Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mystery Wolff (talk | contribs) at 10:39, 29 November 2015 (→2014 study). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Template:Ecig sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Health and fitness This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs

Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) / Electronic cigarette Electronic cigarette This user has declared a connection.

Legal status of electronic cigarettes vs Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Legal status of electronic cigarettes is limited to only legal status. But with the title Regulation of electronic cigarettes it is very broad. I can create a new article for Regulation of electronic cigarettes. Please provide at least six refs and possibly start a sandbox if anyone is interested in my services. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• ... or you could, you know, let someone else do it. Just a thought. I've asked Arbcom to stop you from editing in the topic area until the case is over.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, please provide some references and we can create a new page. After you provide the references you will soon see a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to play to our relative strengths - you provide the refs, & i'll write it up? Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not have time to gather the references. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, the previous discussion here fell on deaf ears and we now have effectively two articles covering the same, legal status and legal status disguised as "Regulations of electronic cigarettes". Yet another article that needs competent rewriting.--TMCk (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a start! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. At the moment all it does is repeat legal status stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, now he's moved "legal status" to the ungrammatical Regulations of electronic cigarettes, without discussion! We should have two pages, which I'd suggest should be called Legality of electronic cigarettes (by country, essentially exists) and Regulation of electronic cigarettes (by issue; yet to be created). Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Having two articles on the same subject with nearly identical names that basically say the same thing is confusing. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, one is answering the question "Are e-cigs legal in Aruba", the other should deal with the far wider range of types of regulation (I recently gave a sample list here) and not degenerate into a by-country list with no generalizing narrative. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allow others to fix it.

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) AlbinoFerret 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC Are these sources the same?

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

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

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

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

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

Please discuss below in the discussion section

Are the sources the same or different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Different sources They base their views and opinions on the same background, and thus come to similar/same conclusion, just as many other such agencies and organizations do. Why should there be/is there a different standard between pro and contra organizations? --Kim D. Petersen 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Questions added after the start of the RfC above

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, for the same reasons as AlbinoFerret above, plus what I said in the immediately previous sub-question. In any case, removing duplication may sound fine, but not when the duplication is relevant and functional. The articles we write are not permitted to be essays (OR and similar religious war cries) and we accordingly are compelled to limit ourselves to citations that might entail redundancy. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Repetitive text and repetitive claims possibly shouldn't be used if we have two similar claims from lower level systematic reviews, of which there are now many for E-cigs and vapors, but should always be done when it's high level governmental health authorities making claims, even when the claims happen to be identical, because that illustrates consensus amongst public health authorities analyzing meta-data. LesVegas (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• No, they're difference sources, of the kind we need in order to establish the breadth with which the claim in question in made and supported. See WP:OVERCITE for a good rundown on when actual citation overkill is happening.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion for text

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

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

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

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

The text is still redundant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Smoker v Non-smoker

Hello User:SPACKlick I see you reversed some recent changes in the Electronic cigarette article, because, according to you, "Not per source, sentence refers to all people not just users". Would you then kindly explain to the rest of us, how is it "The benefits.." include non-smokers? And how is it that the safety risk from inhaling smokes from e-cig is like that of watching smokeless tobacco chewers for non-smokers? The article is obviously comparing the "benefits" for smokers ONLY, isn't it? And hence, changes should be made to reflect that, or in other words: THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING, Agree? --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not SPACKlick, but it appears he reverted you because of failed verification. All content must be based on a WP:MEDRS source for that type of claim. We cant add anything unless the source makes the same claim. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a matter of verification. The way the wordings stand right now imply that there are benefits to non-smokers too, which is obviously misleading at best. --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarkYabloko, I tried to clarify the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better QuackGuru, thank you!

But wouldn't 'smokers' be even better than 'users'? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every vaper is a current smoker or former smoker. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. What about adding the word "users" to: "Their safety risk is like that of smokeless tobacco"? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I added users to clarify it is users. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you QuackGuru --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, this page requires WP:MEDRS sources to state any medical claim, you might want to read the guideline. Also please be aware that daughter pages exist with much more detailed health risks. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Logical concepts in these types of arguments are very sensitive to context, which can distort or even invert flat conclusions. Consider:

"THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING"

certainly sounds conclusive rather than only persuasive, but on analysis it is less of a principle than a slogan, with all the question-begging characteristic of most slogans.

