changes to the lead. Your edit also misplaced the sentence that liquid without propylene glycol is also available. It should be after the basic ingredients in the liquid. Many companies are starting to make liquids without propylene glycol due to the concerns and to minimize risks. I summarised both sources without sticking too closely to the sources. Your edit was too vague and failed verification. Therefore, I fixed the original research. Your edit made claims not found in the sources. See WP:OR. For example, the source does not say they are as safe as other nicotine replacement products and the other source does not say they are safer than e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I invite comments from other editors on QuackGuru's preposterous answer.—S MarshallT/C 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I find your contention that my edit "altered the meaning" to any substantial extent so bizarre that I'm struggling to respond to it. There are limits on WP:STICKTOSOURCE ---- we're writing an encyclopaedia. We're supposed to summarise the sources, not pick out every single detail and nuance in them and repeat them in very similar words! That's not writing an article. That's plagiarising an article.
What I'd like to do at this point, QG, is link you to the details of what Rlevse did. Unfortunately I can't ---- he was a popular former arbitrator and prolific featured article writer, and his friends have conducted a very systematic attempt to purge his name from Wiki-history so I can't find the diffs. So I need to ask you to take my word for it when I say: adhering to the sources too closely is a bad idea.—S MarshallT/C 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know Doc James agrees with you. That doesn't mean you're right. What it means is you're not the only one who's wrong. Could you stop being trenchantly obstructive now please?—S MarshallT/C 08:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with S Marshall regarding the points of paraphrasing, copyright, WP:OR, all completely obvious stuff that's been done before many times but that one editor refuses to acknowledge for whatever reason. Also the stuff about repetition, it's obvious that we don't need to state the chemicals twice. The reason I suspect for wanting to state them twice is that the second list is a sort of attempt to state a list of chemicals and obscure names as long as possible that gives the impression of being a danger or safety problem even though half of the things in that list have not been shown to actually be a safety problem. However I did realise that with the Caponnetto source, the author does not say "similar in safety to Nicotine Replacement Therapy", they say "similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco". NRT and smokeless tobacco are not the same thing (smokeless tobacco refers to things like snuff) so I have corrected it.Levelledout (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally think that the main ingredients belong in the lede - but not twice. There are liquids without glycerine as well, just as there are neutral liquids without flavouring and liquids without nicotine. So the "liquids without propylene glycol" is either too much information, or incomplete information. [not to mention that liquids without PG need water because pure glycerine is too thick] --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This[11] really doesn't solve it. It doesn't remove the redundancy, nor does it address the fact that completely PG free e-liquids are almost non-existing, since most flavorings are dissolved in PG in the first place, so you'll have PG in the liquid still. And of course it also doesn't address that you can get 100% VG free e-liquids. --Kim D. Petersen 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And now we're enhancing the problem[12] with repeating ourselves, because QG has realized that there is no single ingredient that is always present in an e-liquid. Why not just state that "E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings", since the "usually" encompasses that all ingredients are optionally there. KISS (keep it short and simple) please. --Kim D. Petersen 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The sentence explaining they are sometimes available without flavoring is not repetitive of any other sentence in that section. Not every liquid contains flavoring. Only some are made without flavoring. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I intend to restore this edit soon, unless someone other than QuackGuru has an objection.—S MarshallT/C 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Other editors believed the main list of the e-liquid should remain in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you prefer to merge the other list of chemicals into that one, then? You can't have two very similar lists of chemicals in the lede, but I don't mind you choosing which one to keep.—S MarshallT/C 15:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please also see Talk:Electronic_cigarette#List_of_emissions. The 2nd list is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR as detailed in that section and needs to be changed. Therefore I suggest we keep the PG, VG, nicotine and flavours in the 1st list and follow my suggested change in the 2nd.Levelledout (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"E-liquids contain glycerin, flavorings and usually propylene glycol and nicotine. E-cigarette vapor has also been found to contain these ingredients. In addition, e-cigarette vapor has been found to contain tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor consists of ultrafine particles."
However according to QG it's "poorly worded and misplaced".Levelledout (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Silly Image Added
This image was recently added (edit: added here by QuackGuru) with the caption "E-cigarette use among females is rising". Not only are we now quoting from the Daily Mail this article is now starting to look like a Daily Mail article. Is there is any point in this image other than to disregard WP:NPOV and draw a disproportionate amount of attention to a particular point / make it look more important than all the others?Levelledout (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why QG would insert this first, and then later insert this second one, with the curious editcomment "If we start using the Daily Mail now as source let's at least adhere to it" - as if he hadn't inserted the first usage only 20 minutes earlier?? The Daily Mail is of course not a WP:RS in this context (or most other contexts) --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the 2nd edit above was mine. Usually I'd remove both of QG's Daily Mail edits in a blink of an eye but since they own the page I resisted and only clarified that North Wales is not the world, not even close. Curious tho about how "high MEDRS standards" should be applied but the lowest of the lowest is ok for non medical claims.--TMCk (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah! Guess i was caffeine-deprived. My apologies to QG and you. --Kim D. Petersen 12:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't "mundane claims" - they are both claims that must be based upon statistical/demographic information, which is science, and thus should be cited to the paper/report where it originates. Mainstream media hypes and distorts such information on a daily basis. --Kim D. Petersen 13:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a particularly reliable source it's a tabloid newspaper. However for stating the patently obvious, that people who believe e-cigarettes to be less harmfull are more likely to use them, I don't think it makes a lot of difference. No point in putting it in the article of course because everybody knows its true anyway and it adds nothing. Or do you think that people usually go around using them because they think they're a health risk?Levelledout (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is noted for spicing up its coverage, and for being ordered to pay large sums to libel victims after it's printed something its so-called journalists made up during their coffee break. If there's a reliable source then we should use it. If there's no better source than that rag, then any such claims should be removed.—S MarshallT/C 11:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Regular media is notoriouly bad at reporting science news. And the Daily Mail is an egretious example of this. We shouldn't use regular media for factual information about science or medicine in this article, and i thought that this was already understood. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The objection is the sourcing not the content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea whether the content is correct or not - since i can't verify it to a reliable source. So we haven't even reached the point where we can object to the content! --Kim D. Petersen 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Numerous sources say similar things and more. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In which case it shouldn't be much trouble to cite a better source.—S MarshallT/C 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
List of emissions
The list in the article in the lead is as follows:
"Their emissions may contain ultrafine particles, flavors, humectants, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals."
This is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Neither of the cited sources (Grana and Hajek) provides this list of chemicals and chemical classes. Hajek does not do an analysis of emissions at all and focuses more on e-liquid content. Grana does an analysis of emissions and e-liquid but provides no such list. There are problems that naturally arise out of simply making this list up by tacking things together from different parts of sources. Grana states that "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles". Or in other words Grana is saying that e-cigarette aerosol consists solely or primarily of a collection of tiny particles of undefined types. Therefore it is entirely misleading to make out that ultrafine particles are a mere component of e-cigarette emissions and either way it is WP:OR to state or imply this. The particles in fact consist of many different chemicals which could include other things in our list; as Grana states: "fine particles can be variable and chemically complex". Within their analysis of particulate matter, Grana remarks that "Williams et al found heavy metals in samples of e-cigarette liquids and aerosol". Once again, it would appear that to say that e-cigarettes contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals is misleading and either way is WP:OR as it isn't explicitly stated by the source. I can find so many problems in this list that to state them all will turn this into an even bigger WP:WALL than it already is. Can we just be sensible about this please and replace it with the following:
E-cigarettes create vapor that consists of ultrafine particles. Tiny amounts of carcinogensTSNAs and heavy metals have been found in e-cigarette vapor.
