Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 28

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

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Smoking cessation

I present for your consideration a very, very drastic simplification of this section:-

Definitely not going to get consensus

Current text	Proposed text
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. 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 stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications.	Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. The evidence is contradictory.^{(Lots of little numbers)} Probably the most positive view of e-cigarettes' role is from Public Health England who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease.^{(Little number)} The least positive views are embodied in 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.^{(Two little numbers)}

Improvements welcome.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Much too short. This sort of simplification is far too drastic. It might go in the lead, or starting the section, or in a some sort of overview section, or in Smoking cessation or the Simple English Wiki, but won't do as the whole section for the main article here. With my Quack hat on, what's your source for "Probably the most positive view of e-cigarettes' role is ..."? I know you hanker after this sort of brutal simplicity, but I think people who read beyond the lead expect more. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree much to short. But I am sure there is a lot that can be removed from that section. Perhaps take it one paragraph at a time, numbering the sentences and see if anyone thinks they should stay or can propose a different text for it. AlbinoFerret 20:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Could I sell it to you on the basis that it's a better starting point for future development than the current turgid morass of contradictory statistics without introduction or conclusion? :D—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I see it as the draft of a useful and necessary summary, which should go somewhere, but not to replace the whole section. Since that is written, one might even start a sub-article for the full lot, & keep some here. No one much will read it, but some will. With luck it will all be rather out of date in a year or two anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Second verse, same as the first, a little bit longer and a little bit worse:-

Current text	Proposed text
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. 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 stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications.	Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. The evidence is contradictory.^{(Lots of little numbers)} Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease.^{(Little number)} to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.^{(Two little numbers)} The case in favour One 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.^{(Little number)} A 2014 review concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term,^{(Little number)} and another 2014 review concluded that electronic cigarettes reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke.^{(Little number)} A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.^{(Little number)} (Any other key points I missed?) The case against E-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.^{(Little number)} Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,^{(Little number)} and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users.^{(Little number)} A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products.^{(Little number)} Another trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.^{(Little number)} (Any other key points I missed?)

Splitting the section into a case against and a case for is not productive, because it allows readers to very simply read what they like and ignore the rest, regardless of their position. Also I object to the removal of "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited." as well as not mentioning the Cochrane review. CFCF 💌 📧 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to put "research on the safety and efficacy etc." back in, and it probably belongs at the start of the first paragraph. The Cochrane review's conclusions are mentioned, but it's not described as a Cochrane review in the text. (I prefer this. Anyone who knows what a Cochrane review is or why it matters, will be reading Wikipedia articles with a very close eye on the references. They'll see that it's one.) I'm happy to divide the text up differently, but I do rather urge that we put in headings of some kind, because three paragraphs of unsorted statistics are deeply unedifying.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Strongly object to these destructive edits. They remove information, skew all attempts at NPOV. S Marshall has said he wants to do drastic changes. These then are those. There can be improvements, but simply knocking out and off all the viewpoints that contradict an editors POV, by definition removes the NPOV of the article. These edits do just that. When these are raised as drastic by the OP, its a clear sign. Drastic measures are not called for. As mentioned elsewhere on this TALK page, this is what I believe is the reason to put in Full Protection of this page. I will cite these, if the previous ARB does not pick it up at their own instigation. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor is not entitled to a POV or allowed to place their POV into an article. NPOV says we only reflect the POV found in sources. A subsection of that page WP:WEIGHT says that we add the POV of the sources in proportion to that found in reliable sources. AlbinoFerret 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's an issue of style with the edit moving from the hyper condensed unrelated factoid style now to a style that's too conversational. I think, if the case for and case against sections were merged, then those two (current and proposed) side by side could form a productive starting point for discussion. You have removed the major issue I have with the section, reams of contradictory early form studies given no context or relation which is a positive. SPACKlick (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for suggested headings.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, with apologies to Johnbod for making lots of bytes of changes to this page, I think side-by-side comparisons are important. This is what we have at the moment:-

Current text	Proposed text
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. 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 stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications.	The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down. Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.

Are there further comments or objections at all?—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Vast improvement to readability. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This text singles out the only report with a positive analysis and mentions it by name, while completely neglecting to name the WHO, CDC, and Cochrane which have come to considerably different conclusions? While easier to read it is clearly not neutral, and polishing the prose must be done without tilting everything in favor of ecig use. CFCF 💌 📧 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to achieve the same balance of pro-e-cig-ness vs anti-e-cig-ness in this section as the Cochrane Review, so it's probably appropriate for me to quote its conclusions in full. It says: There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated ’low’ by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk. The text I've proposed does achieve this and is tolerably NPOV. I'm happy to remove the mention of Public Health England if you feel it would help.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Warnock's dilemma here.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback has been given. I for one, am entirely against these edits because I think it removes valuable content arbitrarily. There is well cited information that you are seeking to remove. SM, you have said,"I have described my intentions on this talk page on a number of occasions previously, but this may have been before you started editing. I intend to rewrite this article so that it's accessible to a schoolchild -- a vulnerable person who's heard of e-cigarettes and is considering taking a puff. This is the kind of person who is likely to be turning to Wikipedia for information. I do not believe that is good stewardship of an Article. The changes proposed are drastic, and working off an old version of the section in question. If you want to craft this article specific readership and/or to deposit specific POV, I do believe that is counter-purpose to Wikipedia itself. If you want to present this approach to redoing the entire article, as entire proposal, you are free to do so. For this item here today the feedback is not consensus, and includes my strenuous objection to content recrafting. Hopefully this solves the Warnock query. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we know you object. You've said as much above and nobody expects you to change your position. There's clearly sufficient support for the idea to overcome one editor's objections. I'm trying to clarify to what extent CFCF and Doc James still object.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall, you asked about the Warnock query, I responded. You have said you have a designed audience for the article. You have said that you will not work with me in an AE started by AlbinoFerret. I have explained why these drastic changes are not proper, for multiple reasons including that actual Article has been improved since this proposal, and those edits have not been challenged by all editors here. If you are still offering to open up an AE on yourself, please feel free. Moving in these changes is a shortcut that does not serve well the article, and discounts the contributions of all the editors who have been working on this article over the years. This article should not be crafted to serve as a designed message for vulnerable school-aged children. It should be an encyclopedic reference with a strong and concise lede. And the details within the body. If you create your AE on you, please tell me. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I said I can't work with you. Not "won't": tried and can't. I've said that I feel this article should be intelligible to its likely audience, and you've twisted this into phrases like "a designed message for vulnerable school-aged children" and made frequent reference to my "agenda". My basic proposition---that this article is badly-written and hard to read---is disputed by nobody except yourself. There is good faith disagreement about how drastic the changes need to be, but there is no good faith disagreement that change is needed.
Yes, the section has been changed since I started this proposal; no, those changes are not substantial and do not invalidate this talk page section.—S Marshall T/C 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall, when you say you "can not" work with another editor, has the same effect as "will not". Both at antithetical to consensus. I quote above your exact phrase of the POV you want the article to be written for. See above. You can not write it for a POV, and expect the article to remain NPOV.

What is a 'vulnerable person considering taking a puff'?

Where is there a determination that this Article is "badly-written and hard to read", I am aware of various tags to reflect need for improvement to get an article up to standard....this is not the case for this Article. No single editor can just decree.

S Marshall, you are just declaring items for the article but they are your views, you are not "we". Open a formal RFC. Ask for assistance. But as it stands now, the article does not look like your original "current document" and the changes that you are wanting to drive in, are a radical move. What you present is a ripping out well cited and important studies that pass MEDRS.

You removed a section in Smoking Cessation, I replaced it, You agreed to not go at it again in TALK, and now you seek to remove it again.

Lastly there are a lot of editors of this article who are not participating in TALK. They review edits, and they either touch them to improve or don't. Just ripping out that work is not proper. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mystery Wolff: Let's try this again: Comment on content, not the editor. There is plenty of space for your complains at ARB (where the case against you is still pending).--TMCk (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: I don't know who the "us" is in your "Let's..." I am indeed talking to the content, please read again.. My "complains" as you call them are regarding this article, which is this talk page. This subsection is regarding "very, very drastic simplification" that obviously is a very provocative statement. S Marshall seemed to suggest that the absence of renewed objections are a form of consensus, in order to move this "drastic" changes in. Perhaps not. But I wanted to restate my objections, along with the others already lodged. The article has moved on. S Marshall has stated his objectives here in this ARTICLE's TALK, and I quote verbatim several comments above in bold above. This is not about S Marshall. This is about what an editor is saying they are going to do within the talk page. This is proper discourse because of the "very, very drastic" proposal requires comment. It is important to remember that Wiki-editors edit by monitoring change, we know this because of the many names in ARTICLE changes, vs those in the TALK. If these changes were to go in Not by some sort of select group that on TALK that wants to cut down 75% of the text of a section on MEDRS content. S Marshall, is saying that he CAN NOT, work with other editors, that does not give SM carte blanche.

TracyMcClark, I do not know who this "vulnerable person" which S Marshall is saying he wants to recraft this ARTICLE for? Does anyone? Please look at the current Smoking Cessation section, it not what is posted above. It is important Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say he can't work with other editors. He said he can't work with you. As for the "vulnerable person", your accusation is ridiculous. He didn't say he wants to recraft the article for a "vulnerable person". That's what you accused him of doing.--DaleCurrie (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that Mystery Wolff's no longer active in the topic area, are there any remaining objections?—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry why are we removing the position of the USPSTF "The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults."? They are one of the major evidence based groups out their and holds greater weight than the UK position which appears to be emphasized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  - I don't agree about that - in fact all the evidence they use (relevant to e-cigs) is in the much longer and more detailed PHE report, plus a lot more (including what I think is more detailed and long-running UK survey evidence than is available for the US). The USPSTF are very specifically targeted at telling clinicians what to tell patients, whereas the PHE have a wider remit, advising on regulation for example. But they are prepared to, in effect, recommend e-cigs, though I heard one of the authors complaining that the licensed drugs + counselling aren't used more. The very limited RCT evidence so far does suggest that this is more effective than e-cigs, but the ceasing consumer doesn't seem to agree, and may be right. Considering all the fuss the question has generated in the US for some years, it's remarkable no one has yet done a proper head to head RCT there - nothing in it for pharma I suppose. On the wider questions, I haven't looked at this section fully yet. Is there a rush? Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rush? Only insofar as QG's topic ban expires in 161 days and 14 hours (not that I'm counting) and it would be nice to get the article into comprehensible English before then.—S Marshall T/C 18:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

He may have found new interests by then, which I think tends to happen - see Talk:Ayurveda and the article. That'll be interesting. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. In any case, the answer to Doc James' question is that I haven't removed the USPSTF's position at all. My draft says Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and I intend for one of the "several authorities" to be the USPSTF.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall—Would you care to add your version here with the citations intact, followed by a {{reftalk}}-template? I understand why you chose not to early on, but now that we've come some way I think it is necessary. I would also reiterate that I don't think we should single out PHE if we don't also mention Cochrane, the CDC/FDA/NIH and the WHO. I think it should be possible to present all of the prominent reports with attribution by name—but if not it should be either all of them or none of them. CFCF 💌 📧 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on conducting that particular exercise until we've got an agreed text, to be quite honest, CFCF. QG's already provided all the references for you and I've already spent far, far more time and effort trying to improve QG's shitty amateurish incoherent "writing" skills than he ever spent dashing off these paragraphs in the first place. I've got editors telling me they don't want me to make the changes until they've "had chance" to read it, and then not reading it for weeks, and meanwhile the inimitable Mystery Wolff is railing against his topic ban so he can obstruct me too; frankly, I'm finding improving this article far, far too hard as it is. I'm happy for you to add the references to the talk page if you like. Otherwise, I won't do it til we're happy with the text. Feel free to compare it with the references already in the article though. The Cochrane Review is the key one we're trying to summarise; the other references I'll put in are ancillary.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC Are these sources the same?

Based on the consensus below:

The two sources should be treated as distinct sources, even though the organizational author of the sources may be related in one way or the other.
Whether coverage of a conclusion stated by multiple sources should be amalgamated should be left to editor judgement. Note that WP:UNDUE may apply here. This addresses questions 2-4.

- Esquivalience ^t 01:14, 24 December 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.

RFC: Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[1] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[2].

The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.

Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not seeing what is wrong with this dif [3]? The content was just moved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A claim was removed, perhaps you missed that. But the specific question is are the sources the same. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss below in the discussion section

Are the sources the same or different?

Different sources They are clearly not the same source. They are from two different agencies with distinct url's. While they may say similar things the wording is not the same so one is not a copy of the other. AlbinoFerret 06:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Different sources,, clearly While the conclusions are the same, the wording is not, and it never hurts to have statements from multiple sources anyway, as long as they are high quality. And they certainly are in this case. LesVegas (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The websites are related. The UK NHS website says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[4] The NHS website was created by PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You should make up your mind whether it is related or not.--TMCk (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we then remove all the duplicative findings from the US government agencies like the CDC and FDA? Should we remove similar statements from different parts of the WHO? AlbinoFerret 19:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? If it's the same claim supported by independent sources then we have two references at the end of the claim. Why waste time with an RfC if the only difference is either 1 or 2 references at the end of the same claim? CFCF 💌 📧 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They look related to me You are welcome to make your case they are separate sources, as you have been all along Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Different sources They base their views and opinions on the same background, and thus come to similar/same conclusion, just as many other such agencies and organizations do. Why should there be/is there a different standard between pro and contra organizations? --Kim D. Petersen 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Different sources It doesn't matter that they reference the same study. These sources use multiple fact-checking tools and are independently reliable sources of information. --Iamozy (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles that cover the similar things regardless of who created the source?

This question is too broad. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No We need a simple across the board rule. Instead of allowing editors to pick and choose what claims they want to add that are similar but remove others they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course the question is too broad. Editors apply judgment. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Idealy we shouldn't single cite individual statements/papers, but instead strive to summarize the literature with a nod towards notable outliers, as per Wikipedia's pillars. But since this isn't done in this article, which instead consists mainly from individually cherry-picked sentences from papers - then the answer is No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No Doing anything else invites gaming. We need to be consistent and should never allow cherry picking to take place with regard to claims from articles that cover similar things like this. LesVegas (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Consolidate If two reliable sources agree on a statement, say that. But there's no need to state a single claim in two separate instances. --Iamozy (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles if they are from the same group or author and discuss similar things?