For example try instead:

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE SOME THINGS RATHER THAN OTHERS, EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS UNDESIRABLE

or

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE LESS OF SOME THINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE UNDESIRABLE

Each of these separately and both of them together are relevant to the question of the acceptability of vaping, if not necessarily of its positive desirability. However consider also:

THE UNDESIRABILITY OF INTRODUCING VAPING INTO A NON-SMOKING COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE BENEFITS OF INTRODUCING IT INTO A SMOKING COMMUNITY

Note that I speak as a non-smoking, non-vaping non-industry-connected disliker of smoking, who has yet to be significantly incommoded by vapers. I fully realise that that proves nothing, including my own honesty, good sense or relevant experience, but possibly I am gun-shy and I do wish to forestall certain classes of ad hominem responses that are common in such debates. JonRichfield (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification

The review does not mention "cigalikes", but we do mention "cigalike" in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So add one of the hundreds of MEDRS sources that do use the term, eg the PHE Report Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarettes in general are not called "cigalikes". There are many different names for different types of e-cigs such as box mods. We don't need to name all the different types in the lede. But the lede does have specific information on "cigalikes". See "There are disposable "cigalikes" which are known as first generation cigalikes and there are reusable versions." See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Bhatnagar2014_6-0. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a common term that has made its way to MEDRS sources. I see no reason it cant be added if its sourced. There is also still a ton of cigalike problems in the articles where claims about cigalikes are applied to all generations. AlbinoFerret 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the specific names we also state "There are also second generation, third generation, and fourth generation devices." The first sentence would be too long to include all the names. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Farsalinos2015_9-0. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While its true that these generations are in sources, I think it best to only mention those that have specific common names tied to them like cigalike, I am waiting for a Medrs source to use "ego type" to describe second generation as this is common usage. AlbinoFerret 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede now says "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod, personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco combustion." QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, coming to this late, I don't like the current start: "An electronic cigarette (EC, e-cig, or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod, personal vaporizer (PV), or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". There are too many bolded names in a row, and "cigalike, eGo, mod," are terms for particular types. It would be better to move these to the "generations" sentence a line or two down, and keep just the general terms that can cover all types at the start. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree here, that many alternatives when you are beginning a definition is not readable. Best to use the term Electronic Cigarette, continue the sentence, and then another sentence of alternative names. Possibly an entire section to have names reflected in relationship to Generations of devices. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now changed, & I'm happy with the current version. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New "full range" image uploaded

I've uploaded an image found and linked at MED talk by CFCF. Having all generations in one image will be useful for a wide range of pages.--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That image has too many devices that look similar as each other. The image is not a good option if the purpose is to illustrate concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its a bit compact, but otherwise a great picture. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you describing this image that you were so keen to force into the article and then was stuck there for over half a year and after it was removed recently you sneeked it in there again before reconsidering and replacing it with a single devise?--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kim. Compacted it is but otherwise almost perfect.--TMCk (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Add to Quack: Not to mention this image you had in mind as replacement.--TMCk (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good image. Some second gen, but mostly third. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 cigalikes, too. Aren't they 1st generation?--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the black cigalike on the edge, it blended in. So there are first gen also. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. Bright, high-color, logos displayed, mirrored on the surface. If you want WP to advertise product, it's a fine choice. If you want to provide information such as types, similarities and differences, generations, and so on, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Cloudjpk: I presume I've missed something. Did you seriously mean to tell us that File:E Cigarettes, Ego, Vaporizers and Box Mods (17679064871).jpg looks like an advertisement to you, or was this some kind of humour or sarcasm?—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Replace with better when possible The items featured in this picture are hard to distinguish or identify. I would prefer a single e-cigarette depicted clearly, which is the usual way of illustrating product articles. There is no explanation of the significance of showing these designs or how they might differ from each other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An image with the 3 (4 or 5?) different main types would be better indeed but if wp were to be that picky there were (almost) no images (and no text).--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I restored the older images which show individual products. I think these are more traditional as product images than the group photo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous.--TMCk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I fail to understand your perspective but would talk more. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The new image you replaced shows a broad spectrum of devices, including newer devices. The old ones are dated technology and show only 2 of the devices that are e-cigs. The newer image is better. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I assert that most Misplaced Pages product pages only show one current example of the product. To what extent do you agree? If you agree, then why do you feel this article should be different? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because of the pace of innovation and the number of devices that dont look like each other that are classified as e-cigs. You cant simply insert images of two kinds and expect it to visually describe what you are talking about. This is part of the cigalike problem I have mentioned in other sections. The articles are to focused on one type out of the multitude of types. AlbinoFerret 20:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The newer image contains repetitive pictures. For example, there are 5 pictures of box mods and it is difficult to tell where is the cigalike. It would be better to find a better image than use this one. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The most designed and innovated object in the world is the chair and still the article there only has one picture. One representative example is the norm. Suppose that a group image were better - why this one? It is crowded, does not allow differentiation of models, and shows outdated models just like the single image. It would be unorthodox to not use a single product image and stranger still to use a lower-quality group photo. If you like new devices, then why not a single image of a commonly used new device? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason for this one , is because we have this one. If you have another that is better, by all means suggest it. But suggesting the older images should not be replaced because one we dont have is better is faulty logic. As for other articles, perhaps Inhaler is a better comparison as they are similarly used. It has a multi image in its lede. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret That article also shows a single image. Can you provide a single product image that you like, that could be shown with the group image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Since QG pointed out the cigalike is hard to see in the new image, keep the cigalike one already there and replace the ego image with the new one. AlbinoFerret 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