I don't think we need to mention propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin (humectants), flavours or nicotine since we already do that in the first paragraph of the lead. Similarly I don't think we need to say "other chemicals" since it's WP:WEASEL and meaningless. (edited to simplify and improve explanation)Levelledout (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I've changed "carcinogens" to "TSNAs" in order to avoid further issues. Much of the heavy metals Grana refers to are in fact carcinogenic so to say that the vapor contains heavy metals and carcinogens is again misleading.Levelledout (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"They found low levels of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, isoprene, acetic acid, 2-butanodione, acetone, propanol, propylene glycol, and diacetin (from flavoring), traces of apple oil (3-methylbutyl-3-methylbutanoate), and nicotine (with differing levels depending on the specific protocols) emitted into the air. Toxins in the e-cigarette aerosol were at much lower levels compared with the conventional cigarette emissions."[15] This is about the vapor.
"users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG"[16] This is also about the vapor.
The e-liquid and vapor are two separate things. I made some changes to the wording to clarify the text. It is misleading to claim only tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals are in e-cigarette vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is misleading to claim that saying "Tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals have been found in e-cigarette vapor." implies that nothing else has ever been found in vapor. However your edit is an improvement on what we had before and considering also the quote that you have provided, I now drop claims of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. My remaining concerns are:
"The vapor may contain" - this is WP:WEASEL, it has either been found to contain something or it hasn't. I'll be making an adjustment to the text with regards to this. - done
I still don't think we need an exhaustive list of chemicals that are already listed the first paragraph. We can provide this detail in the body. We don't need to list them twice in the lead simply because they appear in e-liquid and also in the vapor. The reason that they appear in the vapor is because they are in the e-liquid and it's really no surprise that pretty much every chemical in the e-liquid has been found in the vapor. That information can be provided to the reader in the body.Levelledout (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
NONE of the above mentioned studies analyzed the exhaled air of a person! They all used a smoking machine (except Schripp, who only found traces and no formaldehyde). This is important because of, for example, nicotine has a nearly 100% absorptionrate in the lungs. [1,2]--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Both lists are different. The list for vapor is short. We are not listing all the specific chemicals. Just the main ones. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes we know the lists are different but that's got nothing to do with it and ignores the fact that every chemical in e-liquid has been found in vapour. We also know that we aren't listing every chemical and instead say "other chemicals" and that also has nothing to do with the points raised thus far.Levelledout (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The reader won't know what is in the vapor without a basic list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes they will, we can tell them in the body as I already said above. But look QG, if it really matters that much then why don't we do something like this:
E-liquids contain glycerin, flavorings and usually propylene glycol and nicotine. E-cigarette vapor has also been found to contain these ingredients. In addition, e-cigarette vapor has been found to contain tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor consists of ultrafine particles.
That wording is poorly written and misplaced. The information on vapor is in the correct paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I give up, clearly no point in trying to compromise. I invite the opinions of other editors.Levelledout (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't need any more second opinions. We've only got one dissenter, and there's a limit to how long one editor should be allowed to hold this up. If nobody else objects today, then I'll merge the lists of chemicals again.—S MarshallT/C 12:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I object. The list of chemicals provides specifics that are relevant. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Cloudjpk: Which list of chemicals do you mean? The two lists in the lede which I've now merged into one list, or the other list further down the article?—S MarshallT/C 09:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Just looked at the result of recent edits, and it's fine. I withdraw my objection. Nice work! Cloudjpk (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a random list of chemicals and you did not provide a reasonable explanation for your edits in your previous response in another thread. In the previous discussion it was explained that we should keep the basic list of the e-liquid. The exhaled vapor is a separate and distinct list. We should not be conflating different things together. The e-liquid contains more than just nicotine and flavorings.[17] It is commonly known the e-liquid usually contains 95% propylene glycol and glycerin. By weight propylene glycol and glycerin are the highest percentage in the e-liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This is misleading to claim they contain similar chemicals. The text is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it misleading? The liquid is PG,VG,water,flavoring and nicotine - the vapor is PG,VG,water,(various flavor chemicals) and nicotine together with tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals (which probably was in the liquid as well (certainly the TSNA's were)), the metals may be from the coils though. The really misleading aspect is emphasis on the TSNA's and heavy metals - since they are only present at tracelevels. --Kim D. Petersen 19:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Nb: btw. i'm not at all in agreement with calling these TSNA's since aldehydes and VOC's aren't TSNA's. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We can go back to the previous wording that was "carcinogens". QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is incorrect and misleading, since only a few are classified as carcinogenic (and no IARC group 1 carcinogens only 2B which is the "possibly" carcinogenic group), and these are only present at tracelevels. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly would we be lowering our standards for what sources can be added to the article? --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
For non-medical claims we can use quality secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is helpful. If you have a specific source, show it. If not, Google is better. -A1candidate 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Horrible grammar
Who added "Kids and teens e-cigarette use is often due to experimentation"? It's horribly poor grammar and I've removed it. -A1candidate 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The source is a low quality ed/blog and has been inaccurately paraphrased. The source does not explicitly state that e-cigarette use by children is often due to experimentation. Nor is the source likely reliable for such statements of fact.Levelledout (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The source was deleted by me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Smokeless tobacco
This has been recently added:
One review approximated their safety risk to that of smokeless tobacco which has about 1% of the mortality risk of conventional cigarettes. (my emphasis)
Does the source say "smokeless tobacco which has about 1% of the mortality risk of conventional cigarettes" or is this a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH? It seems that smokeless tobacco has a large variance in its health risks, so I don't believe it's acceptable to use just one figure to illustrate its mortality risk. I also believe that the lead should summarise the body of the text, but the lead now contains more detail than the single sentence in the Safety section that it purports to summarise:
One review found, from limited data, that they are similar in safety to smokeless tobacco.
This needs to be sorted out. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read the section directly above this one. The source says:
"Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking"
That's what it says and that's what we report, regardless of editor opinions. I would have updated the body as well as the lead only I wasn't sure exactly where the equivalent section in the body was to update. Can you please point it out to me? Previously we said "similar in safety to nicotine replacement therapy" so perhaps there is an equivalent sentence in the body somewhere, but I couldn't find it.Levelledout (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
OK sorry I see you did point out where in the body needs updating.Levelledout (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please explain with respect to WP:PAG what your issue is with it instead of asserting that it shouldn't be there. The material is accurately sourced, directly relevant to e-cigarettes and to material that was already in the article so for you to say that it "doesn't belong" in the article is bizarre. I already explained why I added it in the section above.Levelledout (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I moved the extra details to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that the more important point is that the review found that they carry 1% of the mortality risk of smoking. Many people will not know the risks of smokeless tobacco, even from following the Wikilink. Here in the UK for instance smokeless tobacco is practically unheard of, in fact I think it's banned by the EU if I remember correctly. Maybe we should remove the bit about smokeless tobacco from the lead and just say that the review found that e-cigs likely have 1% the mortality risk of smoking?Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The 1% mortality risk of smoking was the minor point the source made. I think they were just making a guess without hard evidence. We don't know yet if this is true. I think it should be deleted from the body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
They are exactly the same "points" stated in two different ways, so your assertion without justification that one of them is "the minor point" is a fallacy. How about we put it into an expression:
It doesn't matter which two of those you choose they both represent "e-cigarette risk" exactly the same and are exactly equal to each other. The only difference between the two is that everybody knows what "1% of cigarette risk" means and hardly anybody knows what "smokeless tobacco risk" means.Levelledout (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I clarified the wording in the lede without including the speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So you are refusing to state what the source says? And have instead inserted "less harmful than smoking"? If that isn't "speculation" from the source then it must be WP:OR. By the way most of field of research currently consists of approximations and guesswork. There is no policy or guideline that says that we can't include an educated guess from a reliable source and much of the article currently consists of it.Levelledout (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I was summarising the text for the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not a summary, that's a dumbing down of the source's words and a refusal to portray the source as accurately as possible by saying "1% of the mortality risk of smoking". I'm also unsure as to why you made the edit and didn't wait for consensus.Levelledout (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Too much detail in lede
"which has about 1% of the mortality risk of cigarette smoking.[11]" This is too much details for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment:Why starting a new section? Makes it look like there was no discussion on this issue even so there is one in the "Smokeless tobacco" section above. Please explain.--TMCk (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree and have removed this unnecessary detail from the lede.—S MarshallT/C 13:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Not for reporting that "between ... and" was simplified to "to". Why on earth does it matter? Levelledout (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Good edit, improves the article. Let it stand.—S MarshallT/C 17:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced sentence?