It would be better to provide a specific example. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are full of duplicative claims, read it. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment This should be applied the same across the articles, regardless of the conclusions. We should not pick out things we disagree with to remove. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifics needed here in my opinion. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Again in an ideal world, we shouldn't have an eye for individual papers/authors, but instead focus on what the weight of the literature tells us. Instead there should be summarization of what the literature in general says about particular subgroupings of particulars about the topic. So yes: we should, but currently we can't. --Kim D. Petersen 06:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment MEDRS is already clear about this: editors should not reject high quality sources because of content or conclusions, but instead focus on the quality of the source. LesVegas (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove sourced claims if they are based on findings from other sources?

It depends on the claim and the sourcing. This is another vague question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No That allows gaming of the system and editors picking and choosing to remove things they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Confused about this question. But again, see my two other answers: We should summarize the literature - not focus on individual papers/authors. --Kim D. Petersen 06:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment is there an example of this having occurred in the past? I too am confused about this question. LesVegas (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, LesVegas so far we have lots of duplicate findings and I cant remember any others having been removed. AlbinoFerret 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, every article and talk page should have some reasonable consistency. It's unfortunate that parameters like these need to be put in place to keep editors from removing duplications when an editor just feels like it, but I entirely think it's reasonable. I will say it again: duplications should never be used for multiple government agencies and should only be removed in cases of much lower source-status, such as systematic reviews all the way down to primary studies. But as a general rule, duplications don't need to be removed and I think only should be considered in cases of lower level sources. This was clearly not such a case. LesVegas (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems that there is some confusion, British National Health Service is quite different from Public Health England. They are not the same agency. They are both agencies of the UK department of health. Just like in the US we have a Department of Health, and the FDA, CDC, ect. From the Public Health England wikipedia article

Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom that began operating on 1 April 2013. Its formation came as a result of reorganisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England outlined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took on the role of the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and a number of other health bodies.[1]

AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, claims by the NIH are different from those by the FDA or CDC, for instance. Governmental bodies often have nuanced statements that differ slightly depending on context (and that's interesting and helpful) and even when they are exactly uniform, multiple such sources should still be used in tandem to illustrate consensus. LesVegas (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a close at WP:ANRFC listing this one and the related one below. AlbinoFerret 19:41, 29 November 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.

Questions added after the start of the RfC above

Consensus is leaning towards keeping the text and that it gives the conclusion by the two sources due weight.

It is disputed on whether the two sources actually conducted unique research, but per the above RfC, the participants generally agree that the sources conducted research independent of each other.
Redundancy was also a concern, but most participants in this RfC agree that it is needed to convey the weight of that conclusion to readers. Esquivalience ^t 01:25, 24 December 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.

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove text sourced to the UK NHS website if it is repetitive?

Remove duplication. In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[99] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years, and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor.[97][5] The part "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders" and "there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor" is repetitive. They virtually mean the same thing but in different words. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. I will add they only appear to be duplication because they were moved together from their orignal location in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove duplication Seems much the same source saying much the same thing. Of course it doesn't follow that all other sources are repetitive. When different sources come to the same conclusion, that's hardly the same as the same source saying the same thing twice. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Loaded question - it implies that there is repetition. Rather invalidates the RfC. (defaults to No) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No There are many reasons for duplication or partial duplication of citation or external opinion. Duplication may be justified for example to indicate the range of opinions or support (say from different times, places, or schools), or to include citations of sources that overlap but are not identical. Removal should require individual justification, such as for when someone strings together half a dozen assorted citations to lend support to a contentious point, not merely because one editor thinks that one citation is on principle adequate, and two must accordingly be excessive. JonRichfield (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No I have looked at the text and it might be nice to rewrite it completely to make a non-redundant, stable, cogent, watertight document, but by the nature of the topic and situation that will not happen. The material is not unduly repetitive because its degree of repetition conveys some of the climate of opinion in different bodies concerned in the matter. It would be simplistic assume that a single reference to a single position of a single source amounts to the same as invoking more than one source in a matter open to opinion and position rather than undebatably rigid fact. If it were a matter instead of tediously quoting a long roster of sources, that would be another matter. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No Different bodies even coming to the same conclusion illustrates consensus. Where I would suggest duplications should be removed are in lower level claims, such as systematic reviews, which often go either way, and are often cherry-picked by editors with a strong bias. But, no, consensus statements or statements by national health bodies, even if the statements are exactly the same, only further illustrate consensus about a claim and these are our best sources and should, in fact, be used liberally. LesVegas (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Per Petersen: "Loaded question - it implies that there is repetition. Rather invalidates the RfC. (defaults to No)". Not enough information has been presented to determine whether even a single citation is redundant, much less whether a whole swath of them are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove repetitive text from the UK NHS website when there is another claim from the Public Health England website?

Remove duplication. AlbinoFerret stated "By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix."[6] I came to the conclusion it is redundant text. "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84]" "The UK National Health Service stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[86]" Wherever the text I highlighted in bold is placed it is still duplication. Both are from related UK organisations. The "Positions of medical organizations" section is meant to be a WP:SUMMARY. It is not a summary when the "approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes" claim is not in the main article. It is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include both. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you remove the part from the positions article and then you come here to say it doesn't belong here because it's not over there?--TMCk (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I initially added it but I came to the conclusion it was repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. AlbinoFerret 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But are the two sources in question really multiple sources? Seems like much the same source. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The British National Health Service (NHS) is quite different from Public Health England (PHE). They are both agencies in the UK department of health. AlbinoFerret 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the case you're welcome to make. Do they have different missions, funding, purposes, clientele, activities, staff? Would it be possible for them to come to different conclusions? And so on. It's a question of these sources; not a broad question of editing policy.Cloudjpk (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer to these concerns is yes they are diffrent. Much like the FDA and CDC in the US. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as loaded a question. NHS != PHE according to (amongst others) QuackGuru, thus the two are not the same and statements similar but not same => No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove duplication. The sources are similar if not identical; the conclusions are identical. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, for the same reasons as AlbinoFerret above, plus what I said in the immediately previous sub-question. In any case, removing duplication may sound fine, but not when the duplication is relevant and functional. The articles we write are not permitted to be essays (OR and similar religious war cries) and we accordingly are compelled to limit ourselves to citations that might entail redundancy. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No Repetitive text and repetitive claims possibly shouldn't be used if we have two similar claims from lower level systematic reviews, of which there are now many for E-cigs and vapors, but should always be done when it's high level governmental health authorities making claims, even when the claims happen to be identical, because that illustrates consensus amongst public health authorities analyzing meta-data. LesVegas (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply say that the conclusion is endorsed by the two separate sources? If you read the sources, both the statement that e-cigs have 5% the risk of normal cigs and have 95% less risk than normal cigs are just two way to state the same conclusion. Stating it two separate times with the wording slightly different implies that the two agencies conducted independent risk studies and came to the same conclusion. In reality, they both fact-checked and endorsed the same study. --Iamozy (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they're difference sources, of the kind we need in order to establish the breadth with which the claim in question is made and supported. See WP:OVERCITE for a good rundown on when actual citation overkill is happening. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Consolidate When there are two reliable sources that agree on the same thing, we only state it once and cite the two sources. We don't say it twice two different ways. --Iamozy (talk)

Discussion for text

I started these new questions because the questions for the other RfC were too vague IMO. According to User:AlbinoFerret the conclusions are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So its ok when you add duplicative conclusions [7] but not others? AlbinoFerret 17:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of improving the text. I removed the duplication and SYN. I did the same for this page. I recently removed a sentence that was redundant. Do you agree with removing the redundancy? User:AlbinoFerret, are you still claiming that adding redundant text improves the page? QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The way you word that question "are you still claiming that adding redundant text improves the page?" is a linguistic trap that misrepresents all that I have said. That you have now removed some duplication is a good thing, remove a bunch more. I do not believe that the NHS is a duplication, and moving it caused any resemblance to duplication, The statement belongs in harm reduction and the deleted part restored. AlbinoFerret 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The text is still redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 29 November 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.

Merge Discussion - Sub articles Safety, Aerosol, and E-liquid

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As per the discussion above I would like to start the moving/merging of these articles.

1. Move the Safety information from Aerosol to Safety (if it isnt already there).

2. Move the Aerosol section of Safety to Aerosol and replace it with a summery and link to Aersol.

3. Move the E-liquid information to Aerosol and create/rename Electronic cigarette aerosol‎ and e-liquid. Changing E-liquid to a redirect to the renamed Aerosol page.

Thoughts? Of course I support this. AlbinoFerret 15:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Pinging SMcCandlish and Mystery Wolff as they took part in the discussion above. AlbinoFerret

I'm broadly in favour.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's fine as it is. We've heard much discussion of articles getting too long; a merge will make them longer. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Support particularly with 1 and 2. I think 3 is a good idea now but I could see things coming out in research that lead to it being split again in the next 18 months. SPACKlick (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the e-liquid page will become a redirect, reversing that and making it a page is pretty easy. All the info will still be in history. AlbinoFerret 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, move and merge. There is no need to keep it as is for a reason that might or might not happen at some point in the future. Also, as discussed earlier, it makes sense to have liquid and aerosol combined and "safety" in the already existing "safety of" article.--TMCk (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and as it sits now Aerosol is a coatrack, nothing was moved over to Aerosol from Safety when the page was created, just copied. Nothing will be lost and we will end up with two nice sized articles and a redirect for e-liquid to move into if necessary in the future. I will be doing all the work in sandboxes and moving it all in two edits once everything is done so as not to disrupt the pages in case readers are reading it. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. This would improve the logic of the articles for our readers, and reduce the number of avenues of strife. Support #3, not just 1 & 2; while the proposed name is not the shortest possible name such an article could have it's the most WP:PRECISE, and is in keeping with WP:DESCRIPTDIS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. Although i agree with SPACKlick that e-liquid and aerosol will end up getting split again. But it should happen organically, so that once there is enough content to split, then it happens. --Kim D. Petersen 22:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Same view as stated above, which seems inline: PROPOSAL Merge e-liquid and electronic cigarette aerosol into one Called: E-Liquid and E-Liquid Aerosol (Vape)

I can see removing (Vape) but it does add clarification with a unique word, that is not Vapor. E-liquid is not vaporized by the dictionary definitions. However Vape is a new word.

Removal of Electronic Cigarette is good, because its more associate with one variety of "Vaping" equipment. E-Liquid is used in all forms of EC and later generations of Electronic cigarettes and MODs. E-Liquid is devices agnostic, while "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" is not.

The aerosolization of E-Liquid makes the vapor constituents not changed very much. Radically different that combustion artifacts. They are close enough to group to one.Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The "other devices" you refer to are also e-cigarettes. Device neutrality isn't a concern. E-liquid is vaporised, by dictionary definition. The aerosol produced is a vapour, by dictionary definition. It's by technical definition that they're not. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There is ~~simply no~~ unclear benefit in merging the articles, as it will only cause two related topics to be inaccurately contained within one article. There is sufficient content for two separate articles, even in its current form. We do not merge articles in order to later split them when both clearly fulfill WP:NOTE. The current article titles are very clear as to what they refer to, a new title would not be. CFCF 💌 📧 19:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Edit:CFCF 💌 📧 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my concern is that readers will not find the proposed article, or will be unsure as to what it covers. I'm also missing a proposed new article name. CFCF 💌 📧 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "new" article, simply a merging of two that already exist. E-liquid will become a redirect so anyone looking for e-liquid will be able to find it. If e-liquid grows, something that really hasnt happened, and at best those thinking it will are looking into the crystal ball, the redirect can be easily undone. Also e-liquid and the aerosol of e-cigs are pretty much made of the same things and so have at least that in common. Its a really bad fit elsewhere. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I just don't think the new title is clear enough, as creating it would require pretty much two separate parts: first the aerosol section, then the e-liquid section. I might support it in case the title were in any way more clear – I do see the benefit of tying the topics together, but I'd be more supportive of moving everything to E-liquid and having aerosol as a section (and of course keeping a safety section with a {{main}}). See the policy for titles including WP:AND. CFCF 💌 📧 20:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AND allows related topics with the use of the word and. The problem with moving it to e-liquid is that the majority of the information is about the aerosol and not e-liquid. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

But the aerosol is E-liquid, is it not? It just strikes me as a far more natural division and a much easier one to build an article upon. If the alternative is to include "and" I support merging it there instead.