fyi Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Entry For "Electronic Cigarette" is a Hideous, Unreadable Mess

A critique of this article. Enjoy (or not)! http://blog.thedripclub.com/the-wikipedia-entry-for-electronic-cigarette-is-a-hideous-mess - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not from a very neutral source, but many of these points have been made here for years. In fact the "bath salts" bit is not as crazy as it seems - it turns out it is an American street name for substituted cathinones, but it was lazy of the authors of the study not to clarify their sentence. Adjusted by this edit. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree this page does have serious problems, mostly related to sourced content from very old content for a rapidly evolving technology product. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for GA?

Has there been any thought about taking this article through Good article nomination. It seems fairly comprehensive content- and sourcing-wise. The prose could use some improvement but I don't think that is as a huge issue for GA status as it is for FA. Sizeofint (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, things are being deleted from the lede that summarise the body. Sourced text is being replaced with vague text or original research. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess at present it would fail the stability criteria then. Sizeofint (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint, I noticed someone added MEDRS violations, restored a COPYVIO, deleting sourced text to recent reviews, and replaced sourced text with original research. User:SMcCandlish, they never wandered away. The second I stop editing this article it will quickly be turned into something very different. You said "There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic." Sanger said "I think Misplaced Pages never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule". Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I dunno at this point. The ArbCom thing is still ongoing. The copyvio insertion is best dealt with at the copyvio noticeboard. Then it's the community resolving the matter (in a way that can restrain a copyvio-habitual editor if necessary) instead of one party at an ArbCom case opening himself to claims of editwarring (invalid claims or not) by trying to revert the copyvios unilaterally. I.e., I think this has basically become "political" and has to be treated as a political process instead of a normal editorial one. If someone's inserting OR, an an initial attempt to rectify it fails, then use the OR noticeboard, and so on. It's a drama-ish, drawn out approach, but when dealing with WP:CIVILPOV matters, that's the only route, probably, especially on a major, controversial topic that may attract fandom-based or even industry-shill editing. Anyone pursuing a civil-PoV tactic would already be playing a political game and angling to use dramaboards to get what they want strategically, so probably the only antidote for this is to ensure that the boards are already familiar with what is going on before you get vexatiously hauled in front of them with cherry-picked diffs only chosen from, say, moments in which you've lost your temper or done something potentially controversial yourself (if you even want to be the one to deal with this stuff, a duty I'm not sure I'd volunteer for). This all has to be about the encyclopedic end result in the end, so stick to that and to what's being done with the content in anti-policy ways, rather than who's doing it and what their possible motivations might be. The problems need to be shut down more than any particular editor doing something problematic. Anyone who is WP:NOTHERE will lose interest and go away if PoV-pushing avenues are shut down to them, without the side effect of making martyrs out of them. (And that can happen; I've seen it with my own eyes.) PS: Another technique, though potentially a quasi-pointy one in spirit though not in execution, is just walk away and quietly encourage others to do so, and let any dominant PoV-pushing faction just hang itself with its own rope over the next 6 months or year, creating a pseudo-article that everyone can see is crap, so it can be razed and something better built on its ruins. Another technique is to write new articles on narrower topics that are bulletproof-sourced (it can help to prepare these offline until around B-class level), then work to integrate that sourcing into the more general articles, using RfCs as necessary to resolve contradictory POVforks in the overview article that resist merging.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-clarification: In light of ArbCom and WP:AC/DS and all 'at, I should make it clear that I don't think any of the present editorial pool are industry shills. I think some have edited this page and might return if one or more of the regular editors who would revert PoV stuff from them were to disappear for a long time, however. As I said on my own talk page, I would hope that enough non-WP:NOTHERE editors would remain watchlisting this page to prevent an actual going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket result. That said, such results have happened before and been swept clean and turned into better articles, so I think it'll work out one way or another. Nutty PoVs tend to stay long-term in articles (and could thereby even influence public thought about the topics) mostly when the topic is esoteric and attracts few editors to moderate the PoV-pushing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the stability thing would get this punted from GAN. Which is a shame, because that kind of review process is precisely what would weed out a lot of the PoV pushing (and there are multiple forms of it; I think we've identified at least four different "viewpoint camps", along at least two axes, in this topic area). I find it very frustrating because I'm not in any of them and just want to see a balance emerge. It's not WP's job to "declare a winner" in these debates (it's important that we don't; that's the job of external sources). This article needs to lay out:

• The view that e-cigs cause more harm than good because they attract would-be-nonsmokers into a form of smoking/addiction, and the long term health effects are unknown (plus other issues, like too few dosage regulations, toxic ingredients, accessibility by minors via Internet orders, etc.).
• The view that e-cigs are a boon because it is not plausible that the effects are worse than breathing in burning material, and there's evidence that e-cigs help real smokers quit real smoking, meanwhile there's already an increasing raft of laws and regulations on e-cig aerosol content, availability to minors, etc.
• The view that whatever the medical debates, e-cigs are being unfairly targeted for regulatory scrutinym even banning, by a hypocritical system that condones alcohol drinking and other worse habits and is singling out one lifestyle choice as a distracting scapegoat and out of reactionary neophobia.
• The view that society needs to better control and discourage all of these things, and that this is not simply "just as good a place to start as any", but an obvious and urgent one because of the misleading way that these products are promoted, and the politically weak position they're in compared to big tobacco and big liquor, and the drug cartels for that matter.

And there's probably some other well-attested viewpoint or two or five to work in. Let the readers draw their own conclusions (which may be no conclusion; I find myself neutral on each axis I outlined, for reasons that would not necessarily be obvious). Some of these are clearly MEDRS matters, some are socio-political.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert 19.11.15

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

@Johnbod: Smoking cessation: the article is stuffed with contradictory sentences one after the other - why pick on this one -- Might as well start somewhere. Are you happy for me to fix this stuff or would you prefer that I tagged all the contradictory sentences for you to fix?—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This text is already in the Harm reduction section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is, but "Vaping may have potential in harm reduction compared to smoking." is. I'd be happy to move the disputed sentence to "Harm Reduction", removing the one I just quoted, but keeping the reference for the new text.

In general, where significant chunks of text are being addressed, I think new drafts (up to a para at a time say), should be proposed here for discussion. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See Electronic cigarette#Harm_reduction. "As of 2014 promotion of vaping as a harm reduction aid is premature, but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy."

"Vaping may have potential in harm reduction compared to smoking." This text is redundant. It can be deleted.