Any particular reason why the following text is in the "Safety" sub-section and not "Positions of Medical Organisations":
"A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using e-cigarettes. The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapour" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses."
I understand it's talking about safety but all of the material in the Positions section is either talking about safety or cessation which we already have sections for. It would seem that if we have a Positions section then we might as well use it and keep all of the information in one place.Levelledout (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is part of a WP:SUMMARY of the safety of electronic cigarettes page. It is next to the sentence that states "A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities..." QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Duplication
User:Aronzak, this change is duplication. The same section under US it says "Between 2013 and 2014, use of e-cigarettes by US teenagers tripled.[35]" QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Both statements refer to different time periods. We should keep the most recent one. -A1candidate 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You want to use Op-Eds/Blogs? Really? --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would we use such sources? And for what purpose? --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Advocating a cause? I can't see anything else in that link.--TMCk (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Joseph A. Califano Jr. (10 March 2015). "It's About the Kids". The Huffington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) I formatted the ref in case anyone wants to add something. I think the source is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It is an Op-Ed/Blog - it is only reliable for the personal opinion of Califano. And i really can't see how a single individuals opinion has any WP:WEIGHT in this article. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I found another source for the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It seemed to be argued in this section both that we can and can't use such sources which is not an acceptable position.
WP:MEDRS says "Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline."
I believe that usage statistics are primarily "non-medical information" and therefore that WP:RS applies. However WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". It is pretty much generally accepted that news media is not reliable for analysing scientific and/or medical studies, whether primary or secondary. Therefore it would appear to me that sources such as the Huffington Post and New York Times are not reliable for reporting usage statistics. Neither likely are the primary sources listed above Not completely correct but primary sources are "difficult to use appropriately" and "must be used with caution", see WP:WPNOTRS. In fact the only one in that list that likely passes the reliability test with flying colours is the narrative review.Levelledout (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For non-medical claims MEDRS does not apply. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest not using newspapers and media sources at all, because statistics should be sourced to academic sources and scientific journals instead of the media. -A1candidate 17:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There's always a risk of original research when reporting statistics. The problem comes when you compare statistics from different studies that used different methodologies, as if they were comparable. (The poster child for this problem is the List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants, Birmingham (population just over a million) is listed as the 18th-largest and Manchester does not feature. In fact, Manchester has a higher population than Birmingham but quibbles about the definition of the City of Manchester vs. Greater Manchester have prevented either of them from appearing in the article even though the City of Manchester by itself has half a million people.) Basically, you can use statistics from any reliable source. What you can't do is compare statistics based on two different studies unless you're confident both studies used the same methodology. If you do that then you're creating an original research issue.
At the moment the article quotes an awful lot of statistics and no effort has been made to compare the underlying methodologies of the studies concerned. In an ideal world, we would correct this by comparing the methodologies and removing statistics based on the outliers. In practice I think this will be hard to achieve in this fraught editing environment because editors are likely to oppose removing statistics that favour their preferred viewpoints.—S MarshallT/C 17:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"any reliable source" I would agree but the point is what is considered a reliable source for reporting usage statistics? Recently there have been claims for instance that news media is reliable when it's saying one thing and yet an academic paper isn't when it's saying another. I'm not disagreeing with you over the other points but I think that's a bit of a distraction. At the moment I'm tending towards agreeing with A1Candidate that news media is far from ideal for reporting usage statistics since statistics is an area of academia. I think that generally we should use academic sources where available and generally avoid using news media.Levelledout (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand the claims are non-medical claims? Therefore, we do not need to use MEDRS sources for non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I understand that perfectly and that is entirely irrelevant to my argument. I suggest that you re-read my initial post of this section.Levelledout (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The people actually counting are presumably accountants/economists (if you mean actual "statistics", not extrapolations from tiny surveys), & if possible we should try to get sources closer to the original studies, or the business press. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to do with "wordy" and already changed. So what's the point?--TMCk (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Construction
Resolved
The 2015 review stated "The ENDS market is evolving, with new products being rapidly introduced and marketed."[18]
Glasser, A. M.; Cobb, C. O.; Teplitskaya, L.; Ganz, O.; Katz, L.; Rose, S. W.; Feirman, S.; Villanti, A. C. (2015). "Electronic nicotine delivery devices, and their impact on health and patterns of tobacco use: a systematic review protocol". BMJ Open. 5 (4): e007688–e007688. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007688. ISSN2044-6055. PMID25926149.
I took the liberty to rewrite the sentence while keeping the content: "As the e-cigarette industry is growing, new products are quickly developed and brought to the market."--TMCk (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I knew the original sentence I added was a bit vague and can be improved. Now it is much better. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear that.--TMCk (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Too much detail in the lede
S Marshall is correct. There is too much detail in the lede for an article of a relatively modest size. We need to summarize it. -A1candidate 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The lede was recently shortened. I agree with shortening the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Four paragraphs is standard for a lead. Plus there is content on a number of subpages.
This topic is exceedingly controversial and this requires the leading being exact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"Largest ever EU study published on the subject"
Just dumping it here. Found this source in QG's san[d]box: Harvard Study: E-Cigarettes Not 'Gateway' to Smoking. Might be worth tracking down the study and see if it can be used here as it seems to directly contradict claims of concern made in the article with facts.--TMCk (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that this is the study that the IB Times article is referring to.Levelledout (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The study might be a primary source. We can use secondary sources for non-medical claims but for medical claims we should use MEDRS complaint sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"Might" be a primary source? Well fortunately it's not a primary source, it's a secondary source as noted by the abstract (the title of the study also somewhat gives it away). It also happens to be published in a very well respected peer-reviewed journal that's part of the BMJ. And it also represents an analysis of what must at the very least be one of the largest surveys ever conducted on e-cigarette usage. Oh and it doesn't make any medical claims either, it's just a usage analysis, not that it matters since it's secondary.Levelledout (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
For Wikipedia purposes this is a primary source. This is PMID24935441, it's original research from data-mining survey results. The PubMed entry doesn't list it as a Review, Systematic Review or Meta-analysis. Zad68 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Where did the paper note it is a secondary source? The paper indicated "This study assessed the prevalence and determinants of e-cigarette use among persons aged ≥15 years in 27 European Union (EU) member countries during 2012."[19]QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think they're getting misled by the title, which has the phrase "secondary analysis" in it. Zad68 18:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'm getting misled and I'm not sure that it matters. Your assertion that "For Wikipedia purposes that this is a primary source" would appear to be unfounded, for instance WP:MEDRS states "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources". You say "it's original research from data-mining survey results". The survey was original research and the results were a primary source, the further analysis wasn't and is secondary. In any case it doesn't matter because it doesn't make medical claims. And by the way, yes I'm aware it's not a review.Levelledout (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: I agree, it is a primary source, but apparently we are using it, "vetted" through the IBTimes as reference 46[20] - guess that means that mentions of a primary sources in a newspaper is enough for it to reach secondary source levels? Not exactly what i thought our sourcing demands were. I had the distinct impression that we should stick to secondary WP:MEDRS sources for statistics, medical information etc.