I think the reader stands to benefit, and it seems due to include information on the use/aerosolization in the main article on E-liquid CFCF 💌 📧 20:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily the same, though they share some chemicals in common. There are some changes that happen during the aerosol process and there is information dealing with particles, and second and third hand exposure. That information is at least double the e-liquid stuff if not more. Also when I do the work others are probably going to want to make changes and bring more things to one or the other, thats fine, more power to them. They will be in the same article. So far what I see is a problem with the articles name when merged. This can be dealt with after the work is done if need be. I really dont care about the name or for it at the present name, and if anyone has a good suggestion for the name of the combined article I am all for working it out so the best name is found. At present we have a coatrack article, my goal is to make the page a true daughter page. AlbinoFerret 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by that. What is a coatrack aricle? Daughter pages should include summaries of main page topics and expand upon them, and any article on eliquid/aerosol must include information on the safety of their use. Your current draft User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecig Aerosol has with the following removal of safety information [8], [9], [10] moved in the wrong direction. I cannot support a move/merge if the only reason for doing so is to remove safety information. CFCF 💌 📧 21:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A WP:COATRACK is when an editor takes and copies things from one article to create another leaving the original article as it was to not focus on the topic but to create a page that is on another topic. Aerosol was not a daughter page with a movement of a section from Safety to aerosol and a summery put in its place. It simply duplicated what was on Safety, not fucused on Aerosol, but the Safety of Chemicals. So in effect we had two Safety articles with one having only information from the other. What I have done is move back the single claim from Aerosol that wasnt on Safety and the chart on chemicals to Safety, and broken out the Aerosol section to Aerosol. Nothing was removed from Wikipedia, but the claims that were Safety related should be on Safety. The claims that are on Aerosol should be on Aerosol. Granted some things will probably still need to be added. That I leave after the pages is done so others can add and edit. The sole point of this proposal is to create a true daughter page and not a coatrack. Are you in favor of keeping a coatrack? AlbinoFerret 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that you remove all safety information, despite much of it being related. Most of the concerns with electronic cigarette use are also relevant when it comes to eliquid/aerosol, so there must be some amount of overlap between the articles, as well as a {{main}} tag to the safety article. While there is need for some trimming the current draft is not adequate in any way, and it feels deceptive that it was not mentioned here. We need to come to a consensus of what should be kept/discarded, and that needs to be done before any merge. This may require a RfC or at least strong consensus. CFCF 💌 📧 10:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Support There seems ample benefit in merging these articles, since they are closely related, and this should be done as long as organic transitions can be achieved (and I think they can). Multiple related topics should always be contained within one article, if it is possible to do so within a good amount of space (and you can here). There is, frankly, not enough content for separate articles. LesVegas (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your entire argument falls on the fact that there is evidently enough content for separate articles, that is not the topic of the discussion. The discussion covers whether there is benefit in merging, not that there is insufficient coverage to justify two articles. CFCF 💌 📧 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read my argument all that well, especially the part where I said, "multiple related topics should always be contained within one article", "as long as organic transitions can be achieved" especially if we're combining near-stubs to form one extensive and cohesive article, which is how we should be doing things around here. The reader always stands to benefit from one article containing all the information on a related topic they might need, instead of never being aware of an article they're looking for even existing all because they're small separate articles floating around in cyber-Wikispace. LesVegas (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the articles? They are very far from stubs and are on markedly separate topics. Combining overlapping concepts or related topics in a single article at all times is an absurd statement – you can see policy for clarification: WP:PAGEDECIDE CFCF 💌 📧 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I said they were near-stubs. Aerosol is a near-stub. E-liquid is a near-stub. Yes I have looked at them. And many of the safety concerns are from aerosol and E-liquid anyway so combining these into safety is the most reasonable thing to do. LesVegas (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That is just plain wrong, Electronic cigarette aerosol is 18,185 bytes [11], while E-liquid is 15,173 bytes [12]. If you believe the articles are stubs or even near-stubs, I would advise you to read WP:STUB. CFCF 💌 📧 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking into account the pictures and other formatting those may be the sizes CFCF, but sizes are of prose usually. But the readable prose of Aerosol is 7.3kb and E-liquid is 4.6kb. Stubs. AlbinoFerret 09:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't classify them as stubs on the basis of winning an argument, and Electronic cigarette aerosol is not classified as a stub [13], but as a start class article within multiple wikiprojects—the other article is not classified at all, but should similarly be a start-class article.
Generally 1.5kb is the limit for a stub article. These are either 3 or 5 times as large. The other potential cut-off mentioned at WP:STUB is 250 words, and the articles are:

E-liquid — 707 words
Electronic cigarette aerosol — 1069 words

Hence, I repeat—that argument is simply wrong. CFCF 💌 📧 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In any event, they are small articles, nitpicking on calling it a stub or a small article isnt important. Combining them will put together two phases of basically the same thing together on one page making it easier for readers to easily find information on the different phases. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Which I'm not arguing against, but if we combine them it must under a reasonable title, with a reasonable section on safety—and not under faulty premises. If the entire argument relies (As LesVegas's did) on a statement that just isn't true, then it should be disregarded. We can't just make stuff up/support crazy statements because it suits a particular point of view. CFCF 💌 📧 17:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, I disagree. His opinion on putting together topics that are closely related is a good reason. That you disagree is evident. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 10 December 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.

Merger steps

The steps laid out in the above closed merger discussion are complete. AlbinoFerret 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear and compelling evidence

I searched through the scientific articles by reputable sources in this article and found, again and again, that there was a broad consensus on there being - at present time - no indication of any health risks from e-cigarettes beyond nicotine addiction, something users are presumably already suffering from. Given the push against them by anti-smoking agencies who do not want them to be seen as an easy way to quit, and cigarette companies themselves given that they do seem a relatively easy way to quit, it seems that if a lot of people may have taken the constant PR pressure from both sides to heart and accepted marketing flim flam as reality. Scientists saying, again and again, that there is no indication of health risks is not a cue to indicate there are "uncertain health risks" or "unknown health risks" but rather to say "there is no indication of any health risk." Also, the use and FDA approval of every chemical involved in hospital settings for years in advance of their invention should be mentioned, given that this seems a clear and common sense indicator of their health effects - or rather their lack thereof.

But I don't have the time to fight the over hyped and misinformed ideologues. So I'm just going to be lazy, leave this in talk for now, and hope that someone else changes it. Else I will be back with citations for a section titled "Criticisms Against E-Cigarettes" or something similar that cites sources for the push by both the anti-cigarette groups and the cigarette manufacturers along with the multiple, multiple, articles debunking these claims. Please pull your heads out of your butts and do not make me waste an entire day of my life on this. 96.236.228.7 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please don't "waste an entire day of my life" by attempting such changes without at least reading the last few archives of this page, where you will find many discussions that demonstrate that things are not exactly as you say. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Eyes are needed on Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid

Would editors please take a look at the article. AlbinoFerret 12:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No. This was a request that more editors look at the page. AlbinoFerret 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps start a formal request for comment RFC. Right now, I see you are multiple reverting of edits I put in days ago. Canvassing will not be as effective as asking using the various WP processes in place. What specifically do you want to be looked at? If you are unwilling to begin a RFC (or other method of DS), let me know because I believe it will be in order. I am not comfortable with those reverts, in favor of retaining POV with poorly sourced and outdated materials. That combined with removal of multiple edits. There was a reason why I did each edit individually. I explained each one, and they were removed in a block without explanations of weight. Mystery Wolff (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking for eyes on a sub article on the main articles page with a neutral post is not canvassing. All the editors on this page are already involved in the topic, and I did not selectively pick out editors who may share my views, but asked everyone. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Economics section

We have: "In the US, big tobacco has a significant share of the e-cigarette market,^[1] and they are the major producers.^[2]"

^ Meera Senthilingam (23 March 2015). "E-cigarettes: Helping smokers quit, or fueling a new addiction?". CNN.
^ substitute direct PMC link

- I added the "in the US" as both sources are US-only, and for example the PHE report does not say this for the UK (which I think they would have done, if they knew it to be true). The first source is from CNN, the second from an open-access paper by an MD, who references it to "21. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. San Francisco, CA: University of California San Francisco Library", which is, let's say, a tad vague. We report elsewhere in the section that Nillson can't track sales of independent manufacturers selling to vape shops, so whereas big baccy's sales of (mostly) cigalikes via mainstream retail are apparently dropping in 2015 (WSJ etc), the situation of the independent sector is less clear. It's questionable whether information to support the second claim exists in the public sphere, though no doubt industry insiders have more info which they will treat as commercially confidential.

At the least we need better sources to support anything we say on this. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Im taking a look for sources. This one [14] is ok but there isnt a lot of information, the nice thing is its from 2015. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the economics section is another one that needs a lot of work. I suggest:- (1) Move and redirect the current content of Vape shop to Economics of electronic cigarettes; (2) Paste the text currently in Electronic cigarette#Economics into that article; and then (3) Rewrite this section of the proper e-cig article as a couple of concise and intelligible paragraphs.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. AlbinoFerret 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the Afd proposal for Vape shop, which was pretty similar, has just been heavily defeated, you can't exactly do that. I don't know we have enough material for a proper sub-articles, & I think we need more than a couple of paras here. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:DP and the subsection Deletion of articles if the page is kept "the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate." AlbinoFerret 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes "as appropriate", which doesn't mean flouting a clear and recent community decision. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Never said or intended to flout a community discussion. I just quoted it was subject to further editing, merger, and redirect. The community consensus is not to delete, not that it must stay in its present form, and nothing is planed to be deleted. But at this point we are no longer discussing deletion but merger. I am sure more discussions will need to happen. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to say this, but I think that the situation is that editors want to keep Quack's forks, stupid though I think that is. We can ask again in five months in the hope that consensus will have changed by then. In the meantime I do suggest we use the forks as containers for the most horribly-written parts of this article, and the obviously missing fork is Economics of electronic cigarettes. We're not proposing to delete the text of vape shop, nor to turn vape shop into a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

They aren't actually WP:FORKs at all, but regular sub-articles, diffused to keep this one manageable, which I'm surprised you don't support. It doesn't help to use the term, which has a specific meaning here. The work was mostly done by Quack, but as I recall there were discussions here agreeing the changes beforehand. They seem appropriate to me. Most of the detail is already in the sub-articles, as it should be, but if not some can be added there. At the moment I don't see we have enough on Economics of electronic cigarettes for a sub-article. A lot of the most basic information seems to be unavailable. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Where in the articles can I find the summery and link to Vape shop showing where it was broken out? AlbinoFerret 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Johnbod, my actual view is that a few well-chosen sub-articles would probably be a good idea but the easiest way to get there from here involves a little high explosive. I didn't say so during the deletion discussions because some of my fellow editors have an irritating way of saying "User thinks there should be an article with this title so just keep this one and adapt it" -- so I chose to present the case for completely deleting them.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the Economics section are weak, and about half of the statements in it are outdated, dubious, or misleading. Some others aren’t very informative. If adequate sources don’t exist, material should be deleted. However, to do so aggravates a problem that already exists. The most reliable sources in this area (and Marketing too) are about the involvement of the tobacco industry because the efforts of some prohibitionists to emphasise it and the publicity campaigns of the companies are more likely to be reported in mainstream sources. Currently the role of the many small operations is downplayed in the article. Big tobacco sells mostly first generation devices, and there’s no mention of manufacturers of later generation devices. A reader could get the impression that tobacco companies dominate the market. It’s unclear, or perhaps doubtful, that this is the case. Unfortunately, I don’t have any suggestions for improvement. P Walford (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the financial media are well set up to report on large quoted companies selling to mainstream retailers, but very poorly set up to report on a bunch of rather tiny private businesses selling through the internet, small one-off specialist retailers and corner shops (UK term). Until it was removed this week (see a couple of sections back) our article did indeed flat-out say that "tobacco companies dominate the market". As I say there, I suspect nobody really knows whether this is the case in the US, where big baccy has placed the front line of its attempt to take over the sector - I think it is clear enough that it is not in the UK and Europe. Cigalikes can be treated as a cigarette-like product in terms of marketing and distribution, and use big baccy's existing skills, but later generation devices, with a one-off sale of kit followed by regular sales of e-juice that can come from any manufacturer, are very different. Maybe the car companies should have a go? Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The independents are an interesting phenomenon but likely, I think, to be short-lived given the spending power of the larger players who are setting up massive temples to vaping in the major retail malls. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

in the US, you mean. But even there, I rather doubt that. Most vapers quickly move on from cigalikes to tanks, which is a market big baccy has shown little ability to penetrate (see above). Many if not most vapers have a strong loathing for the tobacco companies, who have a huge negative brand load to carry. No doubt the more successful independent tank players will eventually sell out, but they can probably count on their eventual sale price continuing to rise sharply for some years. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of this dialogue could be useful to the Vape Shop ARTICLE. Vape shops could parallel many industries, which are not in the Big Tobacco paradigm, such as independent hamburger joints, vs MacDonald's.....or MicroBrewry vs Budweiser Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't live in the US. The nearest vape-temple is at The Oracle, Reading. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about the VIP store it's hardly a threat to the independents. The best e-cig VIP sell is a rebranded iStick 30. They're aiming squarely at beginners.--DaleCurrie (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

While checking sources used in the Economics section, I didn’t see a mention of anything resembling a “vape-temple”. So I looked for information about the one at The Oracle. It was opened last April, the fourth “blending boutique” VIP opened. Apparently they have plans to open them across the UK. As of October 27, there were ten of them. Most VIP retail outlets (between 100 and 200 of them) are small kiosks, like the one in the picture recently added to the Marketing section. It looks like the company intends to upgrade many of them to proper shops. The shop at The Oracle doesn’t look like a temple in pictures, but maybe the effect is different if when seeing it in person? Both VIP and their US-based parent company, Electronic Cigarettes International Group, say they’re independent. I’ve seen no evidence that they’re a big tobacco brand.

Re the Economics section: “and they are the major producers” should be removed. “A 2015 review said there are more than a hundred small e-cigarette businesses in the US, with about 70% of the market held by 10 businesses” should be removed. There’s enough evidence in reliable sources to show that these statements are inaccurate, and the sourcing standards used by Schraufnagel and Orellana-Barrios et al appear to be less rigorous than Wikipedia’s.