There is a summary of "Harm reduction" in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Johnbod, the reason I fought that colossal Arbcom case was so that I would be allowed to change the article. No, I'm not going to submit my edits to a committee process before I make them. If you don't like what I write, change it. If you've given any specific and intelligible reasons for that revert, I haven't seen them yet, so perhaps you could point that out to me.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• And then you revert me, as you just did. And then we end up here. We might as well do that from the start, and not sentence by sentence - that way of doing things is half the trouble with the article as it stands. Take it from someone with a lot more experience here than you, re-drafting section by section is the way to go in an article like this. Otherwise someone just rewrites your rewrites, and only 1-2 people can be bothered to follow the edit-history, and no-one except the author will bother to defend any version. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't recall reverting you, Johnbod. I recall reverting one edit of Blueraspberry's. I think you're confused about this, which is understandable given the volume of editing recently. I see that you don't want me to go through fixing the contradictions so I'll tag them for you to fix.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Probably. Please don't bother on my account - I'm unlikely to do anything about them that way. The article is full of contradictions because the sources are. The way to fix that is not just to remove things, but to redraft a balanced narrative that explains the issues and the different statements, and everybody editing the page directly at the same time won't achieve that. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• "As of 2014, their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear, but they have a potential to be part of the strategy to decrease tobacco related death and disease." This is the current text in the lede. It would be confusing to place both sources at the end of the sentence. Both sources do not verify the same text. Sources usually disagree on this topic but that does not mean there is anything to fix. I disagree with adding a tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New paragraph, headed Nicotine yield.

Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL. This is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source).

This new paragraph would go somewhere around the "construction" section. It also belongs in our horrible, horrible fork called electronic cigarette aerosol (which amusingly fails to quantify the nicotine concentration in the vapour, although it certainly has a lot to say about the levels of formaldehyde, carcinogens and lead). If, that is, that's one of the forks that survives AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense to compare an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine with the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid! The tobacco of an traditional cigarette contains ca. 14mg nicotine (1.1-2.9% of dry weight of tobacco SOURCE: Click). You have to compare either the amount of nicotine in liquid and tobacco or the amount of nicotine absorbed from liquid and tobacco. You can't compare apples with pears - Mixing up things is misleading! BTW: The only thing that counts is the nicotine delivery respectively blood plasma concentration of nicotine.

• Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial.
• Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices. (Hint: Look at Fig. 4, Click me)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea S Marshall, go for it. AlbinoFerret 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's a cogent point well made. I should have been less facetious and more careful; a lesson for me there. (My excuse is that I was stung). Let's try this:

Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). Vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (Nature source linked above). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL, but this is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source).

This would be a whole lot easier if other people could directly edit what I write, wouldn't it?—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Better! Much better! :) How about a sentence that Vapers tend to reach the lower blood nicotine concentrations much slower than smokers?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the specific information about EU regulations to the construction page. For this page I added general information about the liquid concentrations. See "A cartridge may contain 0 to 20 mg of nicotine." If the other information is added to the construction section it should be added to the construction page body and lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• No you don't, sunshine. We will not be going back to that old problem where I'm not allowed to change the article but when I start a talk page conversation QuackGuru pre-emptively makes changes before consensus is reached.—S Marshall T/C 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Merlin 1971: How about:-

  Smoking an average traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine.(source). The amount of nicotine in a cloud of e-cigarette vapour is widely variable and estimates based on the studies available to date need to be treated with caution (same source). In practice vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (nature source linked above). Tobacco smoke is absorbed into the bloodstream rapidly, and e-cigarette vapour is relatively slow in this regard (nature source linked above). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 20mg/mL, but this is an arbitrary limit based on limited data (source). The nicotine concentration in an e-liquid is not a reliable guide to the amount of nicotine that reaches the bloodstream (source).

  Is the nicotine content of e-liquids regulated in the US?—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• One minor thing: You'd need to drop the "in a cloud" (which is formed out of exhaled vapor) or replace it with (inhaled) aerosol. As for your question about US regulations, not yet.--TMCk (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• This article probably needs a glossary of technical vaping terms.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not e-cig specific. One wouldn't say "smoke cloud" either unless maybe when it is about second hand smoke.--TMCk (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would. I smoked for 25 years, and I used to talk about a cloud of smoke. Might be one of those American dialect things.—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A cloud is commonly a specific (usually) visible physical formation but we're getting off topic a bit (I guess).--TMCk (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Next draft:-

