Open main menu
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 30

Contents

Lead section

I've looked hard at this article recently while closing a couple of RfCs, and the lead section is annoying me. The first paragraph is full of information about what e-cigarettes aren't, and about what they don't contain. I think this is unsatisfactory. I suggest rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there are many times in which the intro compares against a worse product to give E-Cigs the appearance of being a positive product. The intro actually uses the word "benefit" as though the product improves people's health. The intro also uses "tiny" as a weasel/advertisement word.
The article is quite poor, due to both poor sources and poor extraction. Under Harm reduction, the sentence "Smoke from traditional tobacco products has 40 known carcinogens among the 10,000 chemicals it contains, none of which has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes." appears. The source for that statement said they had not been found YET, the source also stated that high levels of diethylene glycol had been found in an E-Cig, I won't even get started on probable carcinogens ignored by the paper such as acetaldehyde, or completely ignored carcinogens found in even higher concentrations than tobacco cigarettes like formaldehyde. The source then states that the FDA has found carcinogens at detectable levels. The source also claims no adverse effects have ever been reported which is obvious bullshit.
I think some of these sources need to be dumped and replaced with more up to date studies from better journals. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the removal of sourced information is unacceptable within a 5 year limit. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, if something hasnt been found, we cant look into the future for what "might" be found. The article already reads like a medical journal and is full of "uncertain", "unknown", and "unclear" statements. The negative pov is so prominent it is a problem. None of the chemicals you mention is missing, they are on a page that was broken out called Safety of electronic cigarettes. Unfortunately that page will likely be swamped with non WP:MEDRS secondary sources and formaldehyde claims on that page because of sensationalism and poor methodology (as Dr Farsalinos has pointed out) that the news has jumped on. AlbinoFerret 02:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both. Could we refocus on the first paragraph please?—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, do you have any specific changes? AlbinoFerret 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I can draft something if you like? Means I won't be closing any more RfCs here, but hey ho. :-)—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
With the limited amount of closers that may not be a good idea in the long run. I have read the first paragraph, and like most of the article it is bloated. In fact the whole lede is bloated. something as simple as
An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking.[1] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.[5] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.[3] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine.[6]
might be better. AlbinoFerret 14:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here's my effort:

E-cigarettes are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vapourised by a heating element. The user inhales this vapour, which usually contains nicotine and flavourings. Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges for this liquid and so can be reused, although there are some disposable models.

In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odour, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

Any good?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on the inaccuracies you mentioned. I see these:
  • "roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic" This may be ok for first generation e-cigs but not second and third which commonly have components made of glass and metal. They are also larger and dont use the same form of a tobacco cigarette.
  • "Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges" again, this is a first generation device, second and third to not use cartridges.
  • "although medical sources are cautious about these claims." not all medical sources are cautious, some have already stated that use in harm reduction (for those who are addicted to nicotine and cant or wont quit tobacco) there is a good reason to use them.
This was just from a quick reading. AlbinoFerret 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think AF's is better than yours S.M. simply because yours actually contains some inaccuracies. Most e-cigs are larger than a cigarette by a significant margin, contain more metal than plastic. Typically a button is required to activate rather than a puff. The second paragraph is pretty good.
Preceeding unsigned comment by SPACKlick

AF, also remember that we have to generalise to some extent to keep the lead simple even if cartridge is not always technically correct. I think you will find that the vast majority of medical sources are naturally cautious, regardless of whether they are mainly supportive of the technology or not. AF's idea is the same as what we already have, with a couple of lines removed. I think that User:S Marshall's idea is more descriptive and informative, in fact very well written, disinterested and impartial as it should be. Just need to replace

They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic.

To be replaced with:

They vary in physical shape and size and are often made of plastic and metal.

Levelledout (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thats better. I can agree to let the medical experts line go, for the reason you mentioned. But how about a slight change to the cartridges line to "E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges". AlbinoFerret 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So basically remove "Most e-cigarettes have" and replace with "E-cigarettes can have? Yeah I have no issue with that since it's more accurate.Levelledout (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the rest of the line stays. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think SM's wording is better and raises a very important issue that AF's editorial comments address. Many devices after first generation eCigs are less eCigs and more PV's. This could be considered semantical, but is akin to saying a cigar is a cigarette or vice versa. Both have strong similarities, but both are generally kept distinct as two different type of products, consumed by different group of users (generally speaking). I would also note that most of the scientific studies (sourced on the article page) are using first generation devices or ones that operate like them. Lumping everything together in one big article is doable, but continues to be a challenge because a) they are distinct devices and b) users of more advanced gear tend to harp on items that may not be the case with first generation-like devices (i.e. advanced gear is ideal for smoking cessation). If the goal here is to shorten up the lead, present info on what an eCig is and stay away from what an eCig is not, then I'd prefer SM's wording. But if goal is to be as comprehensive as possible with all current devices that could plausibly fall under the eCig umbrella and present an article that tries to cover everything, including all political angles, then I would think we'd continue in vein that is already existing. And continue in vain attempt to appease pro-cessation crowd mixed with anti-tobacco (or tobacco control) crowd. Gw40nw (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, so I've made those changes, lightly copyedited and reduced the beautiful spellings of Her Majesty's English down to the simplified American dialect used in this article. I get:

    E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes, and are made of metal and plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vaporized by a heating element. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges for this liquid and most can be reused, although there are some disposable models.

    In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

Any better?—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I would still prefer "They vary in size" but will accept "they are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes" since the vast majority probably are larger than a standard size cigarette to some degree or other. I may just be nit-picking on that point, over all it looks pretty good.Levelledout (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the "They vary in size" is important, because most cigalikes (first generation devices that look like a tobacco cigarette) are larger than a combustible cigarette. Leaving out the vary in size ignores the second and third generation. Another note for accuracy, cartridges for the most part are not refillable, while some may refill them, they are not designed to be refilled. Cartridges are meant to be unscrewed and disposed of. Being able to refill really started in the second generation with clearomizer tanks. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "They vary in size" gives the uninformed reader no useful information at all, so it's better to remove the phrase completely. I'll also tweak the "taking a puff" sentence and the "cartridges" sentence to remove inaccuracies that have been pointed out during this discussion, which gives me:

    E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.

    In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.

Are we nearly there, do you think?—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The last one was OK by me and this one, being an improvement, is obviously also fine.Levelledout (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, though they may need to be combined into one paragraph to satisfy the restrictions on the lede size. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"they are considerably cheaper to use."
Which ref supports this?
"E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims."
Oppose this wording. Health effects are discussed in the second paragraph. We want the evidence not the marketing claims first.
"Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers."
Some refs are reporting that a fair number of users have never used cigs. Thus maybe most. But this is discussed in the 4th paragraph.
"The user inhales this vapor"
Not a vapor technically but an aerosol.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
We will need refs to support this content as it is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Please provide language in the article and source that says most e-cig users have never smoked cigs. The forth paragraph says "About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers". AlbinoFerret 04:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It would seem odd that you have chosen to describes the words of an up until now, heavily active uninvolved editor as "marketing claims". I put it to you that the claims made would not be particularly controversial to most people without a heavy interest in the subject and in many cases qualify as obvious facts.Levelledout (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As an example you oppose the wording ""E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes". Yet it is patently obvious that most users think they are healthier since that's the reason that they use the product. And hardly "controversial" that manufacturers think they are healthier either.Levelledout (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Doc James' view is reasonable and I was hoping he'd weigh in.

1) Are e-cigarettes cheaper?
This will obviously depend on the tax treatment of tobacco in any particular jurisdiction. In June 2013, here in the UK, e-cigarettes were about 20% cheaper to use than conventional cigarettes (source, source). In other jurisdictions the difference will vary, but I think cost is a major motivator for people to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

2) Marketing claims
There are no marketing claims in my draft and I emphatically deny any connection with the e-cigarette industry. My motivation in writing this draft is exactly as I posted right at the start of this discussion: "rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why". The "why" part of that is the key one here. If you're under the impression that it's a good idea to start an article about e-cigarettes with the criticisms of them, then I disagree with you. A thorough criticism section belongs in the article. It doesn't belong in the first couple of paragraphs.

3) Vapor vs aerosol
The lead needs to be a non-technical introduction to the subject for the curious and intelligent, but uninformed, reader. An "aerosol", to the uninformed, is a kind of spray can. "Vapor", to the uninformed, is a suspension of droplets. I think we can, and should, go into this later and explain why aerosol is the correct technical term, but I think that the lead needs to be the view from 30,000 feet, and will therefore necessarily not be strictly accurate on all the details.

I hope this clarifies?—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much what is often said on here but the inflammatory way in which its said, which I commend you for not reacting to. In any case you don't need to look far to realise that all of the things requested are backed up by MEDRS sources that are already in the article:
  • Claim: "they are considerably cheaper to use."
  • Public Health England: "Electronics cigarettes... are relatively inexpensive"
  • Claim:""E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims."
  • Caponnetto:"Users report buying them to help quit smoking, to reduce cigarette consumption, to relieve tobacco withdrawal symptoms due to workplace smoking restrictions and to continue to have a ‘smoking’ experience but with reduced health risks"
  • Grana: "Grana and Ling 3 reviewed 59 ­single-brand e-cigarette retail Web sites in 2012 and found that the most popular claims were that the products are healthier (95%)"
  • Incidentally, Caponnetto even goes as far themselves as to say: "Smokers who decide to switch to electronic cigarettes instead of continuing to smoke would achieve large health gains."
  • Claim: "Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers."
  • Grana: "All population-based studies of adult use show the highest rate of e-cigarette use among current smokers, followed by former smokers, with little use among nonsmokers"
  • Claim: "The user inhales this vapor"
  • Public Health England: "Electronic cigarettes typically comprise a re-chargeable lithium ion battery, and a battery powered atomiser which produces vapour... Not all electronic cigarettes include nicotine; some simply produce vapour for inhalation"
  • Many medical sources use "vapour" exclusively, a couple like Grana point out that this is not technically correct.
  • Furthermore there was a fairly recent RFC on this topic which decided that either vapor or aerosol was fine to use, regardless of what word a particular source uses.Levelledout (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We still have two paragraphs. Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear [1] These changes mix content in later paragraphs in the first paragraph (two paragraphs?). The first paragraph should just discuss contruction.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We could just simply replace the first two paragraphs in the lead with the two being suggested, which would help to simplify and shorten a lead that is currently complicated and confused. This would be my preferred option. Alternatively the paragraphs could also be combined into one by dropping the paragraph tag and the text would still flow perfectly well. "Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear" is probably roughly correct and is represented in this proposal with "medical sources are cautious about these claims". However, reviews also remark that users and manufacturers think they are healthier. Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's. Certainly the medical reviewers of the likes of Grana and Caponnetto thought these were prominent enough to include in their reviews and I'm pretty sure that these opinions are also voiced in the mainstream media. I can find no suggestion that only construction should be discussed in the first paragraph at WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"

The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic

Levelledout (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the lede as it is now is overly complex and way to detailed. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose simplifying the first paragraph to:

An electronic cigarette (also known as e-cig, e-cigarette, personal vaporizer or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking.[1] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.[2] This produces an aerosol,[3][4] which is frequently referred to as vapor.[4] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.[3] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine.[5] They may be single use or refillable.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That appears to be almost the exact same thing that is in the article. AlbinoFerret
I think its a bit of an improvement. As Marshall states, the old version suffers from the "what e-cigarettes are not" syndrome. They aren't a lot of things, but that isn't how they should be defined.
I tend to disagree with Marshall though on the statement "Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's." Wikipedia does and should represent the opinions of competent authorities, especially on medical topics per WP:RS/MC.
"Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.""
We don't include the opinion of horticulturalists on the subject of surgery, nor that of chemists on the subject of world history. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but having an opinion does not make one a reliable source for medical or other technical information. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes because chemists and world history is a great analogy for e-cigarette users and e-cigarettes isn't it? It is simply hard to believe that it is being claimed that e-cigarette users' reasons for using e-cigarettes are irrelevant to an article about e-cigarettes. Yet the medical community's opinions are relevant. Even though that same medical community considers these views relevant and includes them in their research.Levelledout (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the opinions are in the medical research, and are therefore sourced to MEDRS sources the argument falls flat. Its an argument about something that isnt being done. AlbinoFerret 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes the arguments being presented might fall flat, but the intended effect is achieved. The previously active steps towards consensus and compromise are averted and the discussion instead heads towards no consensus, the non-negotiable WP:NPOV effectively being disregarded for other policies seemingly considered more important.Levelledout (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep precisely the same thing with the odd insignificant word swapped and "They may be single use or refillable" stuck on the end of it. In other words although the points raised above challenging what is wrong with the previous suggestion have not been answered, the editor simply wants to keep the original for an unknown reason.Levelledout (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree with Marshall though on the statement "Wikipedia represents all prominent opinions, not just the medical community's."----This quote is misattributed. I did not say this, and I've never said it. But my position is that e-cigarettes are not medical devices, and they're not available on prescription or recommended for therapeutic use. We need to give priority to the medical community's view only insofar as the article makes medical claims.

    I'm not keen on DocJames' version, which gives in great detail the exact chemical names and technical terms by which the vapour is produced, without making any attempt to explain what e-cigarettes are, who uses them or why they do it.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with S Marshall that eCigs are not medical devices and that medical community's view comes into play when an article is overtly conveying medical related information about the topic. The lead need not do this, precisely because current medical information is unclear, inconclusive. Where it is not so unclear, it is biased. Our talk pages are full of those biases which amount to some editors wanting to tout eCigs as smoking cessation tools or other editors wanting to tout eCigs as potentially harmful based on claims from anti-smoking propagandist. There's a place for all that to occur, but not in the lead paragraph of what an eCig is, so that a reader gets an idea of what they are before getting entrenched in the ongoing political battle over what they could be. Gw40nw (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 95% of what you say including the bit about the lead. However you say that "Our talk pages are full of those biases which amount to some editors wanting to tout eCigs as smoking cessation tools or other editors wanting to tout eCigs as potentially harmful based on claims from anti-smoking propagandist". It isn't quite as clear cut as that, no doubt there are at least a few editors on both sides trying to do that. But on what is frequently accused of being the "e-cig advocate" side, there are a good number of editors who want neither, instead simply wanting all sides of the debate described proportionally instead of exclusively the medico-cynical one. On the MED side of the debate, I see little appetite for that, I only see the opinion that the article should be treated as a medical one, e-cigs should be treated as medical devices and that therefore only the medical community's opinions (and organisations that derive their opinions directly from the medical community) should be allowed into any part of the article. With a few of these editors, but by no means all, this is even restricted to those sections of the medical community that are sufficiently cynical enough about the technology. This is what causes the problems since this article's subject is not a type of medical treatment and Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV and informative, not partisan and persuasive. I apologise for going off-topic but this needs saying since we very rarely make any significant progress towards consensus on here.Levelledout (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
We use medical sources for health care content. We do not allow non medical sources to make medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm certainly not disagreeing with that a basic premise. But the main reason other sources are excluded from making medical claims is presumably on the grounds of public safety and consequent legal reasons, not simply as an excuse to promote one particular point of view over another on any subject. So it has to be weighed and balanced against other policies, some of which are non-negotiable, not just simply pursued at all costs without even common sense applied which is often what seems to happen.Levelledout (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, it's basic common sense. It's not just on grounds of public safety. Homeopathic remedies, for example, won't do you any harm at all if you take them, so there are no public safety grounds why we'd insist on medical sources. When it comes to homeopathic remedies we'd insist on medical sources simply because the non-medical sources are, all too often, a tissue of lies written by people with a commercial motive for concealing the truth.