So just to clarify: Can we (as QG did with several[21]) just use a newspapers to "vet" the information from a primary studies, to make it secondary? Is the International Business Times and the Huffington Post sufficient sources for statistical information glanced from primary studies? --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The secondary source is a newsmedia article, that is referring to a primary source WP:MEDRS study. So the question is: Does a newsarticle "vet" a primary medical article to be a secondary one - which can then be used. Because that is what is happening here. Basically the IBTimes article is written based upon pressrelease for primary MEDRS article[22].--Kim D. Petersen 01:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As long as we don't use the primary source, we can use secondary sources for non-medical claims. What is a secondary source? "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." See WP:ANALYSIS. QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that you think that primary WP:MEDRS sources can be "vetted" to secondary by being written about in newsarticles. Remind me why we do not want primary source material? --Kim D. Petersen 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not using a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that we are. The material is from a WP:MEDRS primary source, and you think that a writeup by a journalist based upon the pressrelease makes it secondary material. So again: remind me please, why do we not want primary source material? --Kim D. Petersen 08:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think is the definition of a secondary source? QuackGuru (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I do believe that i asked you a question first, but i'll repeat it (in a little more detail): Why do we not want WP:MEDRS primary material? --Kim D. Petersen 09:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I said that. QuackGuru (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please reparse. Your sentence makes no sense in the context of this discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not citing primary material. We are citing a secondary source. News articles are secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that we do not use material from primary WP:MEDRS sources QG? Because this is material from a primary study - not material from a secondary source. This newsarticle is based on a pressrelease about the primary study - that still doesn't make it secondary.... unless of course you think that you can "vet" primary sources through newsarticles. That is why i ask you: Why is it that we do not use primary material on Wikipedia? --Kim D. Petersen 02:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@KimDabelsteinPetersen: No, we can't do that. -A1candidate 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@A1candidate: Then we, at least, are in agreement. --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting but a primary source / news source. Not sufficient for health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Draft from USPSTF
USPSTF draft still states evidence is insufficient to recommend for tobacco cessation. [23]
Will need to wait until full publication for inclusion of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting read. Quite balanced, factual and w/o introducing bias. Little detail and yet very informative about where the research stands so far. Curious how the final draft and publication will look like.--TMCk (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be for the lead but not the body. Also, didn't you yourself introduce this content? I might be mistaken about the latter tho.--TMCk (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"As of 2014[update], a small number of states in the US allow e-cigarettes to be taxed as tobacco products, and a small number of state and regional governments in the US apply indoor smoking bans to e-cigarettes." The previous wording was simpler. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The new wording sounds a whole lot better than your original introduction and the similar one that was replaced.--TMCk (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(Add ping.--TMCk (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)) It still can be improved but going back isn't it. Also, you started this section stating there is "too much unnecessary detail". Which part is it that you'd like to see removed? Really curious since you added it in the first place.--TMCk (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't mean to say this but "Increased verbosity" and "too much unnecessary detail" means just that + you didn't say anything about the wording when opening that section. It's a bit confusing, yah know?--TMCk (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was that the text was ambiguous and it would be better to have one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that's a 3rd reason. The answer is no, it's not ambiguous at all, not more nor less than the "original". I have now rewritten the sentence in part, hopefully more to your liking.--TMCk (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself which is not furthering the discussion.--TMCk (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, multiple different reasons given by QG at multiple different times and no clear arguement as to what their issue is with the very minor change that neither added nor removed any significant amount of detail. The sentence was a long one so it was a good idea to split it, we really shouldn't need to discuss such trivial, tedious matters.Levelledout (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It was originally streamlined by S Marshall. Two sentences for the short wording did not improve the text. The second sentence is still not clear because it does not state the date that is as of 2014. I'm not sure why you think it was long when it can be more concise with one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll add "it does not state the date that is as of 2014" to your list of ever-changing reasons then. When you've finished collating them, do you think you could let us know?Levelledout (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It does state it was the year 2014. Please read the source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
OMG! QG. Reread Levelledout's comment and try again.--TMCk (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important that other users are allowed to edit the article, and although I'm mildly curious about A1Candidate's reasoning for that edit, I'm not anxious to get bogged down in quibbling about it.—S MarshallT/C 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
User:S Marshall, according to the initial edit it was unnecessary according to the edit summary. The edit summary for next edit was Grammar + copyedit. This is confusing. Unless there is an explanation on how two sentences is better than one I think we should be back to one. One sentence can be shorter and better written as well for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The "initial" edit removed added a duplicate citation, thus has nothing to do with the sentence discussed here. The next edit might be confusing to you but so is Levelleout's comment to which you didn't follow up yet. BTW, are you aware that both, 1 or 2 sentence versions have exactly the same # of words (21)?--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Another BTW: The current version is this one.--TMCk (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The initial edit added a duplicate citation but the edit summary claimed it was unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right, they might have been a bit confused when they did, tho it still didn't change the sentence. Corrected my post above.--TMCk (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the benefit of having two sentences rather than one concise sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If you've actually read the replies of other editors then you will know or ought to know the answer to that. Stop being disruptive on several fronts, accept that consensus is against you and move on.Levelledout (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
For the short text it is easier to read one sentence. It disrupts the flow when it is split into two sentences. The text should WP:BECONCISE. QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Fruitless fruits. I might as well just say banana (or is it banano)?--TMCk (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Here you go again not understanding a thing that was said. I said "banana" and bananas due matter and I care about them a lot.--TMCk (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Current wording: "As of 2014, a small number of states in the US allow e-cigarettes to be taxed as tobacco products.[43] In addition, indoor smoking bans have been extended to include e-cigarettes in some states and by regional governments in the US.[43]"
Proposal: "As of 2014[update], some states in the US permit e-cigarettes to be taxed as tobacco products, and some state and regional governments in the US had extended their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes." This wording is more concise which makes it more readable for the general reader using less words. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I can shorten it even more, I think. "In the US, as of 2014 some states tax e-cigarettes as tobacco products. Some state and regional governments have broadened their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes."—S MarshallT/C 07:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and simplified the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Please split
Forgive me for not reading all the back discussions and checking if this has been said. This article is huge and unwieldy and hard to read. Most of the sections that are not separate articles could be. Any consensus for writing 100-200 word summaries of each section and spinning off the surplus material into extra articles? HLHJ (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That really would be too short. Several sections already have their own main articles. If you do (I won't say read, which would be cruel and unusual) dip into earlier discussions, you will find rafts of complaints about too much detail, poor rack o'facts writing, repetition, and so on, as well as seeing that consensus does not come easy here. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
We could split of the construction section. The article is at 126,608 bytes. Will give it a try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Good edit. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Like the idea of splitting off construction, it had got unwieldy but what remains in this article needs to be more of a summary than what's currently left. SPACKlick (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. Feel free to shuffle stuff around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There are three paragraphs remaining. There are ways of shortening the text without losing the meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, a less detailed summary of construction so we can have some summary of generations and leave the fine detail for a subpage. Don't have a lot of time to edit wiki atm. SPACKlick (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want left or removed. I restored information about the different generations. QuackGuru (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with splitting the article but I do disagree with under-summarising it. We now provide barely any information about the different types of e-cigarettes, components etc in the main article. Whilst we're on the subject how many readers do you actually think are interested or bothered enough to read through 8 long tedious paragraphs of the Economics of e-cigarettes sub-section? We should be able to cut that down to one or two paragraphs easily.Levelledout (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the economics can be trimmed or spun out into a sub-article, but disagree with putting back any of the dull details of construction.—S MarshallT/C 23:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh not another sub-article :) I think we have enough of those for a subject like e-cigarettes. Nobody is going to read a sub-article on the economics of e-cigarettes apart from e-cigarette economists and there aren't many of those knocking about. It's better to cut out the tedious nonsense and things inserted into random places, of which there's quite a bit.Levelledout (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sub articles is what makes Wikipedia amazing. One can have a general overview for those who only want a bit of information and than one can have subarticles for e-cig economists.