  Nicotine yield

  Smoking a traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine (source 1), but the nicotine content of the cigarette is only weakly correlated with the levels of nicotine in the smoker's bloodstream (source 2). Likewise the amount of nicotine in a puff of e-cigarette vapor is widely variable and estimates based on the studies currently published need to be treated with caution (source 2). In practice vapers tend to reach lower blood nicotine concentrations than smokers, particularly when the vapers are inexperienced or using earlier-generation devices (nature source linked above: source 3). Tobacco smoke is absorbed into the bloodstream rapidly, and e-cigarette vapor is relatively slow in this regard (source 3). EU regulations cap the concentration of nicotine in e-liquid at a maximum of 2% (20mg/mL), but this is an arbitrary ceiling based on limited data (source 4). In practice the nicotine concentration in an e-liquid is not a reliable guide to the amount of nicotine that reaches the bloodstream (source 5).

  Nearly there now?—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good. Maybe add (now or later) common nicotine content besides (or instead) the EU specific regulation.--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• The common nicotine content is in the article. See "A cartridge may contain 0 to 20 mg of nicotine." The specific info about EU regs is in the construction page. It is better to use common info on nicotine content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• The common nicotine content of cartridges is not the common one for e-liquids in general. Maybe read "your" article on it?--TMCk (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. BTW: I like the way this open and productive discussion is developing!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if QuackGuru's is the only objection then please could someone pop that paragraph in below "construction" and above "health effects"? In a less fraught article I'd do that myself.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And get reverted in one sweep or tiny little subtle edits? No no, it's all yours :) --TMCk (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

TMCk, you wrote "Looks good. Maybe add (now or later) common nicotine content besides (or instead) the EU specific regulation.--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)" Do you think EU specific regulation is too EU-centric? Would it be better to add a general claim instead? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said above.--TMCk (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Followup

Some of this should be worked into the Electronic cigarette aerosol article. I'm skeptical that the EU limit of 20 mg represents the upper limit of the range of concentrations in commonly available liquids, especially outside of the EU. That's too much coincidence to take seriously. In answer to a question toward the end, it'a not "EU-centric" to include info on the EU regs, though we would probably include other limits that have been enacted in large/influential jurisdictions. This kind of regulatory detail may be better at the aerosol article. Whether or not that will remain a separate article forever is an open question, but it is one for now, and should not be neglected, much less should the articles provide contradictory info or convey contradictory implications.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Were you canvassed here? AlbinoFerret 23:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's view is very welcome here. He's the kind of editor we need to attract to this topic.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to drive anyone away, I just found it interesting that he showed up soon after QG posted on his talk page. AlbinoFerret 00:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Canvassed? No. I check in from time to time, though mostly was just observing while the RfArb was running. I was too late to get in on this RfC or whatever it was, because I've been super-busy with a server project, then Thanksgiving (the US version). I didn't even know the RfArb had closed, or that various clarifications and AE actions had been launched with regard to them, so it seemed wise to see what was going on after QG corrected me on the RfArb still being ongoing. I don't know why I wasn't notified of its closure. I found this RfC-thing after reviewing your ARCA request and QG's AE request (which I'm declining to get involved in). Had I known about it, I would have supported the editing direction it took and the outcome. I just think it leaves some issues open with regard to reams of detail being added here that more properly belong entirely in the aerosols article, copied to it, or mostly in it and summarized here. They should not WP:POVFORK even if some would like to see a merger (if anything, it just makes merging more difficult later).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. :) AlbinoFerret 03:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I can produce sources that say that concentrations well in excess of 20mg are available. I haven't found a source that says exactly what range is available on general sale, unfortunately. Anyone got anything?—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

6, 12, 18, 24 used to be the commonly sold strengths in the UK, as looking at any website would tell you, though with the new regulations coming a move to 12, 16, 20 seems to be happening. Much higher strengths are rarely seen in the UK, and designed for the tiny mix-your-own market, rather than actually using. I'd think 30 or 36 are the most anyone much would enjoy, though there's no accounting for Americans. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Safety claim in Harm reduction.

This claim is not about harm reduction and should be moved, I do not believe this to be a harm reduction claim but a safety one.