There’s more economics content in the History section. The last two paragraphs and the table in History should be moved to Economics, and the first two sentences of the second paragraph of Economics, “Tobacco manufacturers dismissed e-cigarettes as a fad at first; but the purchase of the US brand blu eCigs by US tobacco manufacturer Lorillard for $135 million in April 2012 signaled their entry into the market. "Big tobacco" companies have bought some e-cigarette businesses and greatly increased their marketing efforts”, should be moved (consigned?) to History. P Walford (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The economics figures are quite frankly completely useless. The reason for this is that most of the market isn't monitored - and that goes for the US as well. The independent market is not only an interesting phenomenon, they are quite likely the majority of the market (and growing) - see this[15]. On top of that, figures for sales outside the US is almost impossible to get at, since no one is tracking them there.. --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC) [nb: not stating that the link is useful, i simply searched for Bonnie Herzog, who is (iirc) considered the go-to person for e-cigarette market analysis in the US - at least if you look at summaries of speeches from e-cig vendor conferences. But it does tell us something about the problems in analysing the market. --Kim D. Petersen 00:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)]

At ECigIntelligence we have research-based estimates for the size of most major markets outside the U.S. - if any editor would like a particular one for the article please let me know. Also a great deal of data backing up the trend mentioned above, for the shift away from tobacco-company products in mainstream retail to specialist companies' products in vape stores - however, as mentioned, since nobody with the heft and reach of Nielsen tracks both those channels, the data is strongly suggestive rather than utterly conclusive - nobody is quite comparing apples with apples. Barnabypage (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you have a dog in the fight. Funny how often that leads to supporting one extreme or another. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but to clarify, I have no interest at all in the figures showing one thing or another. I'm just interest*ed* in knowing *what* they show! In any case, I think the picture is quite complex: there may be a trend toward vape stores and later-generation models but I certainly wouldn't say the Big Tobacco cigalike is dead, far from it. Barnabypage (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnabypage, thank you. I presume you are saying that articles would be taken out from any paywalls, because linking to them as Cites I believe would require that. Much of the information about the industry economics is characterized by C-Store resources and Stock Analysts for the greater market share companies. However it leave a real gap because most items in Vape Shops do not have UPC codes, making them very hard to quantify. For items like Cigalikes many do have UPC codes, so while items like slowing growth is a consideration, I believe the numbers will show the overall size remains and is growing. Trying to quantify and characterize the refillable market here will likely be Original Research, either by declaration or by having two statistic put together to imply a correlation. If there were articles that aggregated public sourced information, I think it would be a great resource to improve this article. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff, if there is specific data any editor wants to take a look at in connection with the Wikipedia article, I can temporarily liberate it from the paywall or provide it in some other form. Barnabypage (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a small comment: There is no problem in citing paywalled content, as long as that content lives up to WP:RS (and of course WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)--Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's behind a paywall, how can other editors look at it and confirm that information is well cited? Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Its a problem, but its allowed WP:PAYWALL. That link is on WP:VER a core WP policy, it cant be overcome or ignored. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What part is a problem, and what are you trying convey by "That link is on WP:VER"? Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this multiple times before, and if you want to verify content there are a multitude of places where you can request copies of articles: WT:MED, WP:RX, or simply by asking here. The easiest way may be to just send an e-mail --> CFCF 💌 📧 11:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mystery Wolff WP:PAYWALL is a link to a section inside of the page WP:VER. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Kim I agree with your comment, I was confused when it was said it "was a problem". There are procedures including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request, so the path of least resistance would be to have the articles in question to be moved out to a non-paywalled section of the site, by request, when possible. There is also the article on Vape Shops which could get more Economic information for the article.....but all of this is really shallow water because so little information is be pulled from a disorganized new industry, as it is just forming. Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff—Doing that without permission would be illegal, and I find it highly unlikely that we could convince major publishers to release content that is behind a paywall. CFCF 💌 📧 12:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, I am sure you misread what I was saying. I was talking about this process described here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request And that sites commonly have sections which are both paywall and non-paywall, and that by request and agreement that could occur. My preference is always going to be to use resources and cites that anyone can open up. Many of the PubMed articles are only available in abstract form until the full paper is put out in the non-pay areas. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but you misunderstand the world of academic publishing. Only a very small minority of journals operate in that manner, most never release their content without a subscription. Getting releases of individual papers is really not feasible, with authors themselves not being able to do that once a license is already enacted. We here at Wikipedia use the best possible sources, regardless of their copyright status, otherwise we may end up misinterpreting the field or only showing a limited picture. CFCF 💌 📧 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The cigalike problem again

Again we have the cigalike problem. The economics section is almost completely about the sale of cigalikes and some of the claims make it sound like its about the market as a whole. I propose creating subsections dealing with the ciaglike market, and then one (or more if needed) on the rest of the market. Thoughts? AlbinoFerret 04:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably best, if decent info on 2nd+ gen stuff can be found. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There probably isnt much if any, but at least a cigalike section so readers know thats whats being discussed. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I split them up, one for Cigalikes and the other for other devices. but we have a similar issue in the Marketing section. It appears to be all cigalike information. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, I do think you should have read the feedback above, before splitting out a section. You don't have any data to support the Cigalike proposition you now split out. It is in fact Original Research at this point. As mentioned above, Vape Shops are not selling items with UPC codes, so their sales are harder to recognize. The refillable market includes Cigalikes, and it includes EGO refillables, which are also regarded as Cigalikes by some. You are trying to add a level of detail with which you don't have any supporting data. I am going to go ahead and remove the delineation of Cigalikes until are able to present some sort of sourced information. As it stands they way you have changed it, you are having a bunch of blended data that characterizes the entire market, being placed under "Cigalike" and that is not useful to the reader. Items VTM includes Cigalike as well. If the breakout is proper here, it would then stand to reason you would want an entire Article just on Cigalikes, and I don't believe you are proposing that? Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The breakout is appropriate and your whole comment is WP:OR. Provide a source that says ego's are cigalikes. I selected manufacturers of cigalikes for the cigalike section, looking at each of the claims. Its organization, do you think every claim in Safety uses the word Safety? Do all of them use economics in that section?. Yes, thats the whole point of the cigalike problem, the whole article is mostly a cigalike problem and should be changed. The correct thing to do, is if you think something doesnt belong in one section is to move it, not revert the whole thing. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So thats 2 editors in favor on the talk page, SPACKlick edited and changed them back. Seems consensus is against you Mystery Wolff. AlbinoFerret 01:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppet editor who wrote in support and reverted, has been banned. I read Johnbod remarks as, he'll consider the change, IF (and that was an IF) 2nd Generation data and citations would support the breakout. Which then AlbinoFerret said there would not be any cites for that. Johnbod can certainly speak for himself, its how I read it.

All versions of Electronic Cigarettes are currently being sold and used, this article is covering all of them as currently being written. If AlbinoFerret is proposing to split the article, I will certainly want to read that. Regarding continuance of polling here, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLL and please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all generations are being sold but not every source uses data from every generation and not every company sells devices of every generation. A lot of existing research was conducted only on cigalikes which from later research on 2nd gen devices show a different effectiveness and profile of use and user. It is right to split them out where the sources are clear on which were used. I haven't double checked all the sources in Albino's change but if you find one which is referring to e-cigs in general in the igalike section feel free to fix it. SPACKlick (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lede

In the recent past the construction page had a cleanup and c/e. Since the first paragraph of the lede is based on construction I propose this version with a better function description for the first paragraph of the lede.

An electronic cigarette[Notes 1] is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking by vaporizing a liquid into an inhalable aerosol.[1] The primary parts that make up an e-cigarette are a mouthpiece, a cartridge (tank), a heating element/atomizer, a microprocessor, a battery, and possibly a LED light on the end.[2] An atomizer comprises a small heating element that vaporizes e-liquid and wicking material that draws liquid onto the coil.[3] When the user pushes a button.[4] or inhales a pressure sensor activates the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution;[5] The e-liquid reaches a temperature of roughly 100-250 °C within a chamber to create an aerosolized vapor.[6] The user inhales the aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke.[7] ~~The aerosol provides a flavor and feel similar to tobacco smoking, but without tobacco.[1]~~ Their use is commonly called "vaping".[4] The three main types of e-cigarettes are cigalikes, eGos, and MODs.[8] These devices are also categorized as first, second, third, and fourth generation devices.[9][10][11] Most are reusable but there are disposable versions of first generation devices also called cigalikes.[12] E-liquids usually contain propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.[13][14][15][16]

Edit 2/2/16 incorporated TMCk's suggestion. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording, claims, and references are already in the article. The full version with references can be found in this sandbox.User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecig AlbinoFerret 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an improvement—not until sentence 7 does it actually explain the purpose—something that is in the current first sentence. CFCF 💌 📧 11:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What it does , is shows how it works. Which is drastically missing in the lede. AlbinoFerret 13:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just add something like the following (bold):
An electronic cigarette is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking by vaporizing a liquid into an aerosol to inhale.
Alternative: by transforming a liquid into an aerosol to inhale.
Note: Say what it does not what it doesn't (as in the current lede).--TMCk (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, swapped a couple of words around, but its the same meaning. Removed the line further down that had the same info from the same source. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think this gives unnecessary detail in the lede for something that isn't essential to the topic? The construction is of secondary importance to the primary purpose. I find that the theme of the current lede is clearer. CFCF 💌 📧 10:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The inserted information isnt construction its function. AlbinoFerret 14:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this the text you intend to replace?

Electronic cigarettes^{[note 1]} are battery-powered vaporizers that simulate the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco.^[1] Their use is commonly called "vaping".^[2] The user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button.^[2]^[3] Some look like traditional cigarettes, but they come in many variations.^[4]^[5] Most are reusable but there are also disposable versions called first generation cigalikes.^[6] There are also second, third, and fourth generation devices.^[7]^[8]^[9] Instead of cigarette smoke, the user inhales an aerosol, commonly called vapor.^[10] E-cigarettes typically have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.^[11] E-liquids usually contain propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]

References

^ Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Orellana-Barrios2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Electronic cigarettes: patterns of use, health effects, use in smoking cessation and regulatory issues". Tob Induc Dis. 12 (1): 21. 2014. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-12-21. PMC 4350653. PMID 25745382. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.
^ Cite error: The named reference Pepper2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Bhatnagar2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference McRobbie2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Farsalinos2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Farsalinos2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.
^ Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.
^ Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Kacker2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Brandon2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Cochrane2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

If it is, the current iteration is simply better and more precise in every way. CFCF 💌 📧 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Description of Cochrane findings in current article

I just cut this from the article and put it here.

In terms of reduction in cigarette consumption, nicotine-containing ECs were more effective than placebo ECs and also significantly more effective than nicotine patches in helping people achieve 50% or greater reduction in smoking.(ref name=Cochrane2014)

That is a pretty dramatic distortion of the Cochrane author's findings. How can this be more accurately summarized? Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Page 18 "In terms of reduction in cigarette consumption, nicotine-containing ECs were significantly more effective than placebo ECs and also significantly more effective than nicotine patches in helping people achieve 50% or greater reduction in smoking." Looks like someone inserted a copyvio, but its in there. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ack, yes. That is about reduction. What threw me is that it is mixed in with a bunch of stuff about cessation and the section is called "Smoking cessation". Where does content about reduction fit - in this section or in the following "Harm reduction" section? I would think the latter... Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats a good question because some editors I am sure would qualify that as dual use which has been part of the smoking cessation section. Personally I think it more harm reduction, but lets let a few more editors chime in. AlbinoFerret 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reduction is unfortunately used both for smoking fewer cigarettes and for reducing harm caused by smoking, which are hardly the same thing. It would improve the article if we chose unambiguous terms and used them consistently. Perhaps "cutting down" and "harm reduction". Cloudjpk (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Smoking fewer cigarettes is harm reduction. Each cigarette not smoked reduces the harm. Some have questioned if smoking fewer cigarettes is really quitting calling it dual use if the goal is quitting. The focus should be what the source is talking about. In the paragraph on page 18 the focus appears to be smoking reduction not quitting, the the paragraph says

"In terms of reduction in cigarette consumption, nicotine-containing ECs were significantly more effective than placebo ECs and also significantly more effective than nicotine patches in helping people achieve 50% or greater reduction in smoking. The finding is tempered by lack of biochemical confirmation of the reduction.Future studies should include such measures. There was evidence from intervention cohort studies that dual use may promote smoking reduction, and no evidence that dual use undermined smoking cessation.

To me it does mention quitting in the end but the focus is more on smoking reduction than quitting, even so the last sentence (in bold) isnt in the article and should be in any dual use section we have. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if the focus is cutting down, that's not cessation and probably should be in a different section.

As to terms, I'm fine with "cutting down" and "harm reduction". The sources say they're not one and the same. cutting down exposes the user to nearly the same cardiovascular risks as heavy smoking cutting down by more than 50% has no effect on risk of premature death I will respect the sources and not use the terms interchangeably. I think that would improve the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is contrary to the the last paragraph of the "Why it is important to do this review" section on page 7 of this Cochrane review, which says there are benefits from smoking reduction as harm reduction. and the views of a 2010 review[16] that doesnt even mention e-cigs and a study from 2006 [17] that doesnt mention e-cigs either, cant negate the findings of a 2014 Cochrane review. AlbinoFerret 23:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say they're the same thing :)

The sources are not actually in conflict. There is hope that cutting down may contribute to harm reduction. That does not make them one and the same. We might also hope that vaccination may contribute to disease prevention, but that does not mean the two are one and the same. I think clear and consistent terms will improve the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does "owever, there is also an opportunity to investigate if the EC has potential to aid reduction in cigarette consumption in those smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking altogether." thats harm reduction. In any event the weight of newer sources say there is a benefit from even dual use, small but existent, including the WHO[18] in 2014 "dual use will have much smaller beneficial effects on overall survival compared with quitting smoking completely." So there are some benefits not "hopes". AlbinoFerret 00:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and I think it furnishes a good illustration of use of terms: quitting delivers harm reduction, cutting down delivers much smaller harm reduction.

BTW I see some sources use "cutting back" or "reducing consumption" but "cutting down" seems to be most used in the sources. Any preferences? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cutting down is ok, but in the harm reduction I think reduce smoking is a little better to differentiate between HR and dual use in cessation. I have rewritten the claim

A review found e-cigs to be much more effective than patches or placebos to help people reduce cigarette smoking by 50% or more. Further study will be needed with biomedical evidence to support these findings.

Thoughts? AlbinoFerret 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

OKsounds like the two of you are good with putting this into the harm reduction section. I think we just need to add the Cochrane authors' caveats around it and we are good to... Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts about health section

It seems to me that the health section could be best structured by:
1) Naming the questions about health that are relevant - that everybody wishes we had very clear and definitive answers to
a) are they harmful on their own to users and people around them?
b) are they less harmful than cigarettes to users and people around them?
c) Do they help people quit smoking? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
d) Do the they help people smoke less? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
e) Do they increase the amount of people addicted to nicotine?
f) What recommendations should the public receive, about use of e-cigs?