By the way usually a bot comes to fix the references that were moved. Anyone know one it has not worked? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The bot did not work because there were too many edits made after the original edit for the bot to realise the full citations were missing.
I disagree that the economics should be spun out into a sub-page. Redundant or overly detailed text can be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The construction section is now too short, and contains the usual mixture of inaccuracy, poor expression and repetition. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Editors want to have a discussion and reach a consensus. Someone will make the edit when that's been done, and I suggest, QG, that you understand "someone" to mean "someone else". One of the behavioural issues on this page is that we start a discussion and then you unilaterally change the article before agreement is reached.—S MarshallT/C 16:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I made this edit instead. It cleaned up the section and it is still a summary. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Other editors were saying there were issues with the summary but others were not making any specific proposals. The first paragraph was not a summary so I went ahead and fixed that. I summarised the construction of electronic cigarettes article per WP:SYNC. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"others were not making any specific proposals" You never gave others a chance to make specific proposals, nor does it seem is there any point in doing so now.Levelledout (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Most perfect example of QG ownership in a while. People wanting to discuss solutions to article problems, so QG unilaterally "Fixes" them to create a new status quo. QG, how have you not learned that the best thing to do, in the above situation, is to post your specific proposals to the talk page rather than enact them? SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not having this. This is not how Wikipedia articles are improved. I've restored the stable wording and I intend to proceed directly to one of the drama boards if QG edits that section again before we reach consensus. Discuss away.—S MarshallT/C 16:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect to plagiarism this "journal article" is a word for word copy of our Wikipedia article [24]
Here is what our article looked like in Feb 1, 2013 [25]
Please be careful. Much of the published literature is simply Wikipedia. This includes much of what is published in India. But also major textbooks like at least one from the Oxford University Press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I have informed the journal but it is very new. Publishes Wikipedia article without attribution and still has an impact factor of 1.1 [26]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Inventor of the electronic cigarette
This article credits Hon Lik (a graduate of the Liaoning College Of Traditional Chinese Medicine) for inventing the electronic cigarette. There's some background information about this person in this French newspaper. Can someone please check to see if there's anything useful we can add? -A1candidate 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Bloomberg, this person seems to be the co-founder and a "non-executive director" of a company specializing in TCM products. -A1candidate 20:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Sourced text deleted after discussion and agreement
This sentence was removed. "As the e-cigarette industry is growing, new products are quickly developed and brought to market."
No, actually not QG. The patent even describes that it isn't[29]. You are confusing an integrated unit with the integrated components. A battery is not the atomizer or vaporizer - and never will be, the battery is only the power source for the atomizer/vaporizer. Essentially the patent shown works the same way as all other (and newer) e-cigs: It vaporizes the e-liquid by passing it to a coil (atomizer), which is powered by a battery. So i've reverted. --Kim D. Petersen 15:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As a sidenote: It might not be a coil though, but i can't verify that since i can only read the abstracted patent. The atomizer might have been sonic evaporation. Doesn't change much in the above though, since the atomizer part is still a seperate component from the battery. --Kim D. Petersen 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the state of the article is quite troubling if so badly written that even a main contributor doesn't understand the basics on how an e-cig works. An average reader w/o some basic knowledge in physics must be even more puzzled by it.--TMCk (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There are still some recently introduced problems in the history section. I won't point them out here b/c someone will jump ahead again and make it worse. So I'll try to fix it when I have time unless a knowledgeable editor beats me to it.--TMCk (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Have removed it. A source that is plagiarized from Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If the reference is a plagiary of our own article, as you say (which as far as i can tell is QG's edit) - then it should be possible to use the original references for the text instead. Your edit is simply wrong, since all modern atomizers work by heating! (see Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#Atomizer) As all editors of this article should know! "Correcting" by replacing one problem with an even worse problem is not really a correction or to the benefit of Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: In other words: You exchanged a completely wrong sentence with another wrong sentence, instead of fixing the obvious reference problem. --Kim D. Petersen 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
user:KimDabelsteinPetersen feel free to change it further. This content was original unreferenced back in Feb 2013. It is only the ref I have issues with. I have trimmed the content until we come up with something that works better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is best to restore the section ordering to where it was before or we can put the Heath effects section second.
Use
Health effects
Construction
See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 22#Ordering of sections 2 for the previous discussion. The long-term consensus has been Health effects first followed by Construction. The closer wrote "I can't pull a consensus out of the air where there is none, but nevertheless, in an attempt to help break the deadlock, I'll venture to suggest that option 3 is the one that more editors seem to be able to get behind, and it's probably the most fruitful basis for future discussion." Option 3 is the Use section first followed by Health effects second and so on. Option 3 is a good compromise. Discuss away! QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Again? And with the same (i)rational as just 4 weeks ago? Protected edit request on 16 March 2015. It's a bit early and considering the ANI thread, not exactly the best time to start that drama fest again, I would say.--TMCk (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Yes I think that would be a fair compromise and I would support have the first three sections be use, health effects, construction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to start a new RFC.--TMCk (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Not that it matters but we had the one mentioned above and this one shortly before closed with "no consensus".--TMCk (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with TMCk - if this should be changed, it should be via an RfC, just as the current arrangement was. --Kim D. Petersen 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said so, QG, but thanks for pointing out in your link that it was edited thru protection by an admin per "per rough consensus established above". And sure, it always is "the wrong version" for some.--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the sequence should be:- (1) what e-cigs are for (a non-therapeutic device that aims to replace cigarettes), (2) what e-cigs are (plastic and metal tubes with various named components), (3) how they work (press the button and draw on the device), (4) why people use them (but without ever saying or implying that e-cigarettes have any health benefits of any kind, so this would need to mention the cost reasons for uptake), and then (5) what the health effects are. This is the standard sequence for articles about devices. For example the article on car says (1) what they're for (wheeled device for transportation), (2) what they are (machines for transporting people on roads), then goes off on a brief historical tangent before saying (3) how they work (controls, engine etc.), and then (4) health effects (injuries, accidents, toxic chemical emissions). It skips over the reasons why people use them because that's apparent from the first couple of paragraphs. In the e-cig article this is much less apparent.—S MarshallT/C 08:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Not this again. QuackGuru has been holding the above post in their San[d]box for two months, see this revision of QG's San[d]box from 25 March. I'm not sure why they have waited two months to introduce it here but it has been discussed many times before. What we do know is that on 17 December 2014 it was determined that we were no no longer obliged to follow WP:MEDMOS section ordering. The previous alleged "long-term established consensus" that QuackGuru refers to was based on the assumption that WP:MEDMOS did apply which no longer holds true. Subsequently on 19 December, a "rough consensus" was determined for the section ordering as it stands today. Some editors were not happy with this and brought an RFC to try and make further alterations, which ended in no consensus for any of the options. I understand that some editors would like to see the WP:MEDMOS section ordering restored but there's no consensus for that and isn't going to happen. Doc James mentions a compromise but by reading through the conversation that established the original "rough consensus" it can be seen that we already have a compromise, which is that Use is the first section. If editors would like to make changes to the order, then perhaps it would be best to at least explain why they think the ordering should be changed as S Marshall has done. I'm sort of in agreement with S Marshall's thinking, if we were to make changes then we should approach it logically and look at how other articles are set out for other consumer devices/products. But I'm OK with the current ordering even though it wouldn't be my ideal choice.Levelledout (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Medical versus consumer product