But I think it's important to restrict the reliance on medical sources to the actual medical claims. I mean, to take this to ludicrous extremes, if we wrote an article about cars based on medical sources, then it'd go something like: Cars are petrol-powered devices that emit toxic chemicals. They are the single largest cause of accidental death in the western world. By far the majority of hospital admissions caused by cars involve blunt force trauma... and we might get a few paragraphs about transporting people from place to place halfway down the article.

I'm being a bit facetious but the e-cig article genuinely does have this problem. It goes into details about toxins and harms before describing the essential purpose of the device.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that analogy SM, that's exactly the right way to look at it. I really like the slightly simplified lead and believe the whole article would be improved if that attitude were taken more often. SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The whole article suffers from over reliance on medical sources as S Marshall pointed out in his analogy, it reads like a medical journal. What better place to start fixing it than at the top. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, my position is that the sections about medical claims do not suffer from over-reliance on medical sources and in fact I'll argue for the removal of phrases such as "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes", because I don't think we have enough medical evidence to say that in Wikipedia's voice. (We might say things like, "Sources X, Y and Z claim that e-cigarettes may be safer than traditional cigarettes" instead. That's a discussion for later.) In this discussion I'm trying to separate the parts of this article that should be written based on medical sources on the one hand, from the parts of the article that should be written from general sources on the other.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall You might want to consider where "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes" is located. Its part of the daughter page Safety of Electronic cigarettes. On that page the line is completely dwarfed by negative statements. That page/section has been bloated beyond belief since it was moved. AlbinoFerret 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, this is what I get for losing focus on the lead. Let's worry about that first. :)—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
My thinking would be along the lines that if somebody is given advice to take homeopathic "medicine" for an infection, this could be potentially dangerous, even though the homeopathic treatment would not do any direct harm in itself. I have almost zero interest in homeopathy which is a theory of nothing in my opinion. But if it was up to me, an article about homeopathy would at some point, explain why most people use homeopathic medicine, why the medical community thinks that these reasons are effectively based on nonsense and it would be made clear that there is zero evidence to support any claims about homeopathy being effective. If you do not explain why people take homeopathic "medicines", then the counter-claims are almost meaningless and the article ends up looking confused and failing to include a basic description of the subject.Levelledout (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to User:Doc_James' comments mis-posted in the sourcing section below:

  • User:AlbinoFerret, please combine the two paragraphs into one then we won't have any more complaints about two paragraphs being used.
  • The bit about it sounding like an advert, it is simply a statement of fact. We are allowed to say things that might be perceived as being positive about a technology if it happens to be true. Your bet that this would not be the case globally is original research, please stick to what the sources say. Both Grana and PHE attribute cheap cost to the main reasons for use.
  • "This is undue weight..." - we need to explain the reasons that people use the technology, cost and suspected health benefits are two of the main reasons as identified by WP:MEDRS sources such as Grana. Why not suggest a rephrasing of sentence if you aren't happy with the wording?
  • "Usage is already discussed in the usage section" - So are the health effects, I don't see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talkcontribs) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Since Grana is the report for the WHO, I cant think of a more global perspective when dealing with cost as a reason. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Break for editing convenience

  • Here's a re-edited version that attempts to address DocJames' concerns.

    E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.

    In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use. Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers.

Is this an improvement?—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see this as improvement as it is simplifying things. Editors of this page ought to realize by now that the rest of the article will not be overly simplified like the lead is, but that the lead needs to be because all the sourced information is either inconclusive or caught up in a propaganda battle. So, the lead ought to really strive to present a simplified introduction of "what is an e-cigarette."
My only dispute, and perhaps it is minor, is that I'd prefer to see "user" replaced with "use" and make it less focussed on the person. Emphasize the product to help simplify the presentation. Example, "typically, an e-cigarette is activated by taking a puff or pressing a button on the device." I also don't think "and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use" is necessary. The observational differences between an e-cigarette and combustible cigarette are: 1) less odor (wording we have is fine), 2) no ash and 3) no side-stream vapor as the heating element is not constantly activated as a combustible cigarette is. Whether we mention any or all of these is TBD. The parts of "some users" and "medical sources" are items I'd rather see removed from the lead. And mostly because it introduces the controversy that I'm fairly certain (now) that editors of the page want to have on this article page, but need not be present in the lead. If truly deemed necessary in the opening paragraph(s) of what is an eCig, then I would propose a third paragraph that is distinct from what previous paragraphs were intending to do: present a simple understanding of what an e-cigarette actually is. Gw40nw (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm. WP:SILENCE. Either there are no objections left or else I've exhausted the objectors. I have no way to know which.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't find medical material that claims e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes. In fact the opposite is the case. While there is debate on how much less harmful they are, there really isn't a debate on them being at least somewhat less harmful. --Kim D. Petersen 13:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If most / all users continue with duel use than they are not less harmful.
Do not see this an an improvement over what we currently have Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, the WHO 2014 report said that duel users would have less benefits than quitting completely. Not that there were no benefits. As KimDabelsteinPetersen pointed out, the argument isnt "if" there is less harm, but how much less. AlbinoFerret 06:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As far as I can see there isn't an argument. There's a lack of data, which rather understandably means a significant proportion of the scientific community is unwilling to comment. I think it's well established that using NRT (which gives the nicotine without all the other harmful stuff that's in cigarettes) is better than smoking, and on this basis a few medical sources are speculating that e-cigarettes may possibly turn out not to be a completely terrible idea. What isn't established is whether there are any other harms from using e-cigarettes. For all we know they might contain chemicals that future doctors will realise are as harmful as lead and CFCs. (Probably not, though...)

I don't think that this Wikipedia article should suggest that e-cigarettes are a good idea on health grounds, and I'm trying to be careful not to imply that in the lead.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the uncertainty. There is loads of uncertainty as to how dangerous, or safe e-cigarettes are. But there is not a lot of uncertainty on them being safer than cigarettes. And we are not talking about "a few medical sources are speculating" - it is a common theme throughout all of the reviews that we have that e-cigarettes are considered safer than cigarettes... how much safer? No one knows .. but certainly safer. We can go through the reviews one by one if you want (which i don't think we have time for), but to address my point: Which review considers e-cigarettes less safe than cigarettes? If there is no such review, then we have to consider that reviews generally consider them safer. --Kim D. Petersen 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Ie. safer != safe, less harmfull != harmless --Kim D. Petersen 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. What the draft says is in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. I submit that this is accurate.—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes S Marshall, unclear, but not non existent. I dont think non existent is what you are thinking, if so please comment on it. I think this is a tangent that serves no purpose. Some people though do get the difference between safe/safer and less harmful/harmless mixed up, I wonder why though in some cases. Tobacco Harm Reduction is a major reason for use and the health sources are backing it up, though rather slowly, 2013/2014 seems to be a turning point to looking at THR. AlbinoFerret 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"... X thinks it is safer, although Y thinks it is unclear" - what sentiment to you gather from such a sentence structure? I'm in agreement with most of the text except that particular part. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of it looks OK. Criticisms:
  • "within the body of the device" seems unnecessary.
  • I think legality is at least as important as cost, so maybe "In some jurisdictions they are cheaper to use; in others, they are illegal", unless you can think of a better place? A link to a table of which jurisdictions might also be helpful, and we could probably compile one without too much debate :) . Legal status of electronic cigarettes is a bit disorganized and out-of-date, and could do with graphics for areas other than Europe.
  • Both legality and cost seem more important than odor, and less important than medical benefit and risk. Generally, I'd say more important stuff should go first, in lede style.
  • "Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear." I agree with Mr. Petersen here. First, the balance of medical evidence takes precedence over the feelings of users if we are discussing medical risks and benefits. The feelings of users are irrelevant to the actual risks and benefits, though not irrelevent to the reasons people take up vaping. How about splitting the two, to get: "Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is unclear." Is this true? Do we really have no idea if they are likely to be safer? If we have some, how about "...but the medical evidence for this is weak" (indicating that there is some evidence for it).
  • I think the harm-reduction/harmless difference is also important (since there are some non-smokers who take up e-cigs), so we might want "E-cigarettes are not harmless, but their full medical effects are not yet known.". Is that a fair assessment of the evidence?
  • I think we should mention bystander effects (other than odor) and put odor in the "user experience" section.
  • "Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004." My impression is that the rate of increase has been increasing. Most new technologies increase in use exponentially. Do we have data or a graph to check this?
So:

E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.

E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing (exponentially?) since the first models were marketed in 2004.

HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
A few things. So far no harm has been found to my knowledge. Its all concerns and unknowns at this point. So saying it is not harmless really isnt supported. The reasons why people may use them is sourced to medical sources, so its removal is questionable. The source isnt weak, but the one of the most used sources on the page. At present there are no known risks, again its all concerns and unknowns. As far as safety is concerned, there is evidence that they are safer than combustible cigarettes. The controversy is how much safer. This has been covered in this discussion. If you look below in the next section you will see a start at what has been sourced, all to review articles and already in the article. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I broadly agree with HLHJ's well-reasoned changes.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I can't see why legality is such an issue? It is only illegal in very few places, so it seems undue to focus on this. And AlbinoFerret has a point with the fact that no harm has actually been established.. it is reasonable to assume that there would be some to the user, but we certainly can't state it this way, and most certainly can't make claims about second-hand harm. To illustrate: All second hand emissions found so far, are below limits set for work-place standards.. lots of speculation exist in the literature, but no actual tangible evidence. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly, and the proposed edit actually states speculation as fact. AlbinoFerret 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Break

I think we might be getting too bogged down with singular statements and words here, the proposal has already been edited several times to encompass editors' concerns. Are we in agreement that the proposal is, broadly speaking, an overall improvement on what we have at the moment? We can agree to sort out the minor details at a later date. We also need to answer DocJames' question (see sourcing section) of whether we are intending to replace the first paragraph or the first two paragraphs of the lead.Levelledout (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to replace the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, we do not need two paragraphs on the health implications. Parts of the current 2nd paragraph could possibly be combined with the 3rd which needs trimming and simplifying.Levelledout (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourced Version

Added after one comment: This section is for sourcing, please make edit suggestions of complaints in the section above. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have started sourcing out some of the claims.

E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking.[1] They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button.[6] This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device.[6] The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings.[7] Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models. In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use[7]. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims.[3][1] Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004.[8] Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.[3]

But we will probably need more. Point one out, and I will add it here. AlbinoFerret 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of issues
This sounds like an ad "considerably cheaper to use" when it is not at all clear that this is true globally (my bet is it isn't)
This is undue weight "E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes"
This is not the position of most organizations "although medical sources are cautious about these claims"
The current summary that "the benefits and risk of e-cigs are unclear" is a more accurate summary
Usage is already discussed lower in the lead.
Additionally it is not clear why we are replacing one paragraph with two? This suggestion contravenes WP:LEADDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This section is for sourcing, if you have edit suggestions or problems please make them above. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
They're not unreasonable suggestions so I'll post a re-edited version above.—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to keep this section on a specific purpose so the discussion above doesnt fragment and happen in different places. As soon as you work through the issues I will repost it here and move the sources in. AlbinoFerret
Still not clear if this is to replace the first paragraph or first two paragraphs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
User: ‎S Marshall you still have not clarified what your proposal plan to replace? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Oh, sorry. In my mind it would replace the first paragraph. If someone quibbles about the technical breach of WP:LEADLENGTH in having five opening paragraphs, then we could always remove another paragraph break somewhere in the lead, but I'd prefer to have five paragraphs in the lead until we reach consensus on how to improve paragraphs #2, #3, #4 and #5.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Still a fair number of issues IMO:
  • I would remove "and they are considerably cheaper to use[7]" as this is not globally representative. Or at least the ref in question does not support this globally.
  • This should not be in the first paragraph "E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes" maybe in the 4th. It is marketing and an indication of how well said marking has worked
  • "Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers." is already in the 4th paragraph so why duplicate it
  • "Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004" this is also already covered in the 4th paragraph
  • This " although medical sources are cautious about these claims." is already covered in the secondary paragraph
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c 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. Cite error: The named reference "Caponnetto2012" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ a b c d 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.
  4. ^ a b 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.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Hayden McRobbie, National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, 2014. Electronic cigarettes
  7. ^ a b c Britton, John; Bogdanovica, Ilze (15 May 2014). "Electronic cigarettes – A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). Public Health England.
  8. ^ Farsalinos KE, Spyrou A, Tsimopoulou K, Stefopoulos C, Romagna G, Voudris V (2014). "Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: Comparison between first and new-generation devices". Scientific Reports. 4: 4133. doi:10.1038/srep04133. PMC 3935206. PMID 24569565.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Doc James wrote: This should not be in the first paragraph "E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes" maybe in the 4th. It is marketing and an indication of how well said marking has worked
I think this needs to be very high up. True or not, it's in effect the principal reason for e-cigarettes to exist, and be used - the article needs to make it clear *why* people are interested in this alternative to the cigarette in the first place. Barnabypage (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The principle reason e-cigs exist is because they are financially successful. This is capitalism. These products are not being supplied by a NGO or government. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
And the reason they have the potential to be financially successful is that people want to buy them. And the reason people want to buy them is (largely, though there are other reasons) because they're perceived as being less harmful than combustibles. This is not a pro-vaping argument I'm making, or a comment on their actual health merits - it's a suggestion that the article should tell the reader early on why the products exist, what the point of them is. Barnabypage (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a point that's been made several times before. I don't think Doc James accepts it, but my impression is that most other posters seem to.—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Per discussion above, please replace entire first paragraph with:

E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.