2) Discussing the difficulties of answering those questions - why we don't have clear answers on many of the questions
a) e-cig technology is new, rapidly evolving, not standardized, and is customizable by users. This means that there is not that much published research on e-cig use at all (compared to cigarette use and NRT use, each of which have been around a long time), and that we cannot yet understand the consequences of long-term use. It also means that any single research study needs to be interpreted with care, and that any given study is difficult to generalize to the use of any e-cig device.
b) All scientific research is artificial. Generally a study will use one kind of e-cig device and liquid but in the real world, how much an individual likes to use a given device and liquid will strongly effect how much he or she uses it. This makes it hard (not impossible) to generalize the results when discussing the use of e-cigs in quitting smoking and reducing smoking.
c) There is a lot at stake in the results of the research and what recommendations are made based on it (tobacco money, NRT money, e-cig money, public health with regard to the stark known risks of cigarette use and with regard to the possible risks of e-cigs which are becoming widespread)
d) There is a growing body of published research on e-cig use. Researchers choose different populations to study, do different things with them, and ask different questions of them; every scientific study takes care to understand and takes care to apply to any general conclusions
e) There is a growing body of expert reviews of the research, done by scientists and by public health-oriented institutions. Those reviews have come to different conclusions about we know and have made contradictory recommendations about e-cigs. This is based on part on what questions the reviewers are asking, what criteria they use to include or exclude the published studies, and what is at stake for them.

3) Answers
3a) Summarize the answers to the questions in a brief section, simply. On a few of these questions I think there is consensus in the literature and we can say "yes or no". If there is not consensus in the literature, then we just say "Expert reviews come up with different answers on this question." Very simple and brief.
3b) Provide the details of reviews from the past two years or so on the questions, to support the summaries provided above. (this is the clutter that some people will just skip over, but that people who really want to know will read)

What do you think of this? Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

One common complaint is this talk page moves to fast, and we have recently see it slow down a little. Please notice the number of archives. Adding sections to the page that already has other ongoing discussions will likely not help keep this page slowed down. But I am glad to see you recognise the problems pointed out in section #2. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Folks can respond or not as they please. There is no deadline. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Smoking cessation

I present a partial restore from the archives:-

Current text	Proposed text
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. 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 stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications.	The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down. Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.

I'm still hoping to make progress with this idea and would welcome additional commentary.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a huge improvement over the current text. There are other changes I'd like to see, but I won't stand in the way of this one. P Walford (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be something like the 6th time I find myself repeating myself: we should not be mentioning PHE by name if we don't mention Cochrane or the WHO, both of which carry more authoritative opinions. Ping Doc James who commented on these proposed changes with similar concerns further up on the page. CFCF 💌 📧 13:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. AlbinoFerret 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about the concerns that it skews coverage and gives undue mention of a single positive report? This isn't an issue for you? May I remind you that you had issues with the text yourself [19]. CFCF 💌 📧 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

CFCF My concerns were to the first proposal that boiled it down to one paragraph, it has been expanded. AlbinoFerret 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

CFCF did indeed point this out in the past and I've failed to amend the proposed text in response to his concerns. I don't take those concerns seriously; the contention that the proposed text "skews coverage", or is unduly favourable to electronic cigarettes, is not one that I need to waste any of my time answering. But although it's silly, it's also easily countered without substantive changes, thus:-

Heading

Proposed text
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down. Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.

The amendments are given in bold.—S Marshall T/C 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

— CFCF 💌 📧 19:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't much use looking at these without the refs. I'm rather suspicious that some of the wording is sufficiently precise. Eg, are there really "2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are ... not associated with quitting", or not associated with better rates of quitting than other methods? Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes the pre Cochrane,and PHE staement sources from the US do argue that there are no sources that prove they help people quit. AlbinoFerret 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously there are sources that show ecigs as "associated with quitting" - not in itself a large claim. All the sources I can remember discuss how this "association" looks compared to conventional NRT, cold turkey, etc. What is "PHE staement sources from the US"? Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "the pre Cochrane,and PHE statement sources from the US" should be parsed as:- "the pre-Cochrane and pre-PHE statement sources from the US".—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't check that QuackGuru's claims were backed up by his sources. I simply assumed that he didn't go so far as to lie. If he did, then really, we need to nuke this whole article and start again from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember checking those sources, its basically a known unknown at the time the sources were written. It might be a good idea to add the sources now to final chacking can be done before inclusion as CFCF gave a thumbs up. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The WHO and Cochrane are more respected or at least more well known than PHE. So yes this version is an improvement over the prior version that was proposed. But what happpened to the USPSTF? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it represents a significant improvement and is clear. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we've reached a rough consensus that this trimming is appropriate in principle, subject as always to a careful comparison of the detail with the sources.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any discussion of smoking cessation and e-cigarettes that doesn't even mention dual use is missing a key point. Our sources find high levels of dual use, say that's a major part of what's happening in the real world. I suggest citing a source or two on this. Without it I think the trimming has cut meat along with the fat. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that - it wasn't very well covered before either. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly the PHE report also addresses dual use. The pages 26-29, and the summery on page 29 is quite interesting. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This section is entitled smoking cessation, and someone who's dual-using is by definition not ceasing their smoking. I think that's why QuackGuru's text doesn't substantially mention it. (I'm not cutting any meat: it was never in this section in the first place.) There's clearly an appetite for discussing dual use, though, and I agree that in a well-written version of this article it would be discussed here. I propose that I draft a separate section entitled "smoking reduction" about dual use, to be placed immediately after the smoking cessation section, and begin a discussion about it here, once we have an agreed text for the smoking cessation part.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

PHE's point is that the many people who plan to "cut down cigarettes gradually" by dual use usually fail to do so; a complete switch is far more likely to be effective. Like so much in PHE, this is an old theme of the Smoking Toolkit surveys (http://www.smokinginengland.info/latest-statistics/ - latest update out this week I see). Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be added to this section rather than in a section of its own although it could likely stand to be a separate paragraph. We'd need to bear in mind that there are dual users who intend it, dual users who do it to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke, those who intend to quit and fail and so continue dual using and those who successfully use dual use to quit, each of which is discussed, sometimes in combination, in different sources. 82.111.139.27 (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC) That was me SPACKlick (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with a separate section, linked from here. I'm fine with adding it here. I guess the relevance here is that dual use is not cessation and that e-cigarette use does not assume cessation. I guess the argument for its own section is high levels of dual use are a large part of the e-cigarette phenomenon. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised by the proposed content's description of the Cochrane review's findings of ECs being "as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term" - the flat definitiveness of that statement is not something I would think authors in the Cochrane group would say as the evidence is still so thin. And indeed, the review says: "There is evidence from one trial that ECs may lead to similar quit rates at six months as NRT, but the confidence interval is wide." That is very different. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

and what are the reviews discussed in this part again with a very flat statement of superiority to NRT? "Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products." Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a small section of my proposed text taken out of context in such a way to make it look ridiculously extreme. Putting it back in the intended context, the first sentence of the proposed text reads: The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. I have said that front and centre, right at the start, and I do not think it is a good idea to repeat it in every paragraph afterwards.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I am not taking anything out of context. Any given source may or may not acknowledge the incompleteness of the picture currently, and the draft makes it seem like the Cochrane source is way more definitive than it is - which misrepresents it. Also what are the two sources I mentioned in the 2nd bullet? It is impossible to know if the sentence is accurate or not, without that information. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

But, you see, that leads to the problem your buddy QuackGuru had, where he said the same thing again and again in every paragraph. That's exactly the problem that I'm trying to solve with this edit. I could address your concern by making the sentence read: Insofar as it is possible to draw conclusions based on the limited evidence available, the Cochrane Collaboration found... But it would be extremely poor editorial judgement to do that. It's true that my text misrepresents Cochrane in the mind of any reader who's forgotten how I began the first paragraph by the time they read the second sentence of the second one. But such a reader really does not have the capacity to understand this article in the first place.
As for where the sources are --- I haven't checked them. I've simply assumed that despite QuackGuru's behavioural problems, he didn't go so far as to lie. I would suggest you read the source that QuackGuru gave when he made this claim (which is this one). If you do check the sources and find that QuackGuru lied, please do say so, as I will then have good grounds to propose that he's site-banned, and this article is nuked and restarted from scratch, which will make my life a great deal simpler. But I think he was telling the truth.—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

i understand you are frustrated but we cannot discuss proposed content without sources. As for the problem you are describing about repeating things, here is my take on that. There are two ways to build a Wikipedia article. The normal way is to read what the relevant sources say, summarize them, and cite the sources. The other way, which often happens in highly contested articles like this one and is very sub-optimal, is to name the source in the actual content - to attribute in-text - and describe what that source says. We have gone down that route. if we are doing that, we have to accurately describe what each source says and we cannot elide. To do so misrepresents the source. If you want to simplify things, I would recommend proposing content that summarizes what the sources say and provide that, with the sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this section is get off of what we have been doing and move to a more summery style, your comments so far reflect keeping things as they are. This is just the start of that process, and other sections will follow. So to enforce how its been is not helpful. There is consensus so far that this article is not the best and written badly. Do you disagree with that? AlbinoFerret 21:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is "consensus so far that this article is not the best and written badly", but not that the way out of this involves reducing the length of sections by >50%, which generally I don't like. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am responding to the actual draft, which still says "a review published in 2014 says X". If a sentence says that, the sentence has to actually tell you what the attributed source said or else it misrepresents the attributed source. If the notion is to move away from in-text attribution that is great. The draft doesn't do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you check whether it does say that? I've linked the source QG used.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

again S Marshall what are the reviews you are mentioning in "Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. " I am not being obtuse, I really don't know which ones you mean. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean the source that QuackGuru has already placed in the article and linked to this statement when he made it. So as to help you find this source, I also linked it for you yesterday in the edit I made at 20:35. I will link it yet again: here. I don't think you're paying attention.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall inserting the content above was premature, as it is still under discussion here. Please don't make big changes without clear consensus. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, this has been discussed since 8th December. Here's a list of editors who agreed to the idea unconditionally:- Me (as proposer); AlbinoFerret; SpackLICK; P Walford. Here's a list of editors who have previously expressed reservations but now do not object:- CFCF; DocJames (with the USPSTF matter addressed, as in my edit it was). Three editors object, one of whom is topic-banned for disruptive behaviour. The other two are you and Cloudjpk. There's also Johnbod, who hasn't been clear one way or the other but as far as I can tell, feels the section should be clearer but has specific concerns about this ~~section~~ version. That's a clear rough consensus after a long discussion. If this was an RFA, it would be promoted. Can I ask, for how long do you intend to hold this up?—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Things could move right along if you would be so kind as to provide the sources for your draft so it can evaluated. I have asked you three times now, I think. I really cannot figure out what sources you mean. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm having enormous trouble assuming good faith here, Jytdog. I literally have no idea how you could possibly fail to see the sources. Surely you must be capable of reading the article and seeing the sources which are there now (I have added none to the list). Surely you must be capable of going back to the version you reverted and clicking the links I put in. When I've directly linked sources you've requested on this talk page (as I have twice now), you haven't responded to them. I've noticed that there's a pattern of successive editors exhibiting these behaviours: QuackGuru, Mystery Wolff, now you, all with IDHT about sources, and all wanting to interpret Wikipedia's consensus rules to mean that they personally have a veto over changes. I'm almost completely out of patience with it and I find it rather suspicious. Would you kindly confirm that you can see the sources please and thank you.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you having trouble complying with policy, S Marshall. The request for sourcing - and answering it - is Wikipedia 101. I will just copy the thing you added below so we can discuss something concrete. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall's proposal, with sources

The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease^[1] to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.

Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.^[2] The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.^[3]

However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,^[4] and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.^[5]

References

^ "E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus". UK: Public Health England. 2015.
^ Rahman, Muhammad Aziz (30 March 2015). "E-Cigarettes and Smoking Cessation: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". PLOS ONE. 10: e0122544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122544. PMID 25822251.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ McRobbie, Hayden; Bullen, Chris; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". The Cochrane Library. 12: CD010216. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. PMID 25515689.
^ Siu, A.L. (22 September 2015). "Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement". Annals of internal medicine. 163: 622–34. doi:10.7326/M15-2023. PMID 26389730.
^ Carroll Chapman, SL; Wu, LT (18 Mar 2014). "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: A review and comparison". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 54: 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.03.005. PMID 24680203.

OK< there is an actual proposal. This is copied from here which was S Marshall's implementation of his proposal above. Now we have something to discuss.... Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be OK with the 1st paragraph if the end of the last sentence was changed from the unsourced "to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down", to "to, on the other hand, the United States Preventive Services Task Force 2015 recommendations that advised only use of conventional NRTs in smoking cessation, found that current evidence is insufficient to recommend electronic nicotine delivery systems for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant women, and raised concerns about the unknown toxicities about and poisoning of children who gain access to e-liquids." and cited to the Siu2015 source. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

in the 2nd paragraph, apparently the "Reviews in 2014 and 2015 " are the 2014 cochrane review and the 2015 PLoS meta-analysis. The PLoS paper has the 20% figure but does not say "e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products". It says "We compared findings from this meta-analysis to cessation rates known to be achievable with existing NRTs. Two 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, suggesting that factors beyond nicotine replacement alone may contribute to smoking cessation." which is a very different statement (it is 10% higher, not 20%). and they make it clear that that is their own comparison, not a comparison from head-to-head studies. In fact they say: "Furthermore, whilst we were able to comment on the efficacy of nicotine e-cigarettes vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we were unable to comment on the efficacy of e-cigarettes vs. other interventions for cessation, given the lack of comparator groups in the studies included in this meta-analysis.". I didn't find anything like ""e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products" in the Cochrane paper which specifically noted that they couldn't make comparison with NRT. This paragraph cannot go in... Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The third paragraph seems OK except for the clause "and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months." - I don't see how it makes sense to highlight single trials anywhere in the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an attempt to defeat the proposal and retain the current text by turning it into a game of bring me a rock. Please re-insert the consensus edit and then propose your changes to it on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall please reconsider your statement. I pointed out that the second paragraph misrepresents the sources - no source says e-cigs 20% better than NRT (one source says they are 10% better but that is not from RCTs, so not in the way you say it does). And the second sentence of that paragraph misrepresents Cochrane too. That is not a bad faith response to your proposal. Please reconsider your statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret thanks for correcting the 20% to 10% in this dif. The content is still incorrect for two reasons. It says that two sources say that, and only one does. Secondly, that finding is by the authors of the review when they compared the results of their meta-analysis of the data on e-cig trials, to other data about the efficacy on NRTs. The review is a primary source for that finding. I wouldn't object if the content said something like "authors of a 2015 meta-analysis on clinical trials of e-cigs that found that compared with an e-cig device with no nicotine, e-cig use helped 20% of people quit smoking. They compared that finding with the results from other studies of the success of conventional NRT, which found that they help 10% of people quit. There has never been a study comparing e-cigs to NRTs as smoking cessation tools. " The first 2 sentences would be sourced to the 2015 review - the third sentence is supported by both Cochrane and the 2015 review. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I just made an edit, you know, what we are supposed to be doing? The PLOS review gives NRT 10% and e-cigs 20% a difference of 10%. Jytdog. When you find small errors in a edit, reverting the whole thing isnt a great idea, just fix the issue and post on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