It is interested that "from 2017 at the latest, suppliers will have to choose between the probably lower manufacturing costs but greater marketing restrictions imposed by the TPD, or to accept the higher manufacturing costs but other benefits of medicines licensing" in the EU [31]. Thus they are being viewed as a hybrid consumer / medical product. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say hybrid. Generally speaking it would be either or.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Via the TPD the main restriction on e-liquids is that the nicotine content has to be < 20 mg/ml, you can go above with medical licensing though. The TPD makes no restrictions on hardware, unless the product is sold filled up with liquid. [ie. it differentiates between non-nicotine containing and nicotine containing products] This can be changed in state implementations though, such as what has happened in Holland, or what was proposed in Denmark. You can advertize the medical products, but not the non-medicals though. In countries such as Denmark that has little effect, since there hasn't been any real advertising. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be mentioned though that Totally Wicked (e-cig producer) has won the right to formally challenge the validity of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Luxembourg.[32] So the state of the TPD is somewhat uncertain. --Kim D. Petersen 16:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that if e-cigs were accepted by the medical community as smoking cessation aids, then it would make sense to regard them as therapeutic devices. In that situation I would think that it's the e-liquid which should be regulated as a medicine. The e-cigarette should be regulated roughly as a syringe is. (I say this because I presume it would be possible to produce an e-liquid containing, for example, tetrahydrocannabinol or mescaline.) But as things stand I see no basis on which to treat them as medical products.—S MarshallT/C 09:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
All that is saying is that e-cig manufacturers have to make a choice between continuing to sell a consumer product and putting up with increased regulation or applying for a medicines license where, once granted, there will be less restrictions. It is pretty obvious that a product with a medical license is a medical product. However right now the vast majority of the products on the market do not have such a license. So generally speaking until that changes and whilst there may be the odd exception, they are consumer products.Levelledout (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting
Original research? See diff. Previous version. Wording fixed after over 2 years. Unsourced text appearing on Wikipedia is repeated on other websites. At least it is fixed now. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What would be interesting is if you could elaborate your question/complaint/comment in English here on the talk page rather than post 3 diffs of a collection of edits with no commentary. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Although it's difficult to tell I think QG is publicly patting themselves on the back for fixing a minor error. Nothing particularly interesting about that.Levelledout (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Also worth noting he's patting himself on the back for removing citation need tags within 3 minutes of them being added, by none other than quackguru. SPACKlick (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Published under circulation which says: "Statements, opinions, and results of studies published in Circulation are those of the authors and do not reflect the policy or position of the American Heart Association, and the American Heart Association provides no warranty as to their accuracy or reliability." Strange but funny.--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really. You have two entities 1) the journal Circulation which publishes papers from lot of people most of which do not represent a AHA position 2) occasionally they do publish stuff that does such as this AHA policy statement Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Two problems - the first is the breaker: It is a primary source. The second is that you are interpolating a cell study to macroscale. --Kim D. Petersen 15:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Kim. Please read WP:MEDRS with respect to the sort of sources we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Kim D. PetersenDoc James Ok, how about this?, nevertheless I still think that the report should be mentioned in the article. It's a reliable source and I don't see why not. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Rupert loup we typically only use high quality secondary sources such as review articles published by major journals and position statements by nationally or internationally recognized bodies. We do not use the popular press such as ScienceDaily or primary sources, especially for controversial topics such as this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The 3 tags have been removed. Also the NPOV dispute tag was removed from the top of the page. I don't see a benefit for restoring any of the tags to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Which ones and when were they removed and by whom? That would help commenting on it.--TMCk (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't see a clear consensus coming out of this old discussion but either way, we have plenty of good newer sources to use so I see no need to rehash but rather to lean towards more up-to-date sourcing in this rapidly evolving topic.--TMCk (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Was there a reason this topic was posted to the talk page, if there is could you post diffs and put some content in your talk page posts Quack? If there isn't then could you not post pointless talk page posts Quack? SPACKlick (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(Sidenote: I have gotten used to this and rarely ask for context anymore.--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC))
Unreliable sources all over the web claim the review is unrelable,[34][35][36][37] but the source is reliable and it is a recent review according to WP:MEDRS. Although there is a lot of sources on the topic, the research is very gradually moving forward. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The claim is made not by unreliable sources but in two letters written by experts, pointing out shortcomings in the Grana review. Wasn't there very recently a huge debate about scientific bias at acupuncture to treat some med sources with care or leave them out entirely? I'm not arguing to remove all mention of Grana here but to avoid it whenever possible and use less controversial sources. Studies on this topic are coming out in fast since Grana and when reviewed, should be given their due weight, especially when they render older ones obsolete (at least in part).--TMCk (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The unreliable websites have no basis for what happens on Wikipedia. The letters are not from reliable sources since they are from unreliable websites. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if unreliable sources have published the letters since we don't use those in the article. The letters and surrounding controversy can indeed be the basis for talk page discussion about what sources might be used for specific content. BTW, I'm sure you can find those letters on more reliable sources but that's not the point anyways.--TMCk (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any controversy. This is normal background discussion. This happens on many topics. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The wording has been tweaked again. "Since their introduction to the market in 2004, global usage has risen.[18]" QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Picture of a no smoking sign
I don't find the image to provide significant information or benefit to the section on motivation. Cloudjpk disagrees I'd appreciate opinions. SPACKlick (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the image provides good information for the section. There is a lot of debate about e-cigs used in places where there are smoking bans. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Decorative only/pointy at "best": Doesn't improve the understanding of the subject + it only relates to the least of the motivations.--TMCk (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Add: Would fit best in an anti-smoke campaign article.--TMCk (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture and caption provide an illustration and example of a motivation for use. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please consider my above comment also being my reply to this post of yours and maybe end the circle right here?--TMCk (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
My judgement is this image meets that requirement. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what significant additional beneficial information the image provides to the reader on top of what is already provided in prose in this section?--TMCk (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Another image
Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.
The only images that would make sense (if at all) would be showing someone actually vaping in front of such sign to circumvent the law.--TMCk (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Worse than current. More pointy. SPACKlick (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Would be good to have a non smoking / no e-cigs sign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? The section isn't about e-cigarette bans and is hardly about non-smoking. Why would it be appropriate? SPACKlick (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A non-smoking / no e-cigs sign would remove the motivation illustrated. So I can't agree it would be better. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with either the existing image or this one. They both illustrate the motivation. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what significant additional beneficial information the image provides to the reader on top of what is already provided in prose in this section?--TMCk (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The point of these images is to violate NPOV and give undue weight to a specific point. Why not replace the no smoking sign with a picture of a broken cigarette and the caption "Common reasons people use e-cigarettes is to cut down or quit smoking"? That's not a serious suggestion by the way but one to prove a point about how the current image is being used.Levelledout (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.