E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004.

Requested by —S Marshall T/C 11:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is not a summary of the body and according to the discussion above has no consensus. Replacing sourced text with unsourced text is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You're seriously going to insist on an RFC to establish a consensus for this?—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
No, hopefully we don't need to go that far. This change is absolutely inferior when compared to existing content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not supported by consensus or sources. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a long standing consensus for references in the lede. The proposal is counterproductive and does not adequately summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not see this as an improvement. It expands the lead to 5 paragraphs. Much of what is in these two paragraphs is already in the lead and thus it ends up duplicating content. It makes the lead more complicated not less complicated. Not a big fan of this sentence "In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes" The ref we have so far just supports the UK. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I despair. The current version of the article starts by telling the reader what e-cigarettes aren't and what they don't contain. Isn't that unsatisfactory to you? In what sense is the current version "simpler" than the ordered sequence of positive, declarative sentences produced during a month-long discussion above? How is it desirable to crystallise the horrible hodge-podge we have now? Do you not see that every sentence in the proposed draft can be and has been sourced?—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
First sentence currently is " is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking" which could be "are electronic devices which have a similar feel and effect as tobacco smoking"
IMO this sentence is not needed "Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants"
This sentence "They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol,[3][4] which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" should be reworded as "They produce an aerosol,[3][4] which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor, rather than cigarette smoke"
Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the current lede is too incoherent to be a good starting point for the article, and I think we should start again from scratch. I think the sequence should be (1) what e-cigs are for (a non-therapeutic device that aims to replace cigarettes), (2) what e-cigs are (plastic and metal tubes with various named components), (3) how they work (press the button and draw on the device), and (4) why people use them (but without ever saying or implying that e-cigarettes have any health benefits of any kind).—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We should try to keep different content organized in different paragraphs. Current paragraph one describes what they are. I do not think we should add a bunch of other stuff to it. That will make it more confusing not less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • With respect to cost one can likely say they are less expensive in some developed countries. In Thailand for example traditional cigs are 65 cents (20BT) a pack or 220 dollars a year. E-cigs appear to be about $800. In Thailand they are still expensive.[2] None of these sources are good enough for the article of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • At the moment the draft says "In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes". We could insert "developed" before "jurisdictions" if that would make that particular sentence acceptable to you?

    I agree, by the way, that if we do get consensus for this draft so many editors have contributed to, there would be redundancies/duplication with the rest of the lede. I think the rest of the lede would need revising. I haven't started that process because it was already like wading through treacle trying to get a broad agreement from the majority of editors just to do the first paragraph.—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The draft does not summarise the body and the lede should have sources that support the text. No original research should be added to the lede. I don't see any major problem with the current lede. If you want to add a sentence to the lede it should be in the body first. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, QuackGuru, welcome to the discussion. You suggest that the draft is unsourced and includes original research, which indicates to me that you haven't read the preceding thread. I suggest that you do so carefully before participating any further. If you don't see any major problems with the current lede, then I would recommend re-reading that too.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Your proposal removes a bunch of sources from the lede, among other problems that were previously explained. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────If that's your objection, imagine I sourced it using the sources in the discussion above. Would you still object?

The only "other problem that was previously explained" was CFCF's contention that the edit was "not supported by consensus". A month ago, it was. Now I find the whole talk page is populated only by people who want to retain the article in its current, profoundly unsatisfactory state, and who have yet to give their reasons for this position, which is making me tired.

A big part of the problem here is that there's a pro e-cig camp and an anti e-cig camp who're fighting each other on AN/I and I'm starting to wonder if I'm being misidentified as a meatpuppet. I'm not, I'm just a good faith editor who thinks the current lede is utterly crap.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because I also explained it does not summarise the body. Numerous editors worked on improving the lede. We don't throw out a very well written lede and start from scratch. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's preposterous to call that lede "very well written". Ridiculous.—S Marshall T/C 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it could use improvements. Just disagree that this is that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes in the UK could go in the 4th paragraph. Maybe along with a statement that they are a 7 Billion dollar US market. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done: Much as I sympathise with S Marshall here, I couldn't with conscience claim that the proposed edit has a consensus based on the comments here. I wonder if the best solution might be to reduce the protection to semi-protection before the full protection expires in a few days' time, and block anybody who starts edit-warring... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't do that. In view of the issues here I think it's right that this article should be fully protected and we should consider extending the full protection. The version that's protected is a problem, but it's less of a problem than open season would be.—S Marshall T/C 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Mr. Stradivarius, I support semi-protection. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am with S Marshall on this one. Extended full protection is think is a good idea. Likely a good chance the socks will reappear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost text found in the archives

Taxes/International Affairs

Taxes on E-Cigarettes

Taxes on e-cigarettes are relatively under-developed as the products are still young. Minnesota and North Carolina have actually levied a tax on e-cigarette tobacco vapor products such as “juice”; Minnesota is at 95% of the wholesale value [1]. and republican Governor Pat McCrory in North Carolina has levied a similar, yet much more modest, tax of $0.05 per milliliter. Though the taxes have some opposition, both democrats and republicans have generally accepted them.[2] New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) headlined a significant sin tax on electronic cigarettes in May 2014. [3] Also, Philadelphia is considering a $2.00 tax on e-cigarettes where revenue would go to a general fund predominately used for schools.[4]

But not all states are passing e-cigarette taxes. In 2013, Utah defeated HB372, which was a tax increase on e-cigarettes and nicotine candies and made it illegal to sell to minors less than 19 years old. [5] These taxes are being met with much concern. Opponents say the blossoming industry will be suppressed by the high taxes, and without much evidence of negative health effects, the taxes are seen as unnecessary. Proponents of the tax claim e-cigarette flavors are enticing children to use e-cigarettes, ultimately undoing decades of anti-smoking headway. Many lawmakers imposing these taxes cite youth smoking deterrence and monetary aid in offsetting the public cost of medical care for ill-fated smokers, similar to the big tobacco bonds from the ‘90s. Taxes might shift tobacco sales to online or out of state. When Utah increased its tax on (traditional) tobacco win 2010, data showed smuggling across state lines as a way to dodge the imposed tax. The same phenomenon is happening in the e-cigarette market. If taxes are imposed, brick and mortar vendors will face online competition with lower overhead costs.[6]

  1. ^ http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/businesses/tobacco/Pages/e-Cig.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H1050v6.pdf
  3. ^ Dawsey, Josh. "New Jersey E-Cigarettes Tax Plan Has Some Fuming." The Wall Street Journal(2014).Online.wsj.com.Web.1Dec.2014.<http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-jersey-e-cigarettes-tax-plan-has-some-fuming-1402452638>.
  4. ^ DeHuff, Jenny. "A Tarriff on E-toking?" Philly.com.17Oct.2014.Web.1Dec.2014. <http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-17/news/55152311_1_e-cigs-city-council-tariff>.
  5. ^ Montero, David. "House Shoots down E-cigarette Tax." The Salt Lake Tribune 11 Mar. 2013.Web.1Dec.2014.<http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55988994-90/cigarettes-measure-failed-flavors.html.csp>.
  6. ^ Davidson, Lee. "High Utah Tobacco Tax Boosts Smuggling." The Salt Lake Tribune 3 Apr.2013.Web.1Dec.2014.<http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55606865-90/tax-smuggling-utah-cigarette.html.csp>.

Worldwide Acceptance of E-Cigarettes

Throughout the world, electronic cigarettes are impacting local governments. The following chronology exemplifies the tumultuous beginnings of this blossoming industry. The conventional tobacco market, as we know, it is on its heels. For example, in 2009, Brazil issued regulations to prohibit the sale and import of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette advertising restrictions. On March 27th, 2009, Canada banned the sale of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine products. In June 2009, Panama banned the import of electronic cigarettes products. In July 2009, the Israeli Ministry of Health banned the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In January 2010, the Maltese consumer electronic cigarette ban in public places, and to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. In July 2010, Singapore introduced regulations to prohibit the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In May 2011, Argentina enacted regulations that prohibit the import, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes. In November 2011, the Greek electronic banned cigarette sales and consumption.[1]

Convenience stores are accountable for more than half of the sale of e-cigarettes. Smoke shops command 22% of e-cigarette sales, and online e-tailers account for about 20%, and 2% are sold in other channels. Since 2008, electronic cigarette prices began to decline, with sales doubling each year.[2] According to the U.S. “Times” recently reported that sales of electronic cigarettes is less than 1% of the tobacco market. But over the past four years, the growth of electronic cigarettes is very robust, doubling every year.[3] Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog says that, "as technology continues to improve, the electronic cigarette market will exceed real cigarette market in the next 10 years. Sales of e-cigarettes are estimated to surpass one billion dollars by 2017".[4] The future of the electronic cigarette market is expected to reach 30% annual growth rate; and more than half of e-cigarette buyers are repetitive smokers, rather than new users. The biggest attractions of electronic cigarettes are perceived lower health risks, lower prices, and the “freshness” of vapor compared to smoke.

  1. ^ Electronic Cigarettes - Global Legal Status." Electronic Cigarettes - Global Legal Status. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
  2. ^ “Tobacco fact sheet.” Washington D.C.: Legacy for Health, 2014. Web.
  3. ^ “Electronic cigarette sells the United States.” 2013, Web.
  4. ^ Herzog B, Gerberi J. Equity Research: E-Cigs Revolutionizing the Tobacco Industry. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC Equity Research Department; 2013.

I found this in the archives. QuackGuru (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We should have much of that in the article, but a lot of it is out-of-date now.
For example: current e-cig-specific tax regimes are in place in Minnesota, North Carolina, Portugal, Italy, South Korea. (Numerous U.S. states are also contemplating them.)
Canada didn’t really “ban” them in the normal sense, it’s a rather confused situation where Health Canada is asserting authority that it may or may not have, and not really acting to fully enforce that supposed authority; parliament has just taken the first steps toward regulating.
Implementation of the EU Tobacco Products Directive has started (Denmark, Netherlands ahead of the rest) and so the European picture is changing rapidly.
The retail picture is now very different in some countries (including the U.S.), with massive growth in the “other channels” - i.e. vape stores. Barnabypage (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Barnabypage, please edit the above sections and delete everything that is outdated. Maybe there is something that can be salvaged. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Adjustment needed

"Electronic cigarette sales increased from 50,000 in 2008 to 3.5 million in 2012.[21]" - This is of course just the US figure, sourced to USA Today. And rather meaningless if it just adds disposables to refillables, as it apparently does. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a talk about how much money changes hands likely more accurate. Sales for 2014 estimated at 7$ billion.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That Euromonitor figure isn't an unreasonable estimate, and - as you say - in a fast-developing market it's much more meaningful than a three-year-old figure for unit sales in one territory! Barnabypage (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality/ Slant/Missing Information

This entire article reads like it was written by the tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. as a 4 year user of vaping devices, (NOT e-cigarettes) I can tell you from my personal use that they are effective in quitting analogs. But like anything else you have to want to quit first.

I didn't see in the article where the toxicology of Chinese produced Propylene Glycol/Vegetable Glycerin was even mentioned. A tainted batch of Chinese made PG/VG caused a lot of people to get sick about 2 years ago. I didn't read anywhere that reputable purveyors use US/UK/GER produced pharmaceutical grade PG/VG, nicotine solution, and various flavorings. The best ones will have the MDS on the products they are selling you.

Some terminology was incorrect. Mods come in two basic flavors regulated and unregulated. Regulated are those mods that have variable settings, unregulated are the mechanical mods mentioned. But for the most part they are tubes or boxes.

Also the problem of mechanical mods having battery failure, sometimes catastrophically is not even mentioned. At least I didn't read anything about it. But that is caused primarily by folks with little or no knowledge allowing Murphy to get a foothold in the atomizer.2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)milspecsim2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

The word "often" failed verification

Second generation devices are often[original research?] used by more experienced users. See Electronic_cigarette#Device_generations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers)." Source. Don't know if there are any other sources that state similar things but remembered reading this.Levelledout (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You have confirmed the word failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect I am not going to enter into a futile debate with you over whether the word "often" is supported by the source or not. Go ahead and have it changed to a direct quote of the source then there can be no ambiguities. No doubt anything but a direct quote will "fail verification".Levelledout (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to add a quote instead. Changing a word or two can fix the apparent OR violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see my note in the section below regarding interpretation of concepts.Levelledout (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "some" failed verification

Some[original research?] users want to reduce harm from smoking.[78][4] See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction section. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-NHE2014_78-0. "Some users want to reduce harm from smoking?" This is a statement I can't verify. The source is about e-cigarette users mainly in the UK. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not original research and neither most likely, was the last example you provided. You need to clearly demonstrate how you believe it to be original research. It is however, poorly worded as in the text does not flow well.Levelledout (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I read the source and could not verify the claim. The part "some" is unsupported. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to get this straight, do you mean to say that because the source does not use the word "some" then it's original research to use "some" in the article?Levelledout (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I can tweak the text to improve the wording. I still can't verify the word "some" for that specific sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly you cannot verify the word "some" because it isn't in the source. But that does not make it original research. You seem to be seeking to verify every single word in a citation and match it to a word in the source or at the very least a synonym of that word. The trouble is that if you do that then you will find that everything is original research except for a direct quote or a close WP:PARAPHRASE. We cannot always use direct quotes and for copyright reasons close WP:PARAPHRASEs are best avoided. You definitely seem to be misinterpreting either the concepts of WP:OR, the concept of paraphrasing or the concepts/grammar involved in this individual instance. Copyright issues with your editing due to close paraphrasing have been raised with you in the past here and here which would seem to suggest that you do need to improve on understanding these issues. By all means go and ask questions at the relevant noticeboards to get a better understanding of the concepts involved, but until such time these types of claims would be best avoided.Levelledout (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protection over - chaos resumes

Full protection was ended a couple of days early, yesterday morning, not sure why. Anyway in the space of about 2 hours last afternoon 17 edits were made by one user including a vast 9k edit. With this volume of editing how is it even possible to in anyway keep up with the changes being made?