A 2015 review found vaping e-cigarettes at a high voltage (5.0V) may generate formaldehyde-forming chemicals at a greater level than smoking, which has been determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than smoking; the underlying research had used a "puffing machine". Another small study with people using similar devices and settings found that the users could not use the devices because of "dry-puffs" at the high settings, which according to the 2015 Public Health England report "poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled" and "At normal settings, there was no or negligible formaldehyde release." They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

Any suggestions on a location? AlbinoFerret 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole 3rd para is safety rather than harm reduction, which does not = everything to do with "harm". I'd suggest spiltting the 2nd para of "Safety", and adding it after " varies in composition and concentration across and within manufacturers.", then sorting the para arrangements afterwards - most are too long anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the safety section remain 4 paragraghs. Is it possible to shorten the text a bit? It says "They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."" Since there is no indication of exposure to dangerous levels of aldehydes this is a harm reduction compared to smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That cant be removed regardless where it is placed, if the first claim is kept. It is not harm reduction to say that the findings of a previous claim is wrong. In fact that whole section should be removed from the articles because PHE shows that the results were the product of failed methodology. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Harm reduction is not about detailed clinical aspects of safety like this, otherwise what is the difference with safety? It is about, with a considerable difference in risk levels accepted, how useful e-cigs are are at replacing or reducing tobacco smoking for individuals or groups. "Gateway" and "making nicotine accepted again" type issues belong here. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources often contradict each other on this topic. If we remove all the disagreements there will be very little left. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal would not be on the basis of disagreement, but that a source has pointed out the flawed methodology of the findings. AlbinoFerret 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the text to the safety section. Moving all of the text was too much detailed information for a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The text was misplaced. I moved some of the text to safety. This was not new material. This edit deleted the text, but did not give a specific explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I moved the claim to safety, and then you removed it without waiting for a response to a talk page section you started on Safety. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved some of the claims to the safety section in this article because it was misplaced in the harm reduction section. I removed duplication from the safety page. According to talk page consensus the text was misplaced. After I moved some text the correct section it was deleted. The text was in the article for some time. I do not see consensus to delete all the information from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is that most of that paragraph was safety, I removed all the safety claims from Harm reduction, if anything removed isnt already on Safety, it can be placed there. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete it all from this page. You added mostly duplication to the safety page. There was talk to add it the another section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not deleted, but moved to the Safety page. As I see it Johnbod agreed and so it was moved. The information is not lost, and if some was inadvertently misplaced it can be retrieved from history and placed in the correct location, the safety page. The addition was suggested to go to the safety section, but that should be a sync of the Safety lede, I am not sure such detailed information is necessary in the Safety lede. You also argued against it being in that section, so it went on the Safety page.AlbinoFerret 21:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You added mostly duplication to the other page. I explained it was too much info to add all of it so I added only some of it to the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Didnt see it was already there, so I added it, no biggie. Logic indicates if its to much for the summery of Saftey on this page, it should go on the Safety page. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