When I reverted the whole thing it was because it had not been presented here with sources so everyone could actually evaluate it. I don't know why you all agreed to it, before checking to see if it was actually supported by the sources. I did not revert again after Spacklick re-inserted it. In any case, please address the points about content above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Its quite possible that we have all been editing this topic for a very long time and are well versed in the sources. While you are coming into this without that. I also looked at what was there already in the article, but for the benefit of editors who may not have all the info it may be a good idea (strongly advisable) to include sources in proposed edits. I dont think the review is a primary source when discussing the results of different sources and comparing them, that is reviewing. AlbinoFerret 16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please would a neutral editor re-insert this text, which has undergone a great deal of discussion and is widely agreed.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears SPACKlick replaced it, though I did make one small edit from 20% to 10%. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been several reviews in 2014 and 2015 and I don't know how anyone knew which were meant. In any case, you all signed off on inaccurate content (fresh eyes are useful). Most importantly, the content is still inaccurate. Again, instead of discussing contributors, please discuss the problems with the current content I raised above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the 2014 review out as it isnt referenced. If the refrence is added we can add it in again. AlbinoFerret 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the rest. In this dif I took out the following as it misrepresents what the Cochrane authors found -

The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.^[1]

References

^ McRobbie, Hayden; Bullen, Chris; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". The Cochrane Library. 12: CD010216. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. PMID 25515689.

They did not make a judgement about patches in cessation b/c there is insufficient data about that. The review does say that e-cigs were better than patches at reducing smoking, which is different. I did not find discussion about reducing "withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke" in the conclusions, nor the overall health risk claim. Maybe they are there and I missed them. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears you are partially incorrect from the review:

page 20 "EC with low nicotine delivery was as effective as nicotine patches at helping smokers to quit long-term, but confidence intervals were wide."

So they were compared to patches, but its long term not short as the article said.

page 6 "They also reduce tobacco withdrawal symptoms, including urges to smoke and low mood"

page 9 "However, among those brands of EC that have been tested, levels of toxins have been found to be substantially lower than in cigarettes, and are present at levels that are unlikely to represent a significant risk to health to either the user or to bystanders

This was found with a short reading of the source.AlbinoFerret 20:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

about comparison with NRT yes you found it and quoted part of it. The whole thing is " In the one trial that evaluated it, a first-generation EC with low nicotine delivery was as effective as nicotine patches at helping smokers to quit long-term, but confidence intervals were wide." (they are talking about the ASCEND trial) So yes there is one trial. They give very little weight to it. That does not = "Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term". Their "implications for practice" on this was: "There is evidence from one trial that ECs may lead to similar quit rates at six months as NRT, but the confidence interval is wide. ECs are an evolving technology and newer devices may be more effective, but research is needed to confirm this." S Marshall's proposed text was too definitive.

the text you quote from page 6 is about de-nicotinised cigarettes, not e-cigs. So this is still not supported.

The last bit yep it says that. Which is different from the much more prescriptive " personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes"

This would work if it said. "A 2014 Cochrane Collaboration review found one study that showed that electronic cigarettes may be as effective as conventional NRTs in helping people quit after six months of use, and it noted that for the specific electronic cigarettes that have been tested, levels of toxins were substantially lower than in cigarettes and were unlikely to cause harm to the user or people around them." Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, please do not directly edit the consensus text without discussing it here first.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Same for you - this would have been NBD had you kept talking and responded before adding it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

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

From the Positions of medical organizations section, please remove the last sentence from the first paragraph, beginning "In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and other UK medical bodies". This would be appear to be adequately covered by the third paragraph in the section which covers the same information in greater detail. 90.216.206.148 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes: The removed sentence isn't the same information. It's a joint statement by Public Health England, Action on Smoking and Health, Association of Directors of Public Health, British Lung Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Faculty of Public Health, Fresh North East, Public Health Action, Royal College of Physicians, Royal Society for Public Health, Tobacco Free Futures, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, and UK Health Forum. What's left in the article is an excerpt from the position of PHE only. It shouldn't have been removed. P Walford (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

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

In Construction, "When the user pushes a button. or inhales a pressure sensor activates the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution" should be "When the user pushes a button (In some variations the user inhales) the heating element atomizes the liquid solution to a temperature of roughly 100-250 °C within a chamber to create an aerosolized vapor." Apaphasia (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a slightly change to the parenthesis "When the user pushes a button (In some variations, when the user inhales) the heating element atomizes the liquid solution"82.111.139.27 (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Yes, that flowed awfully. I changed the edit a bit from the suggestion, to make it as small a change as possible while still, I think, resolving the issue. Marcus erronius (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice wording, Ill make the change on the construction page to keep it in sync. AlbinoFerret 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What about the older sources that said they only had to heat to 55 degrees? CFCF 💌 📧

55 C looks like an error. One trend is 4th generation devices, that include temp control that is adjustable. Some will even go as low as 100C and high as 300 C. So the 55 C claim was replaced by a RS that was closer. AlbinoFerret 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias in the "Motivation" section?

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of bias in the "Motivation" section. I picked a few of the more questionable statements, and attempted to verify them:

"Young people and children are tempted by flavored e-cigarettes."
- This seemed like a pretty difficult statement to verify, so I checked the cited article. It quoted the head of an anti-smoking, anti-ecig activist group as saying "My research with young people and children shows they are tempted by these flavours." This could be misleading in many ways: since the study wasn't cited, it could have terrible methodology; also she didn't say they are tempted by e-cigarettes in those flavors, just that they are tempted by the flavors she listed (gummy bear and strawberry milkshake). Since I couldn't find this study of which she spoke published anywhere (I searched her website and her organization's website for clues), it is impossible to say whether the statement is true, or if it even means what it seems to.
"Candy and fruit flavors e-cigarettes are designed to appeal to young people."
- Also seemed difficult to verify, since I doubt e-cigarette marketers came out and said "Yeah, that's what we were trying to do". The linked article gave it as an unsourced statement, even though they gave lots of sources for other statements. The writers of the article want to ban the sale of any flavors that might appeal to children; combined with the non-attributed statement, it sounds like "We firmly believe this, and don't need a study to back it up".
"E-cigarettes can appeal to youth because of their high-tech design, assortment of flavors, and accessibility online."
- Following the link, the actual statement said "E-cigarettes may appeal"; and the link to the paper (finally found it on archive.org) said "There is concern that e-cigarettes may appeal". You can see the bias drifting in on this statement.

These were the only three I took the time to check, which took a lot of time since the actual studies (if they exist) were buried deep in references. While on the face, these paragraphs are dense with citations, the citations I checked are of such poor, dubious quality, that I'm of the opinion that each statement should be removed unless it is cited, and the citation is of good quality, and you can easily tell where a statement came from. Unless there are objections, I'll try to come back here in a few days and clean up that section. Marcus erronius (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you think of them, these statements can all be found in MEDRS-compliant reviews (along with a lot of other crap). I think from memory the WHO & US Surgeon-General have included versions of some in their statements. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the sources, and they are problematic.

One has already been pointed out by S Marshall The claim "Candy and fruit flavors e-cigarettes are designed to appeal to young people.[72]" cited to International Business times[20] Which in turn used an advocacy group as the basis for the claim.

Another claim "Young people and children are tempted by flavored e-cigarettes.[69]" fails validation "Marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes is common. Youth are targeted with the addition of attractive candy or fruit flavours." the source doesnt mention children.

I also think "can" replacing "may" is a problem. AlbinoFerret 04:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

some tweaks would care of those first two issues easily - the first one can be removed as it is redundant to what directly follows it. Fine to remove "children" from the second (not a big deal - same point). No big scandal there, just some copyediting. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That section reads as it does because of yet another of my massive arguments with QuackGuru which is now in talk archive #25 entitled In North Wales, girls who use e-cigarettes consider them appealing." Quack was a stickler for MEDRS when it came to some edits, but he liked the claim that e-cigs were being deliberately marketed to children and he kept that in based on an article in a Welsh regional newspaper. In the end I asked Doc James for help on his talk page and Doc James removed the offending source. It needs cleaning up further but I've used up all my reserves of patience with the persistent obstructionism on this page and I've unwatched it; only here because pinged.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna be bold and remove some of the more egregious parts. Marcus erronius (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

All you've done is removed well-sourced material, the only part of what you removed that is even remotely questionable is the IB-Times sourced statement. CFCF 💌 📧 10:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you are incorrect. The sources for what I removed didn't cite anything, just made unsourced statements. While that might fly for some things, it doesn't fly for speculation about motives. You restored two statements, neither of which are well-sourced. The first has a cites an article which cites another article, where an expert expresses that "There is concern that e-cigarettes may..." appeal to children. This morphs to the more assured statement "E-cigarettes may..." (dropping concern) in the cited article, then the rather certain "E-cigarettes can" in the wikipedia source. At minimum, the wikipedia article should match the original source, which clearly lays out the statement as speculation; but honestly, it should be removed, since it is speculation. The other statement claims to know the motives of cigarette manufacturers ("...are designed to appeal to young people"). The source given to back that up is a group that does non-smoking advocacy, and they don't try to back up their statement. If they linked to e-cig manufacturer documents saying why they make flavored e-cigs, it would be a well-sourced statement; but as it is, it is certainly not. Marcus erronius (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with CFCF Cloudjpk (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the content in question, omitting the IB-Times sourced material. See the below sourced from CDC for additional support of the statements. CFCF 💌 📧 15:03, 26

Ping Jytdog—who had some ideas about copyediting to remove concerns of inaccuracy. CFCF 💌 📧 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war, so for now I'm just going to edit the statements so that they are factually correct. This means I will say who said the statement, and ensure that it is obvious that the statements were not backed up with citations. Marcus erronius (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

CDC E-cigarette Ads and Youth

The CDC's new 2016 campaign about E-cigarette Ads and Youth could assuredly help expand and clarify this section. The CDC suggest children may be at risk and guides preventative efforts from parents and healthcare providers. CFCF 💌 📧 06:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The CDC Office on Smoking and HealthE-cigarette Information November 2015 report also expands upon some concerns. CFCF 💌 📧 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceitful qualifiers added to section on appeal to youth

With this edit: [21] Marcus erronius chose to qualify the National Association of County and City Health Officials as "some advocates" as well as the Heart and Stroke Foundation as an advocacy group. This is both dishonest and attempts to portray these organizations in a negative light. This should be fully evident to any editor here is disruptive and should not remain in the article. CFCF 💌 📧 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as i know the Heart and Stroke foundation describe themselves as an advocacy organization.[22] But i do agree that this is probably used as POV - just as the youth argument is in the above. Sometimes (even often) things can be true, while still be misleading and POV. --Kim D. Petersen 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Those words were not intended to be deceitful, but to clarify what the statement was. Since the statements were not based on the results of studies, they are opinions, not verifiable facts. That needed to be mentioned in the article, to prevent the statement from being misleading. If you want to edit it to include the names of the organizations instead of "advocates" and "advocacy group" (terms which are accurate, and which I actually think have positive connotations), I would have no objection; I just thought it read better. Even if the terms were negative, someone keeps trying to throw the words "Big Tobacco" in various places in this article, which is certainly a pejorative, per the linked article. Marcus erronius (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of image on faulty grounds

In this edit [23] an image of e-liquid with fruit flavor was removed — because it was deemed "advertising" by AlbinoFerret. This is frankly unsupported by any policy and would rely on ties to the producer of the e-liquid in question. Neither is the image sourced from the producers website, but from an independent photographer. We do not remove all items on Wikipedia because they can be identified to be of a specific brand. This image should be reinstated. With this a section of sourced content was also removed. CFCF 💌 📧 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Then past removal and future removal of devices that have branding on them wont fly. It has been standard procedurre to remove items with branding on them in this article, even if they are from the commons, are you suggesting we change that? Because if we do I will be bookmarking this section in the archives. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And just to add to AlbinoFerret's comment: The use of such an image and associated text, displays a particular WP:POV, and that won't fly... particularly when we have high quality sources that dispute the assertion. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen, since you have responded in this section, what do you think of the replacement and the caption underneath, does it follow the WP:CAPTION guidelines? AlbinoFerret 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also elaborate on which high quality sources you are referring it—the article body currently carries the statements associated with the image. CFCF 💌 📧 21:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem isnt the sources, its that captions are supposed to be descriptive of the image. There is a lot of information in the caption that isnt about the image. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mechanical engineers design and build power plants and engines, such as this Volkswagen Group designed Bugatti W16 engine.