Some highlights from the 9k edit:

  • "An e-cigarette can be rigid and a bit bulky." - POV.
  • "A person does not typical use the whole cartridge of one e-cigarette in a single session." - poor grammar
  • "Though, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may give nicotine at amounts that are enough to substitute, at least to a certain extent, for traditional cigarettes." - What??
  • "They appear to be similar in toxicity to the use of other nicotine replacement products, but there is not enough data to draw conclusions." - "the use of" inserted for seemingly no reason.
  • "E-cigarette companies have a substantial online existence, many seemingly from individual vapers who spend time blogging and tweeting about the e-cigarette products.[1] They also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the tobacco industry." - this is from an editorial in the BMJ, an opinion piece, but now it's fact written in Wikipedia's voice. A clear as daylight violation of WP:NPOV and probably also WP:V since an editorial is not reliable for the reporting of fact.
  • Question: Is this volume of editing acceptable given the enormous amount of controversy surrounding this article, the fact that the neutrality is disputed, the fact that full page protection has just come off, etc, etc?Levelledout (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Protection changed by request from an editor who couldn't wait to dump his sandbox in the article. No surprise here.--TMCk (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a warning for everyone here - please discuss here rather than making unnecessary reverts, as otherwise I might be forced to make blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes we should develop consensus here slowly before implementing changes. Lets give this a couple of more days for people to comment before implementing [Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposed_changes_to_the_lead] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference McKee2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Is big tobacco taking over the e-cigarette market?

What percentage of the electronic cigarette market is dominated by big tobacco as of 2015? Of the major electronic cigarette companies what percentage is owned by tobacco industry companies. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't know figures (does anyone I wonder), but still fairly small I think. It's a very diffuse industry (except perhaps at the manufacturing end in China) with lots and lots of small players. Big baccy is buying some larger companies and trying to expand them by advertising. I think this may be working at the introductory cig look-alike end of the market, but less so at the refillable levels. This page from a wiki run by a UK academic tobacco control group (once funded by Cancer Research UK, so I have an interest), is recent, but actually suggests more activity in 2013 and early 2014. In the UK, one brand bought by big baccy, Nicolites, seems to me in fact to be losing ground in big supermarkets etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a source that summarises in general the percentage of major electronic cigarette companies is owned by big tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean the % of sector turnover I expect. I'd question whether decent figures for that exist, especially on a global basis. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The % of sector turnover or overall market share. I can't find anything. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent question and as far as I'm aware nobody has ever calculated a global figure. It would be difficult to do because of the extreme paucity of reliable data on sales in most countries.
For what it's worth, we (ECigIntelligence) estimate that about half the U.S. market is for cigalikes. Of that, the Big Tobacco big three probably owns about 60%. So that would be 30% of the total U.S. market. (That contrasts with about 90% in combustibles, but a huge proportion of that is Marlboro, a phenomenally successful brand to which there's no equivalent in e-cigs yet. Plus, of course, tobacco has had a lot longer to consolidate.)
The UK figure is likely to be broadly similar (PMI owns Nicolites, JTI owns E-Lites, Lorillard obviously owns Blu, BAT has Nicoventures and Vype, Imperial has Puritane).
In most other countries, it's likely less. That may change - for example, PMI is launching Solaris into European markets, as Imperial is launching Jai. JTI has also said it will produce an e-cig, presumably for the Japanese domestic market.
Going against the trend of (slow) expansion by Big Tobacco into more international e-cig markets is the trend toward tank etc. systems - Big Tob's products are mostly cigalikes of one kind or another. Barnabypage (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried to find a current source for the overall market presence of big tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I say, there probably isn't one in the sense of a Wiki reliable source - is that what you mean? If you're just looking for a general estimate for information, around 30% is probably a reasonable ballpark.
If you do find an estimate anywhere, be very careful to ensure that it is taking e-commerce and non-mainstream retail (e.g. vape stores) into account, because that's where Big Tobacco has much less presence and the non-Big-Tob suppliers have much more. So, a figure that (say) just covered supermarkets and convenience stores will give a distorted picture. Barnabypage (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The first thing to do is find an up-to-date source. Maybe it does not exist yet. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you will find a source that is all three of reliable, global and up-to-date. You'll find lots of vague talk (even in reliable-source publications) about Big Tobacco taking over the market, but it's usually U.S.-centric and unsupported by reliable numbers. Barnabypage (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Eventually there will be a reliable source covering this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll let you know if we get there first. :) Barnabypage (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Overall market share is indeed hard to find. According to this source Big Tobacco market share is 70% in U.S. convenience stores. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That sounds about right - I didn't follow the link but I assume it's based on the Nielsen Scantrack figures. Barnabypage (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you know your consumer product tracking :) It is Nielsen. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

New review

"Due to many methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, the relatively few and often small studies, the inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and the lack of long-term follow-up no firm conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs. However, they can hardly be considered harmless." [5]

Might be useful for mentioning the issues with conflict of interest in the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this part should come in "Serious methodological problems were identified. In 34% of the articles the authors had a conflict of interest." AlbinoFerret 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement that "they can hardly be considered harmless" seems uncontroversial to me and I would recommend that it's included in the article. E-cigarettes contain nicotine; nicotine isn't harmless; so e-cigarettes can hardly be considered harmless. QED.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
But not all PVs contain nicotine. There is a growing movement of 0mg nicotine users. Antiaverage (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The statement is speculation. AlbinoFerret 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No nicotine isn't harmless but neither is any drug/medicine, I doubt that we are going to make a point of saying "nicotine patches / NRT can hardly be considered harmless" or "ibuprofen can hardly be considered harmless" even though both are true. However the review uncovers some important facts and is a lot more neutral than some I have seen in the past, it also found significant conflicts of interests involving both the pharmaceutical industry and e-cigarettes companies, something I've suspected for sometime. It describes the main Harm Reduction vs Cessation debate going on within the medical community relatively well:

Health professionals who advocate “harm reduction” compare ECs with CCs, focus on smokers only, believe that ECs have no negative long-term health effects, that nicotine is a harmless recreational drug and that smokers are unwilling/unable to quit. These views are strongly supported by the EC/tobacco industry. On the other hand, health professionals working with public health point out that CCs are the most harmful legal products on the market (everything seems safe compared to smoking) and fear potential long-term health hazards. Other major concerns are that the product is spreading to never-smokers and ex-smokers, citizens unexposed to CCs, that many smokers have dual use (using both products) or switch instead of quitting, and that widespread EC-use will re-normalize smoking. This view is supported by the medical industry producing smoking cessation products.

Levelledout (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I don't agree with either of you. There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic. It's certainly not speculation to say so.

As far as Levelledout's point is concerned, to say "Nicotine isn't harmless but neither is any drug/medicine" is to treat e-cigarettes like drugs and medicines, which I think we've overwhelmingly agreed is inappropriate. They aren't drugs or medicines, and the fact that they do cause harm isn't to be concealed behind weaselling language. We ought to come straight out and say so.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic.. As there is for Caffeine, Taurine, Ethanol, and Capsaicin. Use of all of which is common in recreational consumer products. As with all toxicity the danger is in the dose and nicotine toxicity is not in itself, so the real question is Is nictoine toxic in doses associated with e-cigarettes. And the answer to that is in usage no and in storage of liquids maybe/yes depending on strength and size.

It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states in 2013 "There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette."[41] Spilling a high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can cause intoxication or even death, since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream following dermal contact.

The above is from Wikipedias Nicotine Page SPACKlick (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you seriously contending that e-cigarettes are harmless, SPACKlick?—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the point I was advocating. The point I was advocating was that saying "E-cigarettes are harmful BECAUSE nicotine is toxic" is incorrect. In order for me to answer whether or not I consider e-cigarettes harmless, I'd need a fixed definition of harmless because in the literal sense, nothing is Or rather there is at most one action at any given time that is harmless and all other actions are harmful relative to it. But all of this is a sidebar SPACKlick (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course they aren't harmless, but there is a difference between harmless and what is generally considered to be "safe". Harmless means no risk attached to them whatsoever and the vast majority of things have some risk attached to them. Making a point out of the fact that they have finite risk is a fallacy itself in my opinion. What really matters is the quantity of risk of harm associated with them.Levelledout (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So your position is this excellent medical source says e-cigarettes "can hardly be considered harmless", but we should leave that out because making a point of it is a fallacy?—S Marshall T/C 13:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well no not exactly. We already basically have the statement in the article, there's no need to add it again:

Safety subsection: As of 2014, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as harmless.

But my problem is that negative opinions like this rarely get attributed to the author, instead simply being spoken in Wikipedia's voice. They also generally end up appearing as bytesize quotes looking like weasel words since we say that they can't be considered as harmless, but don't say how this is true or to what extent. My position is that statements like this should be attributed, fully explained and put into perspective. Public Health England provides also provides a good balanced explanation:

Despite some manufacturers’ claims that electronic cigarettes are harmless there is also evidence that electronic cigarettes contain toxic substances, including small amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which are carcinogenic to humans, [34] and that in some cases vapour contains traces of carcinogenic nitrosamines, and some toxic metals such as cadmium, nickel and lead. [34] Although levels of these substances are much lower than those in conventional cigarettes, [34] regular exposure over many years is likely to present some degree of health hazard, though the magnitude of this effect is difficult to estimate.

Levelledout (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Ah, I'm sorry, you're quite right: it does say that. That part of the article is so incredibly boring to read that my brain shuts down in self-defence, so I've failed to observe it until now.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that particular subsection is very disjointed to the extent that its a chore to read and contains some very poorly written statements. I think I might suggest some improvements soon.Levelledout (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You do realize the irony, right? The Pisinger "review" criticizes studies for conflicts of interests, yet both authors have deep and long-standing associations with Pharma and smoking-cessation services. Mihaister (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide evidence for these assertions.Levelledout (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Protection Level Change Request

Should you wish to do so, please contribute to the current request regarding changing the protection level of the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talkcontribs) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 review

[1] [1]

  1. ^ a b Pisinger, Charlotta; Døssing, Martin (December 2014). "A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes". Preventive Medicine. 69: 248–260. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009. PMID 25456810.

There might be something useful from this review. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See the "New review" section above, in early Febrruary. Worth using I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It's already in the article (reference 74). Everymorning talk 21:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I know it is the body already but the main point the source made is not summarised yet. QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

New sources

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]

[6] [6]

[7] [7]

[8] [8]

[9] [9]

[10] [10]

[11] [11]

[12] [12]

  1. ^ a b Lauterstein, Dana; Hoshino, Risa; Gordon, Terry; Watkins, Beverly-Xaviera; Weitzman, Michael; Zelikoff, Judith (2014). "The Changing Face of Tobacco Use Among United States Youth". Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 7 (1): 29–43. doi:10.2174/1874473707666141015220110. ISSN 1874-4737. PMID 25323124.
  2. ^ a b Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432. PMID 25557889.
  3. ^ a b Evans, S. E.; Hoffman, A. C. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: abuse liability, topography and subjective effects". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii23–ii29. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051489. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 24732159.
  4. ^ a b Kleinstreuer, Clement; Feng, Yu (2013). "Lung Deposition Analyses of Inhaled Toxic Aerosols in Conventional and Less Harmful Cigarette Smoke: A Review". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 10 (9): 4454–4485. doi:10.3390/ijerph10094454. ISSN 1660-4601. PMID 24065038.
  5. ^ a b Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2014). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.
  6. ^ a b Orellana-Barrios, Menfil A.; Payne, Drew; Mulkey, Zachary; Nugent, Kenneth (2015). "Electronic cigarettes-a narrative review for clinicians". The American Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.033. ISSN 0002-9343. PMID 25731134.
  7. ^ a b McKee, M. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: peering through the smokescreen". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 90 (1069): 607–609. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133029. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 25294933.
  8. ^ a b E-cigarettes--prevention, pulmonary health, and addiction. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111(20):349–55. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0349. PMID 24882626. PMC 4047602.
  9. ^ a b Ebbert, Jon O.; Agunwamba, Amenah A.; Rutten, Lila J. (2015). "Counseling Patients on the Use of Electronic Cigarettes". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 90 (1): 128–134. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.11.004. ISSN 0025-6196. PMID 25572196.
  10. ^ a b Dagaonkar RS, R.S.; Udwadi, Z.F. (2014). "Water pipes and E-cigarettes: new faces of an ancient enemy" (PDF). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 62 (4): 324–328. PMID 25327035.
  11. ^ a b Schroeder, M. J.; Hoffman, A. C. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes and nicotine clinical pharmacology". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii30–ii35. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051469. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 24732160.
  12. ^ a b Pepper, J. K.; Brewer, N. T. (2013). "Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review". Tobacco Control. 23 (5): 375–384. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122pmid=24259045. ISSN 0964-4563.

There are a lot of sources to consider using for this page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There's an awful lot here, too, which editors may find of interest (I'm not getting into an RS debate on them!).
http://www.srnt.org/conferences/SRNT_2015_Rapids_WEB.pdf
Barnabypage (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything specific you think can be included in the page? QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing jumps out as world-changing, but if editors are seeking sources for specific points e.g. on attitudes to e-cigs or on usage habits they may find them here. (There's quite a lot relevant to the question of dual use, for example.) Barnabypage (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Another 2014 review

[1] [1]

  1. ^ a b Rahman MA, Hann N, Wilson A, Worrall-Carter L (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: patterns of use, health effects, use in smoking cessation and regulatory issues". Tob Induc Dis. 12 (1): 21. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-12-21. PMC 4350653. PMID 25745382.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)

QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems very useful, especially the discussion of the different approaches to regulation. Their conclusion that "Findings suggest that e-cigarettes are mostly used by middle-aged current smokers, particularly males, to help them for quitting or for recreation." is a useful corrective to the current over-emphasis in the "Usage" section on use by the young. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. User:Johnbod, please let me know if you have anymore specific suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A 2015 review

[1] [1]

  1. ^ a b England, Lucinda J.; Bunnell, Rebecca E.; Pechacek, Terry F.; Tong, Van T.; McAfee, Tim A. (2015). "Nicotine and the Developing Human". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.015. ISSN 0749-3797. PMID 25794473.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Meo 2014 review

[1] [1]

  1. ^ a b SA, Meo; SA, Al Asiri (2014). "Effects of electronic cigarette smoking on human health" (PDF). Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 18 (21): 3315–9. PMID 25487945.

QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Passive e-smoking

Ref about passive e-cig smoking 87.114.59.45 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Old news, re the WHO 2014 report. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 March 2015

Please add the following reference to vapers products - It's a great testimonial: http://vapers.com/testimonials/ 2602:30A:2CE1:4F50:81B1:5CD:6ECF:3730 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's an anecdotal, personal account which wouldn't really belong in an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnabypage (talkcontribs) 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking.[1] Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke.[2] This vapor is inhaled and the remaining vapor is exhaled into the air.[2] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.[3] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.[4] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine.[5]

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ a b 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I propose we simplify the first paragraph as above. The previous version stated to much what they are not rather than what they are. Adjusted to address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Support. Done in sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support but would like to see minor edits:

  • which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking --> which feels like tobacco smoking for the user
  • They produce an aerosol --> Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol --need to make this change because article starts off in the singular and this sentence and those following move to the plural
  • also known as a vapor --> commonly called "vapor" --for accuracy, see the many previous discussions

For clarity I support the proposed paragraph as-is, but would like to see my suggestions too. We can also do this with the proposed paragraph first and discuss my edits later. Zad68 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done in sandbox. Is this change okay? QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy with Zads suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I made this change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It's a step in the right direction. We ought to explain that the user inhales the vapour (it's WP:OBVIOUS to us but not necessarily to the reader!) We also ought to consider moving most of the chemical names to later in the article ---- the essential information for the lede is that the vapour typically but not always contains nicotine. There's no need to mention the other chemicals in the first paragraph. But even if it goes in in its current state it's still an incremental improvement.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a need to state the other ingredients in the lede because the primary base ingredients of the liquid solution includes propylene glycol and glycerin, among other ingredients. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that follows.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents...". See also "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles." Also see "Propylene glycol and glycerin are the main base ingredients of the e-liquid."[6] The reader would want to know what is in the e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • They probably would, but it's hardly such essential information that it has to appear in the first paragraph, is it?—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The base ingredients are essential to the e-cigarette. I would not put this information in another paragraph in the lede. The current placement is fine. I hope you are not suggesting we should remove it from the lede entirely. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course I am! The chemical composition of the vapour is not essential information for the lede.—S Marshall T/C 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I am of the position that the function of the e-cig should be kept together. Happy to add a sentence on the fact that the aerosol is inhaled. Maybe we could say "Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, which is inhaled" Saying that it does not produce cigarette smoke is likely not needed in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I already added the proposed text a little while ago. The part "which is inhaled" is too wordy for that sentence. I would not change that sentence. Another sentence says "The user inhales the vapor..." QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Done as the same as the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • S Marshall, you want to delete the most basic ingredients of the liquid solution.[7] That is counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I don't. I want to move some of the chemical names out of the lede and into the body of the article.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You're still missing the point.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm happy with this change along with Zad68's suggestions. Propylene glycol and glycerin, by weight are by far the most prevalent ingredients of e-liquid and it would be impossible to produce vapour/aerosol without them. So yes I think its necessary to include the basic ingredients. A break down of the components of the flavourings would be the kind of thing to include outside of the lead but that data is generally not available at present.Levelledout (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So can we make this change? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The changes to the WP:LEDE have been made. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

US spelling

I agree with this change for using the US spelling. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal

Not sure why this was removed from the lead "Another considered the data to be inconclusive.[1] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[2] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products.[3]" Was there discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Harrell2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drummond2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Caponnetto2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The edit edit summary does not make any sense. The sentences that were deleted by User:S Marshall from the WP:LEDE are a summary of the body. User:S Marshall, your edit was counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We had a great deal of discussion before changing the first paragraph of the lead. We can begin the same for the second paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Page protection over - NPOVing resumes

All these sources below were deleted from the page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? After over a week, User:Levelledout was unable to formulate a reason to delete all the sources.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

  1. ^ Lauterstein, Dana; Hoshino, Risa; Gordon, Terry; Watkins, Beverly-Xaviera; Weitzman, Michael; Zelikoff, Judith (2014). "The Changing Face of Tobacco Use Among United States Youth". Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 7 (1): 29–43. doi:10.2174/1874473707666141015220110. ISSN 1874-4737. PMID 25323124.
  2. ^ Ebbert, Jon O.; Agunwamba, Amenah A.; Rutten, Lila J. (2015). "Counseling Patients on the Use of Electronic Cigarettes". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 90 (1): 128–134. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.11.004. ISSN 0025-6196. PMID 25572196.
  3. ^ Evans, S. E.; Hoffman, A. C. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: abuse liability, topography and subjective effects". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii23–ii29. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051489. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 24732159.
  4. ^ Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432. PMID 25557889.
  5. ^ Nowak D, Jörres RA, Rüther T (2014). "E-cigarettes--prevention, pulmonary health, and addiction". Dtsch Arztebl Int. 111 (20): 349–55. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0349. PMC 4047602. PMID 24882626.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  6. ^ McKee, M. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: peering through the smokescreen". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 90 (1069): 607–609. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133029. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 25294933.
  7. ^ Orellana-Barrios, Menfil A.; Payne, Drew; Mulkey, Zachary; Nugent, Kenneth (2015). "Electronic cigarettes-a narrative review for clinicians". The American Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.033. ISSN 0002-9343. PMID 25731134.
  8. ^ Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2014). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.
  9. ^ Pepper, J. K.; Brewer, N. T. (2013). "Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review". Tobacco Control. 23 (5): 375–384. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 24259045.

Here are some highlights:

Editors want to shorten and tweak the WP:LEDE. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed changes to the lead.

The word "often" failed verification. No argument has been made to keep unsourced text. The source stated "There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers)."Read page 5. This confirms "often" is OR (or at least inaccurate).

The sentence sourced to the the 2014 report from Public Health England is misplaced. It should be next to the other sentence from the same report. The word "some" contradicts the source. The source stated "and evidence to date suggests that smokers are willing to use these products in substantial numbers." Read page 24 under Summary and conclusions. This confirms "some" is OR (or at least misleading). The word "some" cannot be verified but the text can be tweaked so that it is verifiable.

"An e-cigarette can be rigid and a bit bulky." This sentence has been in the article since last year. However, editors can tweak the text. The other sentences can also be tweaked and improved to address the concerns.

The text from Brandon2015 is sourced to a formal policy statement written in Clinical Cancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The source is reliable according to WP:MEDORG.

The text from McKee2014 is sourced to a peer-reviewed editorial in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. The text concerning individual vapers who spend time blogging and tweeting about the e-cigarette products can be attributed with in-text attribution for the concerns that it is an opinion. The text meets WP:V and it is reliable for non-medical claims according to WP:SECONDARY.

Is it reasonable to make a wholesale revert to delete so many sources, including WP:MEDRS compliant reviews? According to this comment it was a mistake to make a "wholesale revert". User:Levelledout accepted that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Consensus is not invalidated by objections lacking policy based rationale. Your question of whether the proposed content is contentious has been addressed by the provision of rationale and the pointers to policy and guidelines. "I don't like it" is not a rationale or even an argument. There is not a controversy surrounding this Wikipedia article. There is a controversy surrounding e-cigs, however. But that does not mean we should not expand the page with up-to-date new research. We should document what reliable sources say rather than wholesale delete pertinent information. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because they violated WP:CAUTIOUS, exactly the same as this time. Sourcing is irrelevant.Levelledout (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You still are unable to give a reason to delete all the sources according to WP:PAG. I also removed the POV tag because of your non-argument. Vague objections are unproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As are vague inserts, undiscussed edits on a contentious article, removal of tags without allowing discussion whether or not you feel the reasons are vague, you don't WP:OWN this article and you are not WP:COMPETENT to write about the topic in english. Bring proposed edits, to the talk page, let other users put them in english and add them to the article. Stop making this article harder to improve. Be more WP:CAUTIOUS Oh and because you've failed to read it before I'll copy the huge cautious page here (bolding mine)SPACKlick (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion.
(end of SPACKlick's comment) QuackGuru had in fact been editing the entire article in his sandbox for 10 days whilst it was still protected before inserting the 17k into the article. For whatever reason he didn't think it was necessary to inform anybody else. Strange because the exact same issue has been raised recently with him on both ANI here and an article talk page here.Levelledout (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru, you're so intensely active on this page that it's hard for others to keep up. Please allow the article to be tagged and give time for others to assess your edits.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru was told by an admin here on 20 March "Once unprotected, please ensure that you've achieved consensus for any changes you make to the page given how controversial it's been". 17k of changes were made regardless by QG which is a very substantial amount of information to add with very little explanation and no prior discussion. Should we enforce the above advice, revert the 17k of large-scale changes made by QuackGuru and have a proper legitimate discussion of them?Levelledout (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick perusal suggests that the vast majority of the changes made by Quackguru includes the addition of high quality sources and improves the article significantly (I clearly have not vetted every single change, mind you). I would hate for bureaucratic measures to prevent the improvement of the article. I would however, agree with the above editors that making a large number of edits can be overwhelming and would encourage Quackguru to let editors review the edits in question before continuing to make additions. Yobol (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I managed to catch anothere severe pneumonia (thanks, undiagnosed primary immune disorder) between when I protected the page last and now. I would, as an uninvolved admin, request that any major changes to this page are not made without first achieving consensus for the changes. Unfortunately my recent health issues have prevented me from following this page closely, but any violations of consensus that are closely followed by me or another admin are likely to lead to issues for you. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, parts of edits since March 20th I have issue with below. Mostly it's poorly written stuff but there are some content and source issues. Also the whole article needs a copy editor to make it readable.

  1. Unexplained removal of do not contain [[tobacco]], although they do use [[nicotine]] from tobacco plants.<ref name=O2012/>
  2. Unexplained change (FDA) accepted products such as a [[nicotine inhaler]] may be are a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.<ref name=Drummond2014/>
  3. Unexplained removal nowikiThe evidence indicates the levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards.[1]</nowiki>
  4. Bad copyediting in Evidence indicates that the majority of e-cigarette users are middle-aged presently using traditional cigarettes, notably males, to assist them to quit or for recreational use.<ref name=Rahman2014/>. And a general note that several additions lead to disjointed sentences with no information flow making the article even less readable.
  5. Bad writing Data suggests that the users' motivation for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, whereas another indicted a concern that a considerable proportion of their use is recreational.<ref name=Rahman2014/>
  6. Bad writing Agreement to the degree that users of e-cigarettes believe they look, feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes, along with whether their likeness to traditional cigarettes was a benefit or a drawback is little.<ref name=Pepper2013/>
  7. Bad writing The majority of e-cigarette users frequently start with using a device resembling a cigarette and subsequently a majority of them shift to a later-generation device.<ref name=Yingst2015/>
  8. Bad writing The primary components for the majority of e-cigarettes consist of an aerosol generator, flow sensor, battery, and a liquid storage chamber.
  9. Bad writing, doesn't accurately reflect source or reality An e-cigarette consist of the materials silver, steel, metals, ceramics, plastics, fibers, aluminum, rubber and spume, and lithium batteries.
  10. Bad copyediting a LED
  11. Bad copyediting one-time use expandable products
  12. Bad writing after either the battery is no longer charged
  13. Americentric No e-cigarette has received FDA approval as a cessation tool
  14. In a bloated article why are we still adding "data on specific subset does not exist" just say nothing. Data on e-cigarette use for risk reduction in high-risk groups such as people with [[mental disorder]]s is unavailable.
  15. No definite conclusions can be made regarding the safety of e-cigarettes because of various methodological issues, conflicts of interest, a limited number of studies, and disagreements in the results of research. is a repeat of the opening of the same paragraph.
  16. Direct repeat from earlier section of the article A 2014 [[Cochrane review]] found no serious [[adverse effect]]s reported in trials.<ref name=Cochrane2014/> Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use can include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.<ref name=Grana2014/>
  17. Bad writing It was concluded that they also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the [[tobacco industry]]. Also it doesn't reflect the passage in the source and it isn't notable that one blogger about e-cigarettes is associated with the tobacco industry. The whole McKee section could do with work.
  18. uninformative writing E-cigarettes are not permitted to be used as a smoking cessation aid in some countries, but are regulated as a [[medical device]]
  19. Bad writing business is handled on the internet.
  20. Dispute using this phrasing in wikipedia's voice E-cigarettes are aggressively promoted,