I've thought about this some more and since we say in the article that "Most users' motivation is related to quitting" perhaps we actually should use the image on the right hand side which is far more relevant and does not give undue weight to the "circumvention" issue. What are other editors' positions on this?Levelledout (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That image is of course just as non-beneficial as the one discussed and just representing another (opposite) pointy viewpoint. It's a good argument against the existing image tho.--TMCk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That was my initial thought. But without wanting to repeat myself, if the main motivation for e-cig use is related to quitting or cutting down tobacco use then wouldn't this image be justified and unlike the no smoking sign, simply illustrating the main point? I accept that any image used in this particular situation could be considered "pointy" to some degree or another but looking at it from the neutral perspective that certain editors seem incapable of, this one would seem less pointy. The only alternative is to use no image whatsoever. I'm OK with that option to be honest since there's far too much general pointyness surrounding this article. I think an RFC would be appropriate if the issue cannot be resolved through this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I added the new image. We can keep both images rather than use one image. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not acceptable, I have removed it. Allow consensus to develop instead of jumping ahead and making changes without it. If you have an idea suggest it here instead.Levelledout (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The word youth is sourced in accordance with V
"More than a quarter of a million youth who had never smoked a cigarette used electronic cigarettes in 2013, according to a CDC study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research. This number reflects a three-fold increase, from about 79,000 in 2011, to more than 263,000 in 2013."[38] I made this change to fix the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It may be sourced, but it doesn't belong there. WP:V applies to facts and ideas, not to individual word choices and indeed duplicating a source's wording too closely is plagiarism. The word is incongruous in context and should be rephrased.—S MarshallT/C 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You changed "young people" to "youth[s]". But "youths" means "young people" and the two words / phrases are synonymous. I agree with what S Marshall said as well.Levelledout (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I rephrased another sentence in the same section. I don't think the CDC sentence is plagiarised. I prefer we use the wording "youth[s]". I don't have any specific suggestion for rephrasing it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
An assertion that "I prefer we use the wording 'Youth[s]'" carries no weight since it is devoid of any justification as to why we should do. The relevant question is why change it in the first place inspite of being repeatedly told by multiple editors that WP:V is not about matching individual words which is known as plagarism? Particularly when the words mean the same thing.Levelledout (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I do think an individual word choice could be a WP:V issue in some cases, and there might well be times when we did want to quote the source very exactly and precisely. I just don't think this is one of those times.—S MarshallT/C 18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 article uses the word youth (PMID25143298). The 2013 CDC report uses the word youth and a 2015 review found "Of particular concern is that similar trends are observed among youth. According to a report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 263,000 youths in grades 6 to 12 tried ECs in 2013, a 3-fold increase from 2011.8"[39] The experts use the word "youth". QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The experts are using their own US vernacular. English WP is multinational. Hence my link to Wikipedia:Systemic bias.--Aspro (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Quack, what do you think it detracts to use a term more common to the reader than a term which is defined in a way not entirely similar to that in which the reader uses it? SPACKlick (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the different sentences and used a high-quality review for the text. The text is now "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked.[35]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
History section
TMCk, you previously said "There are still some recently introduced problems in the history section. I won't point them out here b/c someone will jump ahead again and make it worse. So I'll try to fix it when I have time unless a knowledgeable editor beats me to it.--TMCk (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)"
TMCk, please let me know if any wording can be improved. I added more sources and made some changes to Electronic cigarette#History. Is it better now? QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Quack what's with the presumption that TMCK will let you know? WP:OWN much? SPACKlick (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Propose text for Frequency section
The source said "Use has been reported to mirror similar variables however other research suggests that despite hearing of such products less often than their males counterparts, female current smokers with less than a high school education and of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to ever have tried an e-cigarette."[40]
Proposed text:
Current female traditional cigarette users who did not graduate from high school and of low socioeconomic status are more likely to have used an e-cigarette.<ref name=Sanford2014/> Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
For starters, there is a big difference between "low" and "lower" and same for "ever have tried" and "to have used". Needs rephrasing and/or quotes should be used if it goes in, after discussion is concluded.--TMCk (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in overly academic language, by which I mean, semi-comprehensible gobbledigook. Science would be much more widely understood ---- and charlatans would be much poorer! ---- if scientists were taught to write decent English prose that normal people use instinctively. But no, scientists always write in horrendously tortuous passive-voice constructions and latin-derived words. English is best written in short Germanic words using short sentences in the simple declarative. As encyclopaedia editors it's our role to turn that horrible scientific prose into something the general reader will easily take on board.
Come on, I'll help you get started. "Current female traditional cigarette users" --> "Women who smoke". Can you do the rest?—S MarshallT/C 05:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can add a quote for now. Proposal: A 2014 review found "female current smokers with less than a high school education and of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to ever have tried an e-cigarette."[41]QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a real improvement. I think you don't need "current". If you meant "female former smokers" you'd say "women who used to smoke", and if you meant "female current and former smokers" you'd say "women who have smoked", so "women who smoke" isn't ambiguous. The way I'd personally put it is "Women who smoke and who are poorer, or did not finish school, are more likely to have tried vaping." I think the general-interest reader will find that more accessible.—S MarshallT/C 22:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It is too general to say did not finish school. The part "or" is not what the source said. It was "and". QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't really agree that it's too general, but I would welcome other phrasings that are a little pithier than the text first suggested.—S MarshallT/C 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed text for the Electronic cigarette#Frequency section: "Women who smoke who are poorer and did not finish high school, are more likely to have tried vaping." QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Subject to what other editors say, I have no objection to that.—S MarshallT/C 21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And? There are no images for many sub-sections, nor is there a requirement to have one for every section or sub-section.Levelledout (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add an image to the very first section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would support that. I'd be OK with Image D for the first section; it's not specific to motivation, but it is appropriate for the e-cigs topic generally Cloudjpk (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I added text to the image since it was not clear.[42] Perhaps we can use a different image for the frequency section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a better image for the frequency section and added relevant text to the caption. I made this change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. The underlying fact, which nobody disputes, is that e-cigarette use by people in their teens and early twenties is ballooning. The undue weight issue is that we repeat this underlying fact four times, in four slightly different ways, with four slightly different sources, in four separate places ---- thereby giving it a great deal of emphasis through sheer repetition. What we should do is have one (1) sentence saying that e-cigarette use by young people is ballooning and put all four sources after it.
There are many other instances of undue weight by repetition in this article, by the way. This is happening because editors are building the article by finding a source, hunting through it for factlets, closely summarising exactly what the source says about the factlets, dumping the factlets into the article (sourcing them very carefully indeed), and then grouping what seem to be related sentences together. I've explained before that this is not the way to build a decent encyclopaedia article.—S MarshallT/C 04:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that with the patently obvious, that we should not repeat ourselves 4 times in different places. There's another problem, and this is systemic throughout the article - undue weight given to US data and stating US data as world-wide figures.Levelledout (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's because the majority of reliable data comes from the US.—S MarshallT/C 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
According to whom?Levelledout (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to me. I mean, I'm not exactly a big fan of the USA, Levelledout ---- I've never set foot in the country and I never intend to ---- but they have large academic community and a large population so a large proportion of the data comes from there.—S MarshallT/C 12:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we're the best. We can shit studies and everything else en mass, and when we're low on shit we're making shit up and most inhabitants of this planet buy it anyways, no questions asked b/c if they open their mouth, you know where the shit goes to shut them up :P --TMCk (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"E-cigarette use is rapidly growing in young adults.[undue weight? – discuss][35]" Young adults is different than youth, young people or teenagers. Therefore, it is not duplication. This is a different age group than people under 21.
"In 2013 the CDC found a threefold increase from 2011 in youth who have vaped but never smoked.[undue weight? – discuss][37] Between 2013 and 2014, use of e-cigarettes by US teenagers tripled.[undue weight? – discuss][38]" These two sentences are different. The first sentence is about young people in the US who tried an e-cigarette but never have smoked, while the other sentence is about young people in the US who use e-cigarettes. Different sources are stating different things about young people.
"Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes,..." This is about young people is general not the US. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand that. It doesn't affect what I'm saying, though. We have four slightly different statistical statements and I fully accept that they have slightly different meanings to a scientist or statistician, but for a general readership they boil down to the same basic point, which is that use among teenagers and young adults is ballooning.—S MarshallT/C 19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
... and I finished the job.—S MarshallT/C 20:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
After reading the discussion in another thread I realised the wording was way too vague and meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Request image for Harm reduction section
There is no image for the Harm reduction section, yet I have a good idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: In an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy, and are likely to be less harmful than tobacco.<ref name=Cahn2011/> See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Captions are used to describe images, not the other way around. How can you write a caption without knowing what the image is?Levelledout (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Another Pointless Image Added
This image was added to the top of the Harm Reduction section . There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
How is that related to my questions?Levelledout (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
RFC: Images for Motivation sub-section
As the poster, I am withdrawing this RfC since one of the choice of images turned out to be a suspected copyvio and thus needs to be removed. Image D has also been moved to a more relevant place in the article and replaced with another relatively neutral image. I have no objections to a new RFC being started with updated images, particularly if the situation changes.Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 7 June 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.
Note (added after 3 !votes): With respect to image captions I suggest using the existing ones that QuackGuru has posted below. The caption for Image C should work fine with Image A or Image B. To prevent repetition, some modifications to the caption text may need to be made depending on the combination of images that is decided on and this will only be possible after the RFC is complete.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Responses
Image A at the top and Image C below. We are told in the article that the main motivation is quitting or cutting down and circumvention of smoke-free policies is therefore a lesser motivation. In accordance with WP:UNDUE we should reflect that with the prominence given to images illustrating these points.Levelledout (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Other: This article contains a number of images which are mainly decorative rather than informative. We should have an image or images showing the various different kinds of e-cigarette, one image of a person using one, and photos or (ideally) line diagrams of an exploded e-cigarette labelling the parts ---- and that's all we really need. I would prefer that other images are removed, although I don't feel massively strongly about it.—S MarshallT/C 17:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that from the article, we are told "Most users' motivation is related to quitting, but a fair proportion of use is recreational... others use them to circumvent smoke-free laws and policies, or to cut back on normal cigarette smoking".Levelledout (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The images don't have any text in them so I would not know how to evaluate the proposal without context for each image. Image A does not replace image D. They are both unrelated. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D has almost nothing to do with motivation for using e-cigarettes. I have no idea why it's in the article in that particular place. It's needs to be replaced with something that is relevant. Captions can be sorted out later. Including questions about captions would make the RFC too complex. Saying that you cannot evaluate whether the image should be put into the article in the first place without seeing the caption which is generally written after the decision to put the image into the article is silly.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Image D is related to the popular activity known as cloud-chasing. See "The activity vapers call cloud-chasing to exhale the largest cloud of vapor is growing more popular.[43]" Without text for each image I'm afraid this RfC is incomplete (malformed). I recommend you archive this RfC and start over. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, we've only had three votes and one of those was mine. I've added a brief note to the RFC to address your concerns.Levelledout (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We have text for image C. Now you are proposing to include image A without any specific text. It is hard to evaluate the proposal without text. Image C currently in the article does explain the common reasons people use e-cigs. So what is the benefit for also including image A in the same section when the commons reasons are already clearly explained? So far I don't see a specific reason for including image A in the motivation section. There is a reason for using image C. Please read "Some surveys found that a small percentage of users' motives were to avoid the bans, but other surveys found that over 40% of users said they used the device for this reason.[3]" A significant portion of e-cig use is to get around smoking ban. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No I am not proposing that, I have just addressed that very concern. If you continue to either not realise or ignore the fact that I have addressed your concerns then I do not intend to enter into an endless futile debate about it. So far as I'm concerned the RFC is now structured as well as it can reasonably be expected to be. The reason for including image A is addressed in my response.Levelledout (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Image A replaced Image C. Image B and C are the related images. You said the caption for Image C should work fine with Image A, yet you want to use both Image A and Image C. If both Image A and C are used then there is no caption for Image A yet. This RfC is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That is ridiculous and unreasonable. There are many possible combinations of images and as you have correctly identified, the choice could potentially affect the caption texts. Therefore it isn't practically possible to provide the exact text before a choice has been decided on. It's not necessary to clear up every little tiny detail with an initial RfC statement, that's partially what this discussion section is for.Levelledout (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You proposed A and C but you since you have not proposed a caption for A then I don't know if image A will improve the section. It may not be necessary to include image A in the section since we currently have an image with common reasons people use e-cigs. I can't think of another caption that would benefit that particular section. Can anyone else think of a another caption specifically about motivations? There is another issue about image A however. After thinking about it overnight, it seems a bit provocative to add an image with someone breaking apart a cigarette into two pieces. I noticed the e-cig device for Image A is out of focus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure other editors can see through this nonsense and filibustering. You know perfectly well that's its perfectly easy to split the existing caption into two or otherwise modify it slightly so it doesn't repeat itself. And yes it's very provocative to have an image of somebody splitting a cigarette in half, so provocative it took you two days (the image was first introduced here) just to realise it's provocative. Quite who it's going to provoke and in what way is anyone's guess. The UK NHS must also allegedly be provocative then for using the same type of imagery?Levelledout (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise I added the image but to another section.
So according to you the image is "provocative" and "out of focus" but you decided to insert it anyway in a place and manner that you and only you deemed appropriate right in the middle of an ongoing RfC that has the purpose of gathering the opinions of all editors on whether or not it should be included? You also did more or less exactly the same thing yesterday. QG, I am not the first person to tell you and I probably won't be the last: You do not own the article.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
And by the way the image has been removed since the obvious result of inserting it was to render both this RfC and the consensus process redundant.Levelledout (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Are we even allowed to show Image C. Its a copy of an Arriva poster. I suspect that the original poster is protected by copyright so this becomes a copyvio. We cannot claim fairuse as alternative images are available. I've nominated the commons:File:Bangor bilingual station no smoking sign.jpg for deletion. I'm also suspicious of the copyright status of the other images Images A and D both look like professionally taken advertising copy. Tracing the source back they come from flicker page of the-best-electronic-cigarette-review.com a website which uses a lot of stock advertising copy without proper attribution although they claim to use only use CC images from flickr[43] I'm suspicious and suspect they are copyvio as well. That leaves image B, which looks OK from a copyright status. As an alternative I would suggest File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which File:Breaking cigarette.jpg which has a traceable source going back to a public domain US military source.--Salix alba (talk): 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Now you mention it Salix alba, I'd say we should exclude Image C. With respect to Images A and D, I think that they may be OK. The flickr link you have provided for Image D shows the camera that has been used to take the photo and specifications such as the camera's focal length. From clicking the left and right arrows, there are several slightly different shots of the image. Therefore it would appear that the photo has been taken by the owner of that flickr account, which is TBEC review. Likewise for Image A. So basically Images A and D would seem OK to me, but Image C would quite possibly not. However I see that you say that TBEC is known for using copyrighted photos without proper attribution, perhaps you could elaborate on that and provide more details?Levelledout (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes good point about the alternative images for image D, unlikely to have lifted the whole image set. I'll withdraw my compaint about image A as well.--Salix alba (talk): 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
And the point in posting that here is what? The caption would need to be changed if a new image was introduced.Levelledout (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
So uninvolved commentators will know what text and images is currently in the article rather than assume it is a new proposal with new images or new text. You haven't proposed in the RfC what the caption would be for any new images. How are editors going to evaluate the proposal for this RfC? Currently you are not proposing any text for the images. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (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.
Comment:Why starting a new section? Makes it look like there was no discussion on this issue even so there is one in the "Smokeless tobacco" section above. Please explain.--TMCk (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Facepalm—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. There was no edit summary so we have no idea as to why it was added other than the fact that QuackGuru requested an image in the section above and provided the caption that has been used. How does this image "increase readers' understanding" of the concept of harm reduction in line with WP:IUP? It doesn't would appear to be the simple answer so could we remove it please?Levelledout (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