If you even took two seconds to look at the examples at WP:CAPTION you can see that the current caption and the older one were very relevant, see the image I copied. It is also very similar to the images the CDC presents to illustrate ecig marketing to youth http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/ecigarette-ads/.CFCF 💌 📧 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it controversial that WV uses Bugatti engines? No. Is it controversial that e-liquids appeal to youth? Yes. As for sources, look at the PHE report. Therefore it shouldn't be used. Yes high-quality sources do state that it does, but other high-quality sources disagree - therefore its contentious. As for WP:CAPTION - i find that rather irrelevant considering the WP:NPOV issue - NPOV is a policy, CAPTION is a guideline. --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally it can be said that "Think about the children!" is a so commonly used advocacy/rhetorical point, that one should always be cautious about using it, unless it is within a context that explains the pro- and contra-arguments. And this most certainly doesn't. --Kim D. Petersen 22:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC) [And that includes the current usage of the caption - with a more neutral image. This section is not about youth - but about motivation, and most users (the significant majority) are not youths. Combine that with the controversial nature of "Think about the children!" advocacy strategies - and we are still in WP:POV land. --Kim D. Petersen 22:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)]

Except that this is in the section concerning use among youth and adolescents— and the PHE report actually supports the statement – page 34 (Stating the the preferred flavour was among a number of respondents fruit, qualifying that they did not have enough respondents to prove this on a larger scale, it does not refute the statement). CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This section is not about youth vapers - in fact it is about motivation of vapers. Of which youths are a very tiny minority. As stated above Think about the children! is a generic rhetoric ploy, that should never be used without significant caution. As for the PHE - it doesn't support your assertion, since it makes it very very clear that youth smokers is so insignificant, that flavor determination is impossible "The proportion of youth reporting current use was too small to assess the most frequently used types or flavours in current users". The whole youth argument is basically rhetorical if we use the PHE as a guide. --Kim D. Petersen 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) [note on the youth prevalence issue: "Overall, the adult and youth data suggest that, despite some experimentation with EC among never smokers, EC are attracting few people who have never smoked into regular use." --Kim D. Petersen 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)]

I find it interesting that the percentage of young users is small according to the PHE report, but take up 1/4th of the section. AlbinoFerret 03:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Smoking prevention has traditionally focused on those who start young because they are most likely to develop a habit and addiction—which is also why a significant portion of the literature concerning ecigs discusses use among youth—it reflects the literature and relevance to prevention, not the actual proportion of users. Also of note is that portions of the literature have chosen to define anyone over the age of 15 as an adult which is troubling when it comes to accurate statistics–see Kalkhoran 2016. CFCF 💌 📧 10:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all this isn't about "smoking prevention", which is an entirely different category. Once again: This is the motivation section. As for your 15 years of age claim, i looked at Kalkhoran et al(2016) which doesn't present this as a problem, it just mentions that they looked at studies where the youngest ages was between 15-30. And if one looks at the appendix, it gets obvious that this wasn't pointed out as a problem because only Gallus et al(2014), which was a population study, had an age of 15 as its lower bound - the rest are, as far as i can determine, without looking into each paper 18+. So quite simply you are using WP:OR to justify the WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 12:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the CDC 2016 reports E-cigarette Ads and Youth, E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students strongly target the effect of advertising on motivation, so your claim that they are entirely disassociated topics is quite shallow. Smoking prevention by necessity needs to target underlying motivation, and the same is true from prevention of ecig use, this is not a controversial position, and you can look to much of the literature for support:

PMID 26449875—Tobacco smoking: From 'glamour' to 'stigma'. A comprehensive review. - (Yes, it specifically mentions ecigs despite its title)

etc. (can provide many more upon request)

As for the last point which you spent most time on, it was minor issue and is still relevant despite what you claim—but no it would not alone be enough to justify the claims.CFCF 💌 📧 13:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is quite refreshing to see that you display your own personal interpretation of data, but it is not refreshing to see it used within a Wikipedia frame to justify a WP:POV. Both CDC links that you give are about exposure, not targeting. That you call/interpret it as targeting is a direct indication of POV. To illustrate the difference between exposure and targeting, i am going to assume that exposure of car advertising amongst youths is very close to 100% - but i doubt if they are targeting the youths as a purchasing audience. Do you see the difference?

It would be nice if you could seperate your personal POV from the subject matter. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

“The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.

From: E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students

E-cigarette advertisements target youth
Tobacco remains the leading cause of death and disease in the US, and the Secretary of HHS said that the proposed rule is the “latest step in our efforts to make the next generation tobacco-free."[2] Even though the proposed rule would institute a minimum age of 18 for purchasing newly covered products including e-cigarettes, the rule will not combat the tobacco epidemic if it does not also prohibit the marketing of these products to youth. Age limits on e-cigarettes will be ineffective without advertising restrictions.

From: UCSF – Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

CFCF 💌 📧 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. You can cherrypick the opinion - but not understand the data. Where is the data about targeting? Please provide it. --Kim D. Petersen 14:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I btw am amused that you, in a POV argument, are using Glantz' blog and their advocacy letter as an argument. Because the second quote is clear and unadulturated advocacy. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This cherry picking and POV insertion is very troubling. Especially as Glantz is a anti-tobacco advocate. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Glantz is generally considered the worlds premier anti-vaping advocate, just ahead of Simon Chapman.. then yep its troubling. Imagine if e-cig advocates were to state blogs from eg. Farsalinos as evidence for something... guess what the sentiment would be :) --Kim D. Petersen 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion before, please follow up any such statements with sources. CFCF 💌 📧 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just scroll up to the RFC above for all the Glantz sources needed. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, they did not say anything about being anti e-cig. Neither are they sources permissible under WP:MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, Ruters, the first source does.[24] AlbinoFerret 17:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS-compliant, as was mentioned in the above discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 18:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There are various other factors - it is cheap and easy to survey schoolkids or students (much more so than with a normal adult population), and it is easy to generate shock headlines, and increased regulation, from the results. Having caught the tobacco industry pushing its product at youth, much research, especially in America, assumes the ecig manufacturers will be doing the same. There is also concern that ecigs will be a gateway drug to tobacco; a much-questioned concept in the first place, for which the evidence in this context is very limited. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

While there is support for those statements there is also evidence of e-cig manufacturers targeting youth with advertising. The CDC's position is pretty clear from the sources, and we should present it as is. CFCF 💌 📧 13:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Likewise PHE's. It may indeed be (as the research output from the 2 countries would suggest) that there is a large real difference between US and UK prevalence in youth, as I think there is with eg use of marijauna, or certainly in the risk of getting shot. Possibly advertising is a factor there. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, as mentioned above, the CDC doesn't state that position at all. They are talking exposure, where you are talking targeting, which are two different things. But once again this is moot because this isn't a section about youths, but a section about motivation, and youths are a tiny minority amongst vapers. --Kim D. Petersen 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the pages and see the quote from the CDC director which I quoted above. CFCF 💌 📧 14:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you stick to peer-reviewed material and data, rather than opinion - that would be nice - and an indication that you aren't married to your WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 14:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS allows for use of position statement or opinion from major and recognized medical bodies. I have not strayed from this, and their do intend to. CFCF 💌 📧 15:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Its not a position statement, its a blog post from an anti-tobacco advocate. AlbinoFerret 16:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Two separate position statements and you refer to them as a blog post? Also we have been through the discussion, and being anti-tobacco is something that is entirely general across all of medicine – doctors are paid to be anti-tobacco. CFCF 💌 📧 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those two are position statements CFCF. I have a really hard time understanding that a longterm wikipedia editor doesn't understand the difference between formal position statements and regular webcontent and blog posts (from Glantz) about certain peoples opinions of the CDC's stance. Should we expand this article to include viewpoints and opinions from experts in general - is that what you are arguing? --Kim D. Petersen 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The first one is most assuredly a statement from a prominent source (CDC) and as such allowed as per MEDRS. The second source concerns marketing which does not necessarily require MEDRS-sourcing. CFCF 💌 📧 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The first is a selected quote from a pressrelease on CDC's webpage, about a statistics (WP:PRIMARY, and opinion) - do you think pressreleases are WP:SECONDARY CFCF? The second is a blog, describing a letter from some people to the CDC (pure opinion, corresponding roughly to a "letter to editors" => PRIMARY).

Not everything on webpages from organizations such as the CDC is usable information from a WP:MEDRS perspective. --Kim D. Petersen 17:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Those quotes are used to show how the position is hardly fringe, I have not inserted the quotes in the article, neither do I suggest doing so. The sources I used are definately WP:MEDRS-compliant, and this article is based off numerous press-releases, for example these:

In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and twelve other UK medical bodies concluded "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking."^[3]

The UK National Health Service followed with the statement that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes,^[4] while also concluding that there won't be a complete understanding of their safety for many years.^[4]

These are attempts to smear quality sources because they do not abide by your world view. CFCF 💌 📧 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable. The pressrelease is labelled "A joint statement from...", which is the formal declaration that this is a position statement, thus very much a WP:MEDRS compliant source. As for the latter, if you look back in the archives, you will find that i argued against using that source (as well as the former one, which it replaced) - it is (imho) not a WP:MEDRS reference. --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference NACCHO12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Heart and Stroke Canada 14 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus". UK: Public Health England. 2015.
^ ^a ^b "Electronic cigarettes". Smokefree NHS. Are e-cigarettes safe to use?. Retrieved 28 October 2015.

Possible side effect from some oil based flavourings

disclaimer: this is conjecture based on rapid development of various health issues within 2 years of trying a food additive flavoured ecig just couple times. I was 31 at the time of trying it with sedentary lifestyle. As I don't have exercise routine and am indoors as much as some hospitalized people, I breath very very casually so anything that would effect oxygen delivery in permanent way would be noticeable. I'd guesstimate there is 'good' odds that these issues would have developed anyway, I simply suspect the ecig lowered the oxygen intake ability during slow casual breathing just past a "tipping point" where as result there was acceleration in the onset of various health issues that may have been already on the way anyway due to lack of exercise etc and sitting on computer.

After trying ecig for only couple times, and not changing my daily routines in the following years I had a bunch of very subtle health issues develop that I have finally tracked down to the body regulating blood circulation to too low levels because of lack of oxygen. I would say that I was already "pre-compromised" due to sitting all day on computer so anything that would decrease the oxygen intake further was a tipping point. A bunch of mysterious issues developed with seemingly no connection because this lack of oxygen in circulation effects everything. Brittle nails, cold extremities, poor concentration - though because I also had some sort of stroke where I passed out about 1 year from trying the cig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.31.86 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry to hear that - but by wikipedia rules, that state that we can't use it as a discussion forum, we're not going to be able to discuss, or in other ways use your contribution in this article. May i suggest that you talk to a doctor about your concerns? --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

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

Laika19 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Recently, a meta-analysis was published showing that e-cigs might actually make it harder to quit smoking. The new analysis suggests that e-cigs make people 28 percent less likely to quit smoking. Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-4/abstract

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 13:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting abstract, but "Odds of smoking cessation among smokers using e-cigarettes compared with smokers not using e-cigarettes were assessed " - this appears to be about dual-use. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I also have concerns about one of the authors Stanton Glantz a known anti tobacco activist. More than just an abstract is needed and this is behind a paywall. It is also not pubmed indexed. AlbinoFerret 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing much wrong with being "a known anti tobacco activist", though Glanze is also hardline anti-ecig, and a bit extreme I think. The article is free if you register (in the UK anyway), and just published online. No doubt it will be listed on PubMed in due course - The Lancet is certainly a top journal with an impact factor of 45 (and anti-ecig), though this is I think only a specialist sub-journal. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and these biases will probably require accreditation if it comes in. Cant find the sub journals impact factor, might not be listed. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a position is not the same as bias: and this is an excellent journal and a top quality study. From what I can see it should definitely be added to our article and is very pertinent. The prior argument is a prime example of WP:BIAS — per the pertinent and recently debated section of WP:MEDRS:
"Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions."
Ping WhatamIdoing, who may have some insight as to the interpretation of that section. CFCF 💌 📧 15:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Up until TMCk added the links below, my concerns were not to exclude the material but to add in text accreditation per WP:BIASED. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of the formaldehyde scare or to a lesser degree the ambigoues propylene oxide claim (also Glantz) that remained in the article for far to long. Now we have this new review and (already) plenty of critical responses: "...not scientific."... , "...at best preliminary or at worst “grossly misleading...”, "...tentative and sometimes incorrect.”
So I'm wondering how much weight this flawed article deserves.--TMCk (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that the Lancet and BMJ similarly criticized the PHE report? Or do we only find rebuttals when it suits us? Wired, The Guardian, BMJ.
To take it to the extreme, this article has a pretty decent title concerning criticism of the PHE report: E-cigarette ‘safety’ study was written by industry funded scientists, Lancet warns. CFCF 💌 📧 16:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The PHE report wasnt written by a anti tobacco/anti ecig activist. Any use will have to be accredited to him. Though looking at the links above, its questionable what use it could have. AlbinoFerret 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that we need to include this source in the article. I propose that it belongs in the dual use section that we're discussing above, and the tricky issue will be how much weight to give it. Off the cuff, I would suggest that a controversial paper in The Lancet should get less weight than the Cochrane Collaboration and somewhat less than clinical practice guidelines from major Western democracies, but more than most other sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about dual use; it measures the effect of e-cigarette use on cessation of smoking. It does not break out users who were or were not dual users. So the Cessation section seems appropriate.

As to weight, it uses the same methods as Cochrane but includes more and newer studies than were available to Cochrane. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Johnbod's right and it's at least partly about dual use; the fact that it doesn't break out dual users from quitters is a design flaw. Simply put, the Cochrane Collaboration is the most reliable source in medicine, and the idea that a brand new just-published study proves Cochrane wrong is the sort of thing that we might normally see coming from an IP address on Talk:Homeopathy.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

While I think that may be putting it very harshly, I essentially agree. The new study seems to be very high quality and follows proper methodology, but the Cochrane report weighs heavier. A few years down the line, or when/if the Cochrane report is pointed out as being significantly outdated we might need to revise that opinion, but for now it holds. CFCF 💌 📧 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. The scientific writer in me wants to dismiss this paper for all the flaws in it. However by policy it must be included and I agree that it meets the criteria for inclusion and reasonable weight. I would also assess it for the same weighting as S Marshall. SPACKlick (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, TracyMcClark, and SPACKlick what is your opinion on in text accreditation per WP:BIASED? AlbinoFerret 20:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, this may be one of those times where it's best just to put it in knowing the data will become clearer as more studies and response appear. SPACKlick (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that by policy it should be included, flawed or not. It will be interesting though, to see the responses in the peer-reviewed press - since i find the criticism by Pf. Ann McNeill to be particularly damaging "This review is not scientific. The information included about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading. ..."[25].