Other than those 20 it seems in general to be adding new information which is great. However the manner in which it was added was bullshit, the writing is terrible, the article still needs a copy edit to make it readable. The next big edit should be a massive reduction in size not additions but that'll never happen while QG exists driving any sensible editor over a cliff with his cavalacade of avalanches of tripe. SPACKlick (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The changes to the first paragraph were discussed here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposed_changes_to_the_lead thus the removal of "do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Didn't spot that change contained the removal of the tobacco note. Noted and struck. SPACKlick (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree SPACKlick, the article is too long, it's just got about 17% longer, it's disjointed, it's neutrality is questionable. The neutrality thing is difficult to solve but the length and flow should be easy to come to some consensus about.Levelledout (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the actual problem we have here is methodological. I think the editing process at work is:- (1) Find a source; (2) Paraphrase it closely and cite it carefully; (3) Stick it in the article; and then (4) Group the sentences that seem to be related. It leads to paragraphs that are at once choppily-phrased and convoluted in meaning. In the lede, it also leads to inappropriately-high levels of technical detail on one key idea before other simple, key ideas are mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a perfect summary of the issue. That method is great for drafting but then it needs to be handed to a copyeditor. I wish someone with a more skill and effort than I would take a sandbox copy of the article as it currently stands and edit it into fluent english because I tried and just ran out of effort less than half way through. It would make the article flow better, it would likely remove some redundancies (grouping repeated points into a single instance) etc. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy to copy-edit the article at some point if that is in fact what other editors want.Levelledout (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have begun the process of summarising the points made sentence by sentence in my sandbox in order to see if there is a sensible order to put the points in as a prelude to making the language easier to read but yes, a solid copyedit would be very useful. SPACKlick (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
OK well I'll have a look at that then and give it a go when I get the chance.Levelledout (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Editors wanted to shorten the lede. 2) 2 was explained. 3) 3 was explained. 4) thru 14) were addressed. 15) 15 is cited to a review and informative. 16) The sentences are not repetitive and have been in the article since last year. I previously tweaked one of the sentences. 17) The text was shortened. 18) The sentence is informative and has been in the article since lest year. I just previously tweaked the sentence to make it more readable than it previously was. 19) and 20) addressed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you believe you've applied fixes QG but you really haven't as I said, you ought to pass your english through some competent editors first.
2 "are very probably" is closer to "may be" than "are" and this page receives so many edits that changes really ought to be explained on the talk page for posterity rather than solely in edit summaries unless there CE changes.
3 your 'explanation' doesn't explain the removal because it's not a repetition it's increased detail and seems very WP:NPOV of you t remove it.
4-14 Where, and how were they "explained" and were they "explained" in such a way that there was consensus to butcher the english language?
15 Sourced doesn't change the fact it's a carbon copy of the opening of the paragraph further bloating and making less readable a bloated unreadable mess.
16 I strike, didn't spot the repetition was in the lede. Still don't think the lede should have the same exact phrasing but less of an issue.
17 not resolved, still reads like every vaper is online attacking every person who doesn't approve of e-cigs. It's massively NPOV and it's still ambiguously written. If it's notable enough to deserve any weight, which I would strongly recommend you get talk page consensus for first, then it ought to be directly attributed and quoted rather than in WP voice.
18 No country bans people from using them as cessation aids without banning them outright, what they do is do not endorse them as cessation aids. An example of a country should be used so specifics can be given.
19 fix is fine.
20 I think this attribution needs to be more specific as to who said it but the fix is better.
2) The text was tweaked. 3) The lede is meant to be a summary and it was not a summary for the lede. 4-14) No specific objection to the new wording or no specific suggestion. 15) 15 was shortened and is not duplication. 17) Tweaked sentence. 18) The text User:SPACKlick deleted passed verification.[8] See "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product [28,29]."[9] 20) The in-text attribution is the same as other sentences when there is in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
3) So move it into the article, don't delete it. 4-12 aren't written in parsable english, there's no point offering suggestions to you QG because you can't recognise well written prose. 13) is Americentric. There is a more international way o phrasing this fact. 14) The specific objection is that it's contentless bloat. 15) The shortened version is now not a repeat, it does howver make that paragraph 4 unrelated sentences that don't provide information flow so it can now just be considered bad copy editing. 17) Still needed direct attribution, now done. Also you still haven't justified why we should give a fuck what Martin McKee thinks of the online presence of vapers? 18) "do not accept" and "do not permit" are very different. It failed verification because it did not say in the source what it said on the page. Please tell me English is your second language, it would explain so much. 20) Claims of differing levels of controversy require different levels of distance from WP's voice. I personally think this could do with more distance but I'm happy not to push it, it's by far not the worst part of the article or even of the recent changes.
3) The safety section is a summery. It was moved to the safety page. 4-12) Still no specific suggestions. 13) Americentric was deleted. 14) I don't see any duplication. 15) I moved the sentence for better flow. 18) I adjusted the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful QuackGuru if you could please be less obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain

This sentence is precisely true and accurate and certainly belongs in the article. But is it necessary to repeat it three times in the same paragraph? At the moment, paragraph #2 is highly redundant:

"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain ... the data [are] inconclusive ... their role ... is unclear."

I propose that we shorten and simplify this phrasing.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While overall the data is unclear there is tentative evidence that they are of some benefit in smoking cessation and they maybe as safe as other nicotine products. Have summarized some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Solid improvement there Doc. SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, stick that in and move on.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We can't stick original research in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As it appears we have not agreed on new wording of the second paragraph [10] I have restored the previous one until there is consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

POV tag being repeatedly removed from article

The POV tag was removed here, here, here and here.

The tag should not be repeatedly edit-warred from the article like this, please discuss the issue here if you think that there is a valid reason to remove the tag.Levelledout (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't paid attention to the history of that tag, I thought it had been added only recently but from your links I see it was in there since October 2014. I have restored the tag, I'll start a new section recommending the tag be removed. Zad68 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for restoring for now.Levelledout (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I have to say I am now wavering over its usefulness. There are a reasonable number of editors here with varying POV's, the article could use a couple more neutral editors but the tag doesn't seem to be achieving that. I realised that in part i preferred it being there as a flag to the reader which is specifically prohibited so I'm unsure which way is correct. When I'm in doubt I tend to go with the opposite of the position I started at. SPACKlick (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly so SPACKlick, most people don't pay attention to the instructions in that {{NPOV}} template, glad you did! I think we already have several representatives of the spectrum here, so the tag isn't needed. Zad68 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
My inclination is that we definitely still need more editors at the article who don't have a personal interest in either tobacco control or tobacco harm reduction. Certainly the tobacco control group would still seem to outnumber the harm reduction group as well. But users like S Marshall who seem to have just turned up to help improve a failing article / WP:BATTLEGROUND we need more of and I would have thought that the POV tag would have been one way of helping to achieve that, although I would admit that it's effectiveness so far has been very limited.Levelledout (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Our goal is simply to reflect the best available literature. That is my only POV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • We don't need a POV tag because active editors are aware there is a dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course active editors are aware that there is a dispute, how could they possibly not be regardless of any POV tag? However that is not the purpose of the tag. It would be helpful if you understood the purpose before removing it multiple times but for the avoidance of doubt...Levelledout (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight
The purpose of the tag has been fulfilled because everyone is aware of the dispute. Even people at AN/I are aware of the dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I wouldn't be too sure that all of Wikipedia's 24 million registered users and all of its unregistered ones are aware of this dispute. In any case the purpose of the tag is not merely to raise awareness, it is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.Levelledout (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We should add a tag that looks like this:-

— Preceding unsigned comment added by S Marshall (talkcontribs) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with adding a bat signal to the lede for obvious reasons. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Really Quack? I'm pretty sure it's exactly what's required under WP:SAVEBROKENPAGES and WP:INEEDAHERO. SPACKlick (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving the list of chemicals

A list of the chemical constituents of the aerosol currently appears in the lede. I think the crucial information for the lede is that the aerosol contains nicotine, and the remaining chemicals belong further down the article, as is the case with (for example) our article on cigarette. I therefore propose to take the two sentences reading Emissions from e-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals.[4][13] E-cigarette emissions contain fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and move them down into the body of the article.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The other chemicals are also important as it separates these from a nicotine inhaler but we speak of them already in the first paragraph. Maybe short it to "Other chemicals may also be present." to the first paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the current wording that explains the basic ingredients in the particles. If we continue to delete things from the lede there is not going to be much left. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be a good thing. The lede needs to be much shorter, clearer and more focused.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Shortening it would make it ambiguous and less clear. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The length of the lead is not unreasonable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's unreasonable for the quantity of information it contains. I agree that the eventual lede, in a FA-quality version of the article that we'll reach about 100 years from now, would be approximately the current length, but it would contain a great deal more useful information (on for example Hon Lik and the history of e-cigarettes). The problems we have in the lede are threefold: first, giving information at an inappropriately technical and abstruse level of detail; second, repeating the same information in slightly different words again and again; and third, not reaching any conclusions.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Drummond Huge Amount assertion

This insert by Quack Guru Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and are spending a huge amount of money promoting these devices.<ref name=Drummond2014/> contains some unencyclopedic language. The quote from the article is

Major tobacco companies have bought some of these e-cigarette companies and are spending tremendous amounts of money advertising e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes; one product’s advertising funds increased from $992,000 to $12.4 million from 2011 to 2012 (32, 33). In this setting, e-cigarette sales have increased from $20 million in 2008 to $500 million in 2012 and are expected to reach nearly $2 billion by the end of 2013

I can't think of a better way of phrasing it. "Devoting a very large amount of revenue on their promotion"? I'm sure something better can be written. SPACKlick (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording adjusted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
New wording is much better. SPACKlick (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be more encyclopedic if we simply stated the amount that had been spent. This avoids the ambiguity of a "very large amount of money" and also avoids any chance of sounding non-impartial when we say in Wikipedia's voice that a "very large amount of money" has been spent on advertising. So this would be better: "big tobacco has purchased some electronic cigarette businesses which led to $12.4 million being spent on advertising one product in 2012".Levelledout (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That is to much detail with including the specific amount. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, that's not a WP:PAG based arguement. We quote specific figures all throughout the article, no reason not to do the same here. In general we should be specific and impartial and avoid making vague statements that could be interpreted as WP:WEASEL and/or breaches of WP:NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The specific number would be dated if you included it in that section. This is not a one time event. The source uses the word "spending". That means it is ongoing not dated. The source was very clear it is "tremendous amounts of money". The current wording is obviously neutral. Rather than have a lengthy run on sentence I kept it concise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it's obviously neutral. As a wild guess $12 million dollars could be considered a small amount of money relative to what tobacco companies spend on marketing a popular brand of cigarretes. But that's what you get for making vague statements in Wikipedia's voice. Not sure why you're so keen on doing so. Dating is not an issue and whilst the source makes a general opinionated statement it only follows this up with one specific statement of fact. We should of course use the specific statement according non-negotiable core policies.Levelledout (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, are Drummond or his fellow author experts in marketing? It seems unlikely. $12 million dollars is a fairly small annual advertising budget for a national US brand of any FMCG, as they are called in the business, never mind a global one. The quote combines extreme vagueness with probable inaccuracy, and presumably takes the authors outside their area of expertise. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The part "one product’s advertising funds increased from $992,000 to $12.4 million from 2011 to 2012" does not even name the company and that is only one company. The source is not comparing what e-cigarettes companies spend to what tobacco companies spend on marketing cigarettes. The opinion of editors is not verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
All the more reason to be as specific as possible. The point is that "a very large amount" is somewhat relative and open to interpretation and $12 million isn't. I find it difficult to understand why you are arguing that we should be less accurate and more vague.Levelledout (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, $12 million was from only one company. That would be downplaying the total amount. The specific total amount in dollars for big tobacco is not mentioned. The total amount for spending is "tremendous amounts". QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be downplaying it if we simply stated that is was from one company, that would be clear, accurate and precise. If we do not know the total amount then we should not make vague statements about it, particularly attributed as fact in Wikipedia's voice and particularly when we can be more specific.Levelledout (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We should not ignore the total overall amount. We do know the total amount for big tobacco: "tremendous amounts". One product is not the total overall amount. It is odd you want to use the amount from only one company but not the overall amount. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have the "overall amount" then give it. If you do not, then give the numbers that you have instead. We can't in Wikipedia's voice make assumptions on whether or not this is a "huge amount" or "tremendous amounts". For us to be able to do that, we would need to compare it to other similar businesses and take into accounts future revenue projections etc. (which of course would be WP:OR) All we know is: They have an advertisement budget of X mio.[this is verifiable] Stating anything else is WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 05:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't have specific overall numbers. The amount from one company is not notable. We are not making assumptions when the current text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Trouble is that we are sourcing market information from a medical source. Which isn't ideal at all, since it is entirely outside of the expert realm of the authors and the journal. Context is important: For instance a 10-20% advertising budget may be small if you assume a market that will quadruple in size within a year or two. --Kim D. Petersen 06:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
According to what policy or guideline a review is unreliable? It will likely increase in size in the future but we should find a source for that assumption. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider what you just wrote, and rewrite it in such a way, as to actually address what i said. --Kim D. Petersen 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you should not claim a review is unreliable without evidence according to WP:PAG. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Will you please stop strawmanning me? --Kim D. Petersen 07:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You still have not provided evidence that the source is unreliable according to WP:PAG. Please show not assert the source is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
For the 3rd time i will politely ask you not to strawman what i write. Please carefully read what i wrote instead of assuming something that i didn't. --Kim D. Petersen 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Something like "Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and have greatly increased the marketing spend on them" is all we should take from this source on this this point. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The source said "...are spending tremendous amounts of money advertising e-cigarettes..." I do not understand the past tense have greatly increased. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The source was published in 2014. Are you suggesting it could see the future? Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
When the source said "are spending tremendous amounts" this shows that they think it will continue in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It certainly does not, and how would they know anyway. You are going too far into your usual behaviour in this thread. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I reverted to the previous wording. I still think the tense could be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Power section

I'm not sure why there is a separate section for one sentence. See Electronic cigarette#Power. Maybe it can be merged into another section. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a seperate section because power is one of the two most important aspect in modern electronic cigarettes? (the other is the coil) --Kim D. Petersen 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The source does not say that the power is one of the two most important aspect in modern electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not just one source in that section QG. There are in fact quite a few. --Kim D. Petersen 04:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
One sentence for a separate subsection is odd. QuackGuru (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Look again: Power has two subsections (Variable power and voltage device; Mechanical personal vaporizers). --Kim D. Petersen 04:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I placed the one sentence at the beginning of the paragraph for readability. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

more wierdness

"Among adults or children, the extent to which a dual use tendency exists using e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes is unclear." -- First of all why are we specifying adults or children here? Does that not cover prett much, well, everyone? Secondly, this appears to contradict some very broad statements made in the previous section.Not editing for fact right now but that one twanged my nerves badly enough to get mr to come in here and write up a complaint about it. Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Coupla suggested changes on regulatory topics

“As of 2014, they are largely unregulated.” I suggest this could be dropped or changed per the following (and the academic work which it is based on), reporting that about 70% of major nations have regulated e-cigarettes in one way or another: http://ecigintelligence.com/worlds-law-makers-favour-e-cig-regulation-based-on-tobacco/

“E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in many states in the U.S.” This is strictly speaking true, insofar as nine could be "many" - but misleading nevertheless, because a large majority of states (41 out of 50 is the current figure, I think) do have age restrictions. Why not say “E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in some countries and U.S. states.”? Barnabypage (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The review says E-cigarettes are mostly unregulated.12[2]
Reference 12 says "E-cigarettes are largely unregulated and internet sales are substantial."[3]
  1. ^ Burstyn, I (9 January 2014). "Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks". BMC Public Health. 14: 18. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-18. PMC 3937158. PMID 24406205.
  2. ^ Rom, Oren; Pecorelli, Alessandra; Valacchi, Giuseppe; Reznick, Abraham Z. (2015). "Are E-cigarettes a safe and good alternative to cigarette smoking?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1340 (1): 65–74. doi:10.1111/nyas.12609. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 25557889.
  3. ^ Zhu, S.-H.; Sun, J. Y.; Bonnevie, E.; Cummins, S. E.; Gamst, A.; Yin, L.; Lee, M. (2014). "Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 3): iii3–iii9. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670. ISSN 0964-4563. PMID 24935895.
http://ecigintelligence.com/worlds-law-makers-favour-e-cig-regulation-based-on-tobacco/ The ECigIntelligence source is specifically about large countries. We can include both statements. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No matter if it is only large countries. 70 countries constitute a rather large percentage of countries in the world. So "largely unregulated" is something that we have sources that disagree about. We can't just pick and chose the one that caters most to our personal preference. --Kim D. Petersen 04:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Priceless! The "460 brands" paper is a primary study about the number of brands available on the (English language) internet. Its passing remark that "E-cigarettes are largely unregulated ..." is referenced to - "18. Wikipedia. Electronic cigarette. Wikipedia, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette (accessed 11 Mar 2014)."!! I haven't looked at the other. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Whoa! Another good reason to actually check where information originates. That reference is certainly out the window for that particular tidbid. I hope we aren't using it for this? --Kim D. Petersen 04:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
We are not using the primary source. We are using the review. If sources disagree we can use both sources. In this case both sources are accurate. ECigIntelligence did not provide any references to verify their claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually ECigIntelligence did provide a reference - it is just behind a paywall. It is the FCTC/WHO survey of countries. --Kim D. Petersen 04:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The source is the SRNT paper, as made quite clear in the ECigIntelligence article. Their research was summarised in a paper, “Global approaches to e-cigarette regulation”, presented to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) at its Philadelphia conference last week by authors Ryan David Kennedy, Ayodeji Awopegba, Elaine De Leon, and Joanna E. Cohen. I'm fairly sure it's on the SRNT Website. (And as Kim D. Petersen says, that in turn seems to be based partly on the WHO report.) Barnabypage (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The source said that "about two thirds of large countries have some form of e-cigarette regulation..." The part "some form of e-cigarette regulation" confirms it is still mostly unrelated because it is only large countries have some kind e-cigarette regulation. Having some regulation is not much regulation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The some quite clearly refers to the multiplicity of forms of regulation, which is why it is used in the phrase some form, not to there being only some regulation in the sense of a small amount. It's difficult to see, anyway, why even a limited amount of regulation would be unrelated. And the research didn't even look at every country - it's not saying that the small countries it didn't study necessarily don't have any regulation; there is no implication that only large countries do. Barnabypage (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the current wording okay. Do you want me to delete the statement or reword largely unregulated? QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the As of 2014, they are largely unregulated sentence altogether, in part because it's now superseded by the statement regarding two thirds of countries, and in part because of the issue raised by Johnbod above. Barnabypage (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Done.[11][12] QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

appears to contradict itself

"Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction for those who do not already smoke,[1] but there is no evidence of ongoing use among those who have never smoked.[2]" -- Leaving this as I do get that there is a long hard-fought history here and right now I am just doing language cleanup, but at somepoint I'd like somoene to explainthat sentence to me (?) thankyouverymuch Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHOJuly2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hajek2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Current wording "There is no evidence they are regularly used among those who have never smoked."
However, another source says "Among US middle and high school students reporting having ever used e-cigarettes, 20.3% reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.12 The use of e-cigarettes among nonsmoking youth is associated with increased intentions to smoke cigarettes.14 Adolescent e-cigarette users are more likely to be male, white, and older15 and to have more education.16 Experimentation with e-cigarettes may be associated with adolescent sensation seeking,17 and adolescent e-cigarette use is unlikely to be related to tobacco reduction or cessation behavior."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

don't these sentences contradict one another? Reply

from the lede:

They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that products accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as nicotine inhalers, are probably a safer means to supply nicotine than e-cigarettes.Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some in-text attribution for the contradiction. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research removed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654938142&oldid=654936852 I recommend editors read the sources before changing the meaning of the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This once again brings up forcefully the four things that concern me about your editing, QuackGuru. The first is your tendency to use WP:V and WP:NOR not on concepts or ideas but on individual words. You have a habit of removing single words for "failing verification" which is concerning. The second is that I sometimes wonder whether you understand English in the same way I do (e.g. your statement that "A few is a synonym for many"). The third is your very highly active editing which makes it hard for other users to follow the changes you're making, and the fourth is you tendency to revert editors who want to improve the horrible prose in the article and to dismiss the concerns they raise, as you have done in most of the sections started by ElinRuby. Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:S Marshall claims "Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence."[14] That is not a content dispute. Therefore, I am removing the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No real explanation for restoring the tag was given. This is the same editor who deleted numerous sources, including several MEDRS compliant reviews without a valid reason. So what is disputed? QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required. --Kim D. Petersen 03:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no serious dispute among legitimate long-term editors. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you should reconsider that remark. --Kim D. Petersen 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You think several MEDRS compliant reviews are inappropriate for Wikipedia? Was that a legitimate dispute to delete so many sources? QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think that kind of comments are compatible with WP:CONDUCT? --Kim D. Petersen 05:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I asked what is disputed. Apparently you don't have an answer. You think your edit is appropriate for Wikipedia with deleting numerous sources? QuackGuru (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I observe that you haven't acknowledged that there's any problem with your behaviour, and I think you haven't understood that there's a problem.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This page and this page may help you to understand my concerns about how frequently you edit this article and how much of its text was written by you (and also by AlbinoFerret). I don't know how to explain to you why the other things I mention are a problem. WP:Editorial judgment is, alas, a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A disposable e-cigarette image

What you think? Maybe the image could be improved without the box. See Electronic cigarette#Construction. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I found an image without the box. Is there a way to remove the logo from the image? QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions authorised

This is to let everyone here know that I've just closed a discussion authorising general sanctions for the electronic-cigarette topic area. The precise wording of the sanctions is as follows:

The community authorizes general sections for all articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working within this topic if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to: page bans, topic bans, semi-protection, pending changes protection, or blocks of up to one year for any editor so warned. Sanctions issued under this authority must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

If anyone has any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me about them either here or on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Economics section and globalize/US tag

The reason the tag is put there, is because it is impossible for the reader to determine whether information is global or US centric, as well as the case that a large majority of the information is US figures or information, without attribution to it being exclusively for the US. Other problems include statements such as "a national advertising campaing..." without explaining that it is the US. Therefore it is not just necessary to add a few items from other countries to resolve it.

Solutions to this could be:

  • section it into country subsections, so that the reader can determine that the info is centric to a specific country.
  • Exchange the US figures/information with global figures/information, and where needed attribute figures/information to countries.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

With minor tweaks to the text the reader will know if the information is global or US centric. However, some sources do not state if is global or US centric. For additional global figures/information you would need to find the sources first. If no sources exist then the section can't be expanded. The wording is now "US advertising campaigning...", which does explain that it is the US. The same was done for the other sentences where applicable. I also organised some of the text for readability. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that "minor tweaks" are enough to resolve the problem. Large parts of the economics section consists of information that is US centric, and written up as if globally applicable. And that is the problem in a nut-shell. It is not expansion that is needed, if we only have US information, then it should be made clear that the information is only applicable to the US. The problem is that readers of the article have no way to decipher whether information is global or US only, without going to the references. --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Lets be more specific - almost the entire the third and fourth paragraph are based on US only information, but written in a tone and style that presents it as being globally applicable. For instance the whole market analysis information is entirely based on the US market. --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I already explained when the sources says it is US centric it can be stated it is the US. Nevertheless, I did clarify the text in the third and fourth paragraphs. I cannot expand the section using non-existance sources but I did include more information pertaining to other countries. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

re-inserted bloat

Here is a sentence which I removed and CFCF re-inserted which I feel adds practically no information to the article and merely adds bloat.

As of 2015, there is no information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women.<ref name=Orellana-Barrios2015/>

Asking for consensus to remove it SPACKlick (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For the usage section, this is the only sentence about the prevalence of use for pregnant women. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not this again, I reverted your edit with the comment "bloat?" because I don't see how you identified it as such. Now that I understand I think we have to clear up a logical fallacy some people here are engaging in. The sentence most certainly adds information in that it is a known unknown that is both relevant to the topic and reported by a credible source. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I've said this before, but it seems highly relevant so I'll repeat it. I think the actual problem we have here is methodological. I think the editing process at work on this article is:- (1) Find a source that includes a new factlet; (2) Paraphrase it closely and cite it carefully; (3) Stick it in the article; and then (4) Group the sentences that seem to be related. The factlet we're considering here adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic.

    However, I'm acutely conscious that we're giving CFCF a hard time over one single factlet when QuackGuru is introducing bucketloads of them every day. We're not tackling the main offender here.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

My aim is not to give CFCF a hard time, I engaged CFCF because I figured discussion could be productive. @CFCF: I understand the concept of known unknowns but you have to be selective in which known unknowns you include in an article. Not every verifiable known unknown should be included. The reader doesn't benefit from specifically knowing that research into the frequency of use among pregnant women hasn't been done yet, especially since the article repeatedly says that there's been little research into the effects of e-cigarettes yet. SPACKlick (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Little research into the effects of e-cigarettes is very different from no information is currently available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but the reader of the article will be of the impression research has not been done in most respects. In all honesty what is the benefit to the reader of this sentence? SPACKlick (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The reader will get the understanding that there is no research on the prevalence of use for pregnant women. It does add information that it is not known as of 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself. We've all agreed there is a small token of information there. The question I asked was what is the benefit to the reader of including that information? There are millions of pieces of information like that and they cannot all be in the article. Some small facts must be left out to avoid a bloated unreadable article. I believe this should be one of them. SPACKlick (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Explaining what is the latest information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women is giving relevant information for that section. There is not any other specific information in that section on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women. On Wikipedia we do report the known unknowns. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No we don't. What a strange thing to say.—S Marshall T/C 02:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we do discuss what is "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", "limited evidence", "variable evidence" and so on according to credible sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yes, but we don't include every factlet that can be verified about knowns and unknowns. That isn't how articles are written. IT is howeer how you are writing this article and it's almost impossible to clean up while you keep adding snippets worthy of no weight to the article. SPACKlick (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I already explained we don't have any other information about the prevalence of use for pregnant women. No valid explanation was given to exclude information about pregnant women use. We include information for men using e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk)
No you didn't explain you stated. We shouldn't list everything that there hasn't been research into in the article dotted about amid paragraphs it's not worthy of the weight. WP:V While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The objection is that this information does not improve the article. SPACKlick (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
But we do list the known unknowns. This is good editing on Wikipedia to include the unknowns. This data the same as other data about the unknowns does improve this article like other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
But it is not appropriate to list EVERY unknown. Your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, does you a disservice. To list all unknowns does not create a good quality article. SPACKlick (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
While I hate to actually make a point which doesn't refer to the arcana of Wikipedia's internal policies :), can I just suggest: while effects of e-cigarettes on pregnant women might obviously be a topic of interest (and if I recall correctly there's been some very recent work on it), it's difficult to see why a novice to the subject should care hugely about prevalence among this specific group, unless of course the effects were disastrous and the prevalence high. So it's not only absent information, it's absent not-very-interesting information. Barnabypage (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I also agree it adds little information as written. I was planning on rewriting it, anyhow. I will use another review that does go into more detail. We should also include information about women in general rather than focus on men and youth. The section is (was) unbalanced without specific information on women. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Description of Cochrane review in body

The lead of this article states "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." This seems like an accurate representation of that review's conclusions, but I don't think the body describes it as well. Specifically, I think the sentence "A 2014 Cochrane review found that e-cigarettes can help people quit, but was based on a small number of studies" should be changed. This seems to be an oversimplification of this review's findings. Maybe something like "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes were effective for smoking cessation, but rated the confidence in their effectiveness for this purpose as "low"." Everymorning talk 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is too wordy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That's somewhat ironic coming from you, QG! Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that there is not a problem with the wording. There are issues with the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Wording for lede: "One review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid." Wording for body: "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." The wording was improved. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Last lead paragraph

Currently, the last paragraph details mainly country-level issues and begins with "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common..." It might be better to put the stances of global organizations there instead, like WHO, International Union of Toxicology, World Lung Foundation, etc and move local issues to relevant section. Brandmeistertalk 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph could certainly be improved but we already have two paragraphs in the lead on health effects which is more than enough. I would advise that we remove some of the overly technical nonsense that nobody actually understands like the stuff about "aroma transporters" and such and insert the positions of global organisations there.Levelledout (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If one looks at the size of medical organizations the NIH is largest followed by the CDC and than WHO. Thus the US has better data than most places and thus why we often given data on usage there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

lede on this beast (arrived via an RfC and I already hate all of you ;) )

"is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking.[1]" -- somebody edit that please. It produces a something that creastes a sensation similar to that prroduced by cigarette smoke is presumably what is meant here but yes, that is an incredibly awkard sentence and that is what I didn't just go ahead and make the change. That and I see the talk page, which is apparently so active that all three of the RfCs I have received have scrolled off the page. Boy oh boy. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the source: "Electronic cigarettes look very similar to the conventional cigarette and are capable of emulating cigarette smoking..."[15] The word emulates was removed from the lede last year. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I see. The sentence in the source at least parses. My issue with this is language, by the way, you do get that, right? How can an object feel like an action? Meanwhile, nobody is screaming over last night's edits, so I suppose that's good, as far as it goes. What were the RfC's about, anyway? This is a horrible article right now, obviously the product of a committee, lol. I am not talking about the substance, just the writing. I have reading comprehension skills that are way above average and a tolerance for repetitive detail that was honed on software manuals, and I still can't get through it. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Current modified wording: An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar sensation to tobacco smoking.[1] The word "feel" was removed. I think is is much better now.
RfC's are all archived and forgotten. The last RfC can be found at Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_22#Ordering_of_sections_2. The closer wrote: "I'll venture to suggest that option 3 is the one that more editors seem to be able to get behind, and it's probably the most fruitful basis for future discussion". We can have that discussion. User:Elinruby, you can fix the section ordering. Let's get it done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. If the RfCs were resolved to the satisfaction of the current editors on the page then great. I was just asking out of morbid curiosity;I have no desire to re-open anything. As for section ordering, say what? Was thinking that right now wou guys might want to try for English. But that's just me. Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
re your lede change, maybe. It's an improvement. I am going to change "has" to "produces" -- is that ok with everybody? Meanwhile, for readability, I would rather not have that many parentheses in the first sentence, but in an article that appears to be contentious, one thing at a time. Yes, that is what you would do on first mention, true, but there is probably a more graceful way to do it. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone is satisfied with the article. We can agree it is just the writing. I wasn't sure which wording was better. The parentheses in the first sentence is for the synonyms. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor I am FAR from satisfied with the article. I cannot read it and I repeat, I can read just about anything including Microsoft documentation. It's terrible, However your change plus my change make me happier about that particular sentence. Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I originally changed it to provides a similar sensation. I changed it back to has. You changed it to "provides". And then it was changes back to: An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which "produces a similar feel" to tobacco smoking.[1] The word "sensation" was not simple enough as "feel". Even a minor change can make a big improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No serious dispute