I think this is one of the studies that we are going to have to keep an eye on, particular with regards to replies/commentaries if we are to take Pf McNeill's commentary seriously. --Kim D. Petersen 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me a moment to figure out that AlbinoFerret meant WP:INTEXT attribution, when he (or his spilling chucker ;-) typed "accreditation". I don't think this is necessary; you're never going to see "News flash: Professors of Medicine oppose tobacco!" in the headlines.

On the question of the MEDRS line above, it helps to read it in context. Don't replace a meta-analysis with primary sources because you personally believe that the author is "extreme" (or whatever your objection to him is). Of course, if you've got dozens of meta-analyses, then you should pick from among the best; you can't cite them all. And no matter what, you should accurately describe the actual results, e.g., "People who use both are no more likely to quit that people who use only one" rather than "Science proves that ecig users are incapable of quitting". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the canvassed opinion, this isnt a personal opinion, WP has a whole section on Stanton Glantz's activism with plenty of references. It took me about 2 minutes to find a good source, Forbes[26] which includes "Speakers at the meeting included Stanton Glantz, an anti-tobacco activist,". AlbinoFerret 13:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I pinged WhatamIdoing as the primary author of the relevant section of MEDRS seeking input to improve quality of the discussion — something which WP:Canvas explicitly refers to as "not canvasing".
The CDC is known to be anti-tobacco, having a science-based opinion is not the same as bias and does not disqualify the CDC from expressing views concerning tobacco use. Being an anti-tobacco activist does not call into question the scientific veracity of the research — nothing in the linked section suggests that Glantz's research would be of inferior quality or that his opinion is not based upon scientific results. CFCF 💌 📧 14:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You called in an expert on MEDRS to discuss WP:BIASED which isnt on MEDRS? Thats mixing apples and oranges. The CDC is a organization, which to my knowledge doesn’t have highly respectable RS like Forbes calling them anti tobacco activists. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS definitely has sections that relate to bias, for example the one I cited.
The CDC runs "anti-tobacco campaigns" [27], but that might not be enough. CFCF 💌 📧 19:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really considering Forbes isnt alone

Reuters [28] "But some researchers say activists like Glantz may have been prejudiced against e-cigarettes by their past battles with the tobacco industry."
CNN [29] "Stanton Glantz, senior researcher on the study, a professor at University of California-San Francisco and tobacco control activist" [30] "Stanton Glantz, a longtime anti-tobacco advocate"
NY Times [31] "Stanton A. Glantz, a doctor and anti-tobacco crusader"
The Telegraph [32] "Glantz is known for his anti-smoking activism, and is one of the founders of the lobbying group Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."
SFGate [33] "Stanton Glantz, a longtime antismoking activist"

Stanton Glantz is shown by these very reliable sources to be a activist, that more than one exists speaks volumes. There are probably a dozen more reliable sources that dont have the stature of the ones listed here. The Reuters source even links his activism to e-cigs. The sources show him to be a biased source and as such should have in text attribution, perhaps "...by anti tobacco activist Stanton Glantz said..." AlbinoFerret 19:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Beyond several high quality sources (World Lung Foundation etc.) — the CDC themselves call their campaigns anti-tobacco [34],[35].
Repeating that while ignoring the multitude of sources pointing out flaws in the PHE-methodology seems pretty disingenuous — unless we should attribute the PHE report similarly as per Wall Street Journal – U.K. Government Agency’s E-Cigarettes Report Based on ‘Flimsy’ Evidence. CFCF 💌 📧 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you are going off topic and pointing out other stuff exists. I am not suggesting we allow non MEDRS sources to rebut findings of a source. But for indicating the bias of an author of a review. Do you have any source that points out the bias of a specific author of any review? That any of them are activists? AlbinoFerret 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That is both a false dichotomy, and neither does one need to look very far — seeing as link just above yours from the Wall Street Journal states (concerning the central tennet of the paper — the 95% risk-reduction):

The Lancet also criticized Public Health England for failing to acknowledge the “potential conflicts of interest” of the study authors. The 2014 paper disclosed that one of the authors, Riccardo Polosa, had served as a consultant to Arbi Group SRL, an e-cigarette distributor.

CFCF 💌 📧 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The PHE 95% paper was in 2015, not 2014 thats a different one, so you are confusing papers. A consultant also is not the same as an activist. AlbinoFerret 00:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The PHE report (2015) just, as they say, took the 95% figure from an earlier paper, by Nutt and a long list of others, not doubt including Polosa, who is a name in the field. There are links in earlier sections on this page to it. I think Nutt said in a radio interview there were 19 people (for 2 days) involved in coming up with the figure, using modern risk analysis techniques. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Having industry ties is a far more serious allegation than being an anti-tobacco activist; something which one could deem each medical doctor to be — seeing as they are actively paid to promote smoking cessation. These things are not really on the same level, and the criticism of the PHE report is far more scathing:

The Lancet said these caveats meant “the opinions of a small group of individuals with no pre-specified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm.” It branded the study “extraordinarily flimsy” and said that in using it, Public Health England had “fallen short of its mission” to rely on the highest-quality evidence.

CFCF 💌 📧 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A consultant is not "seeing as they are actively paid to promote smoking cessation". You had better have a RS for that accusation. But we are getting off topic. The topic of this section is a review whoes author is Glantz. He is proven to be an activist by multiple highly regarded RS. AlbinoFerret 16:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to provide an RS to tell you that medical doctors have as part of their job description to get their patients off cigarettes? No, the topic of this section is the conclusions of the review. You are trying to paint a perfectly fitting study in the light of coming from a biased source because it does not agree with your view. CFCF 💌 📧 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, what I want to see is that readers know the source of the information and its bias. I advise you to WP:FOC and not on what reasons you may think other editors want to include things. You on the other hand are posting non sourced claims of others like they are being paid to promote things when hired as a consultant, you do know the meaning of a consultant is one who consults or advises right? Polosa has also been a consultant for Pfizer and Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence[36] looks like he has advised people on both sides of the issue. AlbinoFerret 16:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you've misunderstood some essential points here. Cessation is the same as quitting, and I haven't stated a single thing about either individuals — I have only cited comments from reputable sources about perceived bias concerning a specific source. Criticism from two major journal bodies (BMJ & the Lancet) take up some major concerns, of which the ones I cited are only a subsection.
Following your logic we need to present these issues when we mention the PHE report, and actually more so as the ties were mentioned as relating to the report itself — while the anti-tobacco ties to the author of this review are only mildly related. CFCF 💌 📧 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I appears we are at an impasse as you have chosen to address other sources/authors while confusing which source applies to which report, and have come to conclusions like paid promotion that are not in your sources. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Re CFCF's "Having [ecig] industry ties is a far more serious allegation than being an anti-tobacco activist..." - that very much depends on what view you take of ecigs. If you are a hardline opponent of ecigs it may be regarded as dammning, just like getting funding from a tobacco company. If you favour the view that ecigs are a potent source of good in terms of smoking cassation and harm reduction, then it is just like taking funding from big pharma, which many researchers have to do, for lack of other sources. Whether the potential COI should have been disclosed by PHE (it was disclosed in Nutt) is a different question, but the Lancet's apparent view that merely mentioning this omission, regarding one of many authors of the Nutt piece, is sufficient to dismiss the whole paper and its conclusions, won't be accepted by everyone, to put it mildly. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Undisclosed pharmaceutical industry ties are considered a major issue, and a big problem in modern medicine — often prompting front-page headlines and rebuttals:
Hcpro: "'Undisclosed drug industry ties prompt tighter JAMA policies"' (specifically mentions consultancy)
WSJ: FDA Advisers’ Financial Ties Not Disclosed (here a consultant is mentioned as having made $100,000 — hardly a negligible amount)
The issue the Lancet and BMJ brought up was that one of the central points of the PHE-report is based upon a source which they found questionable, not that only one of the sources in the paper had issues. CFCF 💌 📧 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should Stanton Glantz require in text attribution per WP:BIASED

Withdrawn, unlikely to happen for this source considering the number of no responses. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 3 February 2016 (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.

Should sources that list Stanton Glantz as the author include in text attribution per WP:BIASED as an "anti-tobacco activist"?

Sources on e-cigs and Glantz as an activist

Reuters [37] "But some researchers say activists like Glantz may have been prejudiced against e-cigarettes by their past battles with the tobacco industry." Linking his activism to e-cigs.
NewRepublic [38] in a paragraph on anti smoking activists Glantz is shown to be against e-cigs.
Sacramento Bee [39] "In response, anti-smoking activists are pushing to have them regulated like tobacco. Stan Glantz, a professor of tobacco control at UC San Francisco who supports Corbett's bill, said e-cigarette companies brought the increased scrutiny upon themselves."
NY Times [40] "Stanton A. Glantz, a doctor and anti-tobacco crusader"

Other sources

Forbes [41] which includes "Speakers at the meeting included Stanton Glantz, an anti-tobacco activist,"
CNN [42] "Stanton Glantz, senior researcher on the study, a professor at University of California-San Francisco and tobacco control activist" [43] "Stanton Glantz, a longtime anti-tobacco advocate"
The Telegraph [44] "Glantz is known for his anti-smoking activism, and is one of the founders of the lobbying group Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."
SFGate [45] "Stanton Glantz, a longtime antismoking activist"

Please leave all comments below. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes

No

SPACKlick (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that he is an activist, even his own WP:BLP article tells us so. But i do not agree that we need inline identification of this potential bias. The journal is responsible for vetting the authors, and ensuring that the scientific basis for its inclusion is sufficient. What this may affect is the assessment of the source, but considering the journal this shouldn't be a factor. What is much more problematic is the critiques that we've seen so far... but unless these reach the scientific press, then they can only give us a cautionary approach to the source and its usage. --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Any more than we identify sources who are e-cigarette advocates as such. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No to the specific attribution. See discussion below Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No Obviously not. Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No - In text attribution is unnecessary. Meatsgains (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016

(UTC)

No - we don't need to attribute to anything in the text. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Really we need to answer 2 questions 1) What threshold of sourcing for bias justifies/requires in text attribution of the source of a claim? 2) Does Stanton Glantz meet or exceed this threshold? From my point of view the threshold for 1) Requires multiple RS's on 2) We only really have Reuters here making a claim of a relevant bias. Stanton Glantz is an activist in the area of tobacco control and non-smokers rights and my personal opinion from having read his publications is that he is prejudiced against THR strategies. However, I can only find that sourced to non-RS other than the single reuters quote AF already mentioned. Without better sourcing I don't think he needs in text attribution for claims on the basis of Bias. SPACKlick (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a couple more that link his anti tobacco activism to e-cigs and will be looking for more. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Being an "anti-smoking activist" does not define a position on e-cigs. Such a person could be predisposed to LOVE e-cigs as a way to get people away from smoking, or HATE them as another way for companies to make a lot of money by getting people addicted to nicotine that is possibly dangerous. In Glanz' case, his opposition to e-cigs appears to arise from his work on regulation and on the effects of smoking on bystanders - from a quick look one of his biggest contributions was helping lead the way on protecting people from second-hand smoke which is what really led to the spread of no-smoking zones. His opposition to e-cigs seems to be related to that - unknown effects of e-cigs on bystanders and the e-cigs industry's efforts to resist regulation (which probably makes them just like the tobacco industry in his eyes - "they brought this on themselves"). If the attribution said something like "a long time antismoking activist particularly concerned with protecting nonsmokers and with industry's resistance to regulation" then I would have supported it. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I really do not see your point here, An anti-smoker can also be an anti-vaping activist and is highly probable. Same logic really, you wouldn't want someone smoking a cigarette next to you in the movie theater so why would vaping be any different? It still has nicotine to keep people hooked. An Anti-smoking activist is highly likely to be also an Anti-vaping activist too as it is the same logic. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Or strongly pro-them, like Action on Smoking and Health (UK) and many others. Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2016 (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.

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[1] Meera Senthilingam (23 March 2015). "E-cigarettes: Helping smokers quit, or fueling a new addiction?". CNN.

[2] substitute direct PMC link

[Caponnetto2012-4] Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.

[Orellana-Barrios2015-5] Cite error: The named reference Orellana-Barrios2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Rahman2014-6] "Electronic cigarettes: patterns of use, health effects, use in smoking cessation and regulatory issues". Tob Induc Dis. 12 (1): 21. 2014. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-12-21. PMC 4350653. PMID 25745382. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[Grana2014-7] Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

[Pepper2013-8] Cite error: The named reference Pepper2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Bhatnagar2014-9] Cite error: The named reference Bhatnagar2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[McRobbie2014-10] Cite error: The named reference McRobbie2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Farsalinos2014-11] Cite error: The named reference Farsalinos2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Farsalinos2015-12] Cite error: The named reference Farsalinos2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Cheng2014-13] Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

[Weaver2014-14] Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.

[Cooke2015-15] Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Kacker2014-16] Cite error: The named reference Kacker2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Brandon2015-17] Cite error: The named reference Brandon2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Cochrane2014-18] Cite error: The named reference Cochrane2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[PHE-19] "E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus". UK: Public Health England. 2015.

[Rahman2015-20] Rahman, Muhammad Aziz (30 March 2015). "E-Cigarettes and Smoking Cessation: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". PLOS ONE. 10: e0122544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122544. PMID 25822251.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[Cochrane2014-21] McRobbie, Hayden; Bullen, Chris; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". The Cochrane Library. 12: CD010216. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. PMID 25515689.

[Siu2015-22] Siu, A.L. (22 September 2015). "Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement". Annals of internal medicine. 163: 622–34. doi:10.7326/M15-2023. PMID 26389730.

[Chapman2014-23] Carroll Chapman, SL; Wu, LT (18 Mar 2014). "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: A review and comparison". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 54: 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.03.005. PMID 24680203.

[Cochrane2014-24] McRobbie, Hayden; Bullen, Chris; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction". The Cochrane Library. 12: CD010216. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub2. PMID 25515689.

[NACCHO12-25] Cite error: The named reference NACCHO12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Heart_and_Stroke_Canada_14-26] Cite error: The named reference Heart and Stroke Canada 14 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[PHE-27] "E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus". UK: Public Health England. 2015.

[BNHS2015-28] "Electronic cigarettes". Smokefree NHS. Are e-cigarettes safe to use?. Retrieved 28 October 2015.

[1]

[2]

[note 1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]