See Template:POV:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

I specifically asked what is disputed? The reply was "I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required." KimDabelsteinPetersen, nothing in you response indicates that there is a serious dispute. No major content was disputed to suggest there is a serious dispute. Apparently there is no serious dispute among editors. No relevant discussion can be found on the talk page for a serious dispute according to WP:PAG. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no drive-by tagging here, since the tag currently is status quo. What instead is happening is that one editor insists that the tag shouldn't be there, despite all of the discussions in the archives that discuss the tag and the reasons for it. The template is here, amongst many other reasons, because we need more people to look at the article. That there isn't a consensus to remove the tag, can amongst other things be seen from the fact that the tag currently is status quo. --Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't even need to go to the archives - there is a discussion still here Talk:Electronic cigarette#POV tag being repeatedly removed from article, and yet you still editwar to remove it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've exchange the tag with the proposal Marshall made above. And for a bit of explanation... The section Electronic cigarette#Motivation for use should be about motivations for using electronic cigarettes, but quite frankly i can't determine what those motivations might be, because the whole section is a mishmash of discussions on how some think the motivations are wrong. It is hard to even parse that one paragraph of factlets. And that is symptomatic of the whole article - it seems to consist mostly of factlets that aren't stringed together to make a readable whole. And quite often these factlets contradict one another, without a guiding indicator as to what view is most abundent or relevant. --Kim D. Petersen 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the POV tag for reasons that I have already stated in the previous section on this issue before it was edit-warred out of the article again countless times without consensus. The issue of the Ambox/coherence tag is a separate one.Levelledout (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My proposed tag was meant as a joke. I don't feel that we need to devise a custom tag for the many problems with this article. I also agree that POV is not the best tag ---- it just happened to be the last stable one that we could actually make stick. A better way of explaining what's wrong with this article would be a combined header with {{repetition}}, {{verbosity}}, {{technical}} and {{overly detailed}}.—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Any neutral observer can tell by the above comments there was no specific reason for keeping the POV tag. Making vague objections about the article confirms there is no serious dispute. The "status quo" is not a reason to keep a POV tag. According to Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The burden for keeping the POV tag has not been met. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you aren't a neutral observer, it is not your call... But the neutral observer would notice that an article that is stuffed/a collection of soundbites/factless with repetitive information, without any regards for WP:WEIGHT, by default is POV. That is what weight is all about. --Kim D. Petersen 05:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a neutral observer? So far you (like others) are just making vague objections. Do you seriously think you are being helpful in this discussion? QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Quack, 2 things. 1) you're not neutral, you WP:OWN this article. 2) The reason you don't see these objections as specific is that they're overarching. The whole article is full of factoids that don't deserve weight, almost every paaragraph contains sentences written in barely comprehensible English and paragraphs is a disjointed term for the strings of factlets put together. I agree with S.Marshall's suggested tags apart from technical. Although they may overall be covered in {{Cleanup-rewrite}}SPACKlick (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, making vague objections shows there is no serious dispute. The dispute appears to be against WP:PAG when nothing specific was shown to be wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There have been several specific objections Quack
  • The article is badly written
  • The article is a collection of disjointed factlets
  • Several facts are presented with undue weight against e-ciagrettes or worded to suggest more negative towards e-cigarettes than sci consensus
Nobody is particularly seeking your consent Quack but every other contributor to this discussion agrees that this article needs something to draw in uninvolved editors because it needs serious help and most of us are too burned out to do it. The only dispute is what template best sums up the issues and will draw the right editors and I agree {{pov}} is not the right tag.SPACKlick (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It appears you think this article is negative "against e-cigarettes" but we are using high-quality sources. You deleted sourced information claiming it was unsourced. Your previous edit to the lede was largely counterproductive. You thought an improvement was turning the lede from 4 paragraphs to two paragraphs. I was an uninvolved editor and I did notice the issues with this page. Improving this article helps me brush up my editing. QuackGuru (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  Facepalm "Vague objections?" Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, there are several facts here placed in a context to spin them as negatives special to e-cigarettes. The long lists of "we don't know a and we don't know b and c has been shown in a small number of studies to have an effect. Is presented to make it seem like there is the suggestion of higher risk from a and b than the consensus of academic sources actually presents. Your opinion, I am aware, won't change. You like the article this way. But dozens of editors disagree with you and have been warded off by your blunt style. You're not improving the article, although you are finding a lot of useful sources, the consensus so far in this, albeit young, talk section is that outside editors need to come and save this article drowning in your gibberish and bloat. While other editors might not phrase it that way I will. Many of the contributions to this article decrease the readability, decrease the article's ability to provide information to the average reader and decrease the accuracy with which it reflects academic consensus. It needs a re-write and it probably needs an outside editor to do it. The purpose of whatever tag ends up being chosen as appropriate is just that. As I've said above, I don't think the POV issue is the biggest issue in the article, although it's there in small ways. The biggest issue is that this article isn't written, facts have been put in a shotgun and fired at the page. Once the article is readable the POV will either be blatant at which point it's an easy fix or will fall away because facts will be read in context. I suspect the latter.SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be 4 paragraphs which it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The tag isn't aimed at the lede, it's aimed at the whole article. I do have issues with how the lead is written but as I say I think wants the article is cleaned up the lede will naturally fall into a better style for delivering a summary because it will be summarising something comprehensible. I would also not leadlength is a guidline that specifies it may not be appropriate in all cases. Certainly I disagree with the current leadlength for the current article but I accept I'm in the minority on that so haven't pushed it since. SPACKlick (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You're not in the minority, SPACKlick. It's just the disproportionate amount of activity that makes it seem so. Editors who feel as you do are less vocal, but I don't think we're fewer in number.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that this article has multiple issues

The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See Template:POV:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

The serious dispute must be with WP:PAG not among editors making vague objections. No evidence has been presented on the talk page that this article has multiple issues. Please show not assert what are the "multiple issues". So far editors have not shown what are the multiple issues. The are several vague objections, such as the article is "badly written". Claiming there are multiple issues without showing there are multiple issues is counterproductive. The article has been improved over the last year, which includes documenting the "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", and "limited evidence" according to high-quality sources. This is not speculation. The bat signal was a joke. Not everyone is happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is largely supported by high-quality sources so it is obviously better than many articles. It is a contentious topic but the Wikipedia article should not be contentious. The real world debate should not spill over into Wikipedia. Do you understand that adding 3 maintenance tags at the top of the article without showing there is a serious problem on the talk page is not helpful? The 3 tags appears to be added to "warn" readers rather than discuss legitimate concerns for improving the article. Putting 3 tags to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes solves nothing. Repeating that this article is "badly written" or continuing to make vague complaints won't attract outside editors to make wild changes against WP:LEADLENGTH. Copy editors won't delete sourced text claiming it is unsourced. At WT:MED project there are uninvolved editors who are interested in improving articles. That's how I found this article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 48#I actually hate it here and I.27m leaving. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack, plenty of ediotrs have detailed their issues with the writing, with the way paragraphs are formed, with the content selection. You just don't hear them. Several ediotrs have called for this sort of tag to bring new eyes to the article. Your objection doesn't outweigh that consensus even if you don't understand it. SPACKlick (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You did not provide the evidence in this thread to merit 3 tags. Please provide the evidence or move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidence has been provided in repeated sections, you show no ability to comprehend the issues. That's fine, several other editors do understand the issues and are working to fix them. I won't move on because despite what you think you don't own this article. SPACKlick (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You did not provide one specific example in this thread and you restored the new tag against consensus. I am not the only editor who disagrees with the new tag. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru, I fully accept that you're "interested in improving articles". It's not your good faith that I question, it's your editorial judgment. I also find it extremely hard to talk to you because you don't hear things. Please allow the tag to remain in place for the duration of the discussion.

    The {{multipleissues}} tag related to the three main problems the article has:-

  1. Repetition. The article contains many sentences that are semantically equivalent. For example:-
    1. The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain... The role of electronic cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear... The long-term effects of e-cigarette use are unknown.
    2. The limited evidence does suggest that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes... E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke,[4] and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders.
    3. E-cigarette use is rising among females of childbearing age. Among females, e-cigarette use is rising sharply. In some countries, e-cigarette use has rapidly increased recently in women.
  2. Verbosity. Related to the first problem, the article is unnecessarily verbose. For example:-
    1. Ethical concerns exist about e-cigarettes use among minors and their potential to weaken efforts to reduce the use of traditional cigarettes.
    2. E-cigarette use among never-smoking youth in the U.S is correlated with an elevated desire to use traditional cigarettes.
  3. Overly detailed. The article contains an inappropriate level of technical detail. For example:-
    1. The lede lists seven categories of chemical constituents of the smoke. In the equivalent and much better-written article cigarette, the only chemical constituent mentioned in the lede is "nicotine".
    2. The lede contains six precise statistical statements. In cigarette, there are none, and much fewer in the body text.
    3. The article lists the common battery sizes, atomizer resistances, and other utterly trivial details.
So in my view the evidence to support the tag is clear and plain. It should remain and I ask you please to desist from your edit-warring attempts to remove it.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please note that my statement of the problems with the article is not meant to be exhaustive, and fixing those specific examples would not be sufficient to remove the tag.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Repetition: The lede is not repetitive. Verbosity: There is no problem with having that text in the article about minors and youth. Overly detailed. Those are the chemical constituents of the vapor that does improve the lede. The lede contains six precise statistical statements. That's good. The lede for the cigarette page is poorly written. The article lists the common battery sizes, and atomizer resistances which is good. What trivial details? No examples were given for the other trivial details. It appears you want to drastically shorten the lede when that proposal was previously rejected. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
And we're here again. I've shown the problems, and your response (eleven minutes later, which shows you didn't even consider what I said) was to deny that they exist and make accusations about my motives. I find you impossible to deal with. You don't convince your opponents in reasoned debate, you just exhaust them with sheer persistence.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Your motives are very clear. If we follow your proposals and edits the result will be an ambiguous incoherent lede. I respectively disagree with deleting many sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell

SPACKlick proposes various edits, and QuackGuru objects to every single one of them.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll be fair to Quack, it wasn't all of them. Just most of them SPACKlick (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you able to make any edits without QG altering the wording?—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple of minor ones, however the edits are now proposed above, I'm sure most of them can acquire consensus and become part of the article. SPACKlick (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees with deleting the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people do, and you haven't justified the inclusion of any of them, But over time it will be trimmed. Hopefully some of the editors your wP:Tendentious editing has driven away will come back as well and then more eyes will see more things and the article will read much better. SPACKlick (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem Quack is that as SPACKlick and S Marshall say you oppose and obstruct almost every single productive change that is attempted. You make proclamations and assertions but rarely WP:PAG based detailed explanations. You revert in the middle of discussions trying to work towards consensus. This drives many editors away and the article remains in its current state. Worst of all, no matter how many other editors tell you this, you won't listen and take on board what's said.Levelledout (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Cloudjpk wrote "I find some edits remove chaff and some remove wheat :) E.g. this edit removes relevant material sourced to Pisinger2014 and WHO that is not redundant. this edit removes relevant material sourced to WHOJuly2013 which I do not see elsewhere."[16] I must agree. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes those later edits removed some information which is properly included in the daughter articles to neten up the stubs. The information removed is in part duplicated, in part superceded and either way is in the daughter articles. And it has been partially restored with no reasonable justification. SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The section does not need to be a stub according to WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Stub/Summary Potato/Potahto. They were overlong, and contained excess non-applicable information. I trimmed them. Do you have any specific exceptions to the trimmed sentences beyond WP:OWN? SPACKlick (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I mean QG. You have completely ignored and likely disregarded what I said and quoted a single editor who made a single point about a single edit, which barely has any relevance to what I said.Levelledout (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the edits to two different sections and gave reasonable explanations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, he made a comment on the removal and saw fit to discuss it rather than revert it because cloudjpk is an editor here to improve wikipedia. SPACKlick (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You deleting it without discussion for a section that is already short. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that comment relates to something Quack but it sure as hell isn't a reply to any of the comments above.

Lightbulb Moment

I've worked out what's wrong with this page. This page reads like "A history of scientific studies on e-cigarettes" for the most part. I've started editing various sections so that they summarise the findings of the various studies rather than reporting every single study. This lightbulb moment has given me a significant second wind and I share it in the hopes of giving that second wind to you guys as well.

In terms of my actual edits. Can someone less enthused with e-cigs than me check that the first paragraph accurately summarises the position. What I'm trying to say with it (and what I interpret the sources to say) is that "There are studies that show very little cessation success for e-cigarettes, esp with dual users. There are other studies coming out that suggest e-cigs may actually help quitting smoking. There's a tiny suggestion they might be better than NRT. The data is not even in the ballpark of conclusive yet so no strong claim can be made and high caution should be exercised" SPACKlick (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, these data suggest that e-cigarettes may deliver nicotine at levels that are sufficient to substitute, at least partially, for cigarettes."[17] Your deleting a lot of text that is not redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree and await eagerly input from other editors. SPACKlick (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I find some edits remove chaff and some remove wheat :) E.g. this edit removes relevant material sourced to Pisinger2014 and WHO that is not redundant. this edit removes relevant material sourced to WHOJuly2013 which I do not see elsewhere. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
those edits remove information that is in the linked daughter articles. I thought the removed portions were chaff as they didn't add significant information. "They cannot be considered completely harmless" was removed because there is already significant discussion of potential harm so there's no suggestion they are harmless. Same reason for water

vapour. On reconsidering the ENDS posing risk to adolescents and fetuses should probably be re-inserted although I'm not sure where. The WHO 2013 was removed as out of date as there is more discussion of studies performed since on smoking cessation effectiveness. and the WHO position changed about the recommendation from "strongly advised not to use" to "mokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting...[but]...e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods." SPACKlick (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cloudjpk, thanks for spotting that. I partially restored some text for balance. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Very well then. User:Cloudjpk said the edit removed information from WHOJuly2013. No specific reason was given in this thread to delete it. Therefore, I am restoring it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Quack, ONUS is on providing reasons for inclusion and reasons were given for deletion. the WHO changed its recommendation in 2014 as we say in the article. Also 1 editor does not consensus make. Giving these discussions a week or so is not unreasonable. SPACKlick (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Another editor also disagreed with you. The text is part of a WP:SUMMARY of the safety lede. The safety section is only two short paragraphs. It can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Electronic cigarette/Archive 23" page.