New article

See E-liquid. Do editors want to keep it or redirect it? I could expand it to include more information about the chemicals added to the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The article contains nothing but duplicative information from Construction and should be removed. Adding Safety information or other information from the articles to it would make it a coatrack and would duplicate information from that article. I know of no discussions of splitting off e-liquid from Construction and the pages creation without the same is a big problem. AlbinoFerret 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep it for now. It's obviously all just a copy now, but there is plenty of coverage of flavours (targeted at children or not), the market, strengths, regulation and so on that is far from fully covered at present in the other articles. But it needs to develop its own content. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the section in Construction should be expanded first. There is a lot of room to expand it. At the moment it is unnecessary to have a separate. There may never be a need for a separate page. I don't have additional sources to expand the page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, if its kept, I think we should remove the information from Construction. I never thought of eliquid as part of construction which imho should be more hardware related. Eliquid is more software. We could add a link to see also. AlbinoFerret 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone finds more sources please post them on the e-liquid talk page or help expand the page. It is a bit short. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious content fork of Electronic cigarette aerosol, to which it should be merged. And "e-liquid" is meaningless jargon to anyone who is not an electronic cigarette user (or who doesn't live right near a shop that specializes in them and uses this jargon in their window advertising). "E-juice" and "e-vapor" are the exact same topic, other than what state the material is in because it has or hasn't been used yet. We don't have separate articles on gasoline in a can and gasoline as it's being combusted in an engine, or beef as its being sliced for cooking and beef as it's coming out of the oven. "E-liquid" in the bottle is not a notable topic, as it doesn't do anything or have any effects. The aerosol is the notable topic, since it does and it's what all the research is about. In skimming E-liquid I cannot see a single thing in it that cannot be merged to Electronic cigarette aerosol, and doing so would make a notable improvement in said article. It could also merge in some other way, though I think it's too much material to merge into the main Electronic cigarette article which is already getting unwieldy under WP:SUMMARY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  23:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge The subjects are notable and can stand alone. AlbinoFerret 23:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Suport Merge. E-liquid is what is used to make the aerosol. Same topic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• The material could be merged in some other way, e.g. to "Electronic cigarette liquid and aerosol", or even all into the main article at least for a while. The point is that we don't need vying articles for the same product as it is sitting on the shelf and being used. Even the pics are just examples of the marketing of what one puts into and gets out of the e-cig device. The more significant material from an encyclopedic standpoint is the composition and health information, but there's no reason to exclude the marketing information. There's just not a compelling reason for splitting that into a separate article. Imagine if we had, instead of Smokeless tobacco, "Smokeless tobacco pouches and snuff" to cover the packaging, and "Smokeless tobacco spit" to cover what comes out of that product and technically delivers the nicotine? The only reasons we have a separate Tobacco smoke article are a) there are separate articles on different forms of smoking, like cigars, cigarettes, pipes, hookas, and b) the amount of research material on tobacco smoke, both for smokers and secondarily, is huge, and there's also separate legislation on smoking as an activity (to keep smoke away from non-smokers) versus the regulation of sales of cigarettes, etc. To merge all of that into one article would not be feasible. We don't have that kind of situation here. We have a pretty large amount of material about e-cigs, large enough to support probably a split about chemical material (and its marketing and health effects) vs the device and its operation, just as we have separate articles on tobacco the material and various things like pipes and hookah and so on. I think there's some personality conflicts involved here. I've seen it alleged by various editors that Electronic cigarette aerosol is primarily the "owned" article of one editor, and see that editor claims that E-liquid is someone else's attempt to do likewise (and that some sockpuppetry has been involved). None of that seems relevant to whether we're producing good article content that is well organized. At this point, I'm starting to think it might be better to merge it all for a while into this article, sort it out, then work up a proper WP:SUMMARY split plan. However, I think the it would conclude in the end to split out the "stuff" from the "device" (particularly since there may be more devices than e-cigs in which the "stuff" can be used) and not have a pre-/post-use split in the "stuff" material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is not to be stand-alone I agree Electronic cigarette aerosol is the better place to put it, but since that term is surely far less well known than e-liquid (and most people still think it is "vapour") the name would certainly need changing. Actually there are dozens, if not hundreds, of very short articles relating to aspects of smoking, so that lengthy spiel backfires imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of merging quite a few of those tobacco topics, too, but keep in mind that the volume of material involved about tobacco is about an order of magnitude larger, so many such merges wouldn't be doable. Another issue is that many of them are separate pages for long-term cultural reasons; a hookah isn't just some variant of a pipe, etc. There are no such consideration with a globally marketed product that's only been around a few years.

I don't quite see the rationale for merging both these e-cig–related pages to E-liquid. (This will be semi-long, too, because of the number of criteria in WP:AT.) It seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME argument, but that rubric applies to multiple names for the same topic (e.g. dipping tobacco vs. moist snuff, etc.), and is not always the logic that gets applied anyway ("dipping tobacco" is not actually the common name, but a WP:DESCRIPTDIS; there are so many names for that stuff that none of them are demonstrable to be the common one exception regionally, so a descriptive term was chosen; this problem is also why many plant species articles are at the scientific names instead of one of conflicting vernacular ones). Here we have multiple names for different states of the same subject material, which isn't quite the same thing as different names for the same subject. We only have articles on specific states of a material when they're independently notable of another state (Ice, Liquid nitrogen, Ground beef). There seems to be no notable use for "e-liquid" other than aerosolizing it. The most encyclopedic aspect of the topic is the aerosol, not what it looks like in cute packages people call "e-liquid" or "e-juice" (and for which the common name probably is the latter anyway). Cf. Incense; we don't have separate articles for the stick, cone, powder, resin, oil, etc. forms; the packaging isn't independently notable, the state of it in actual use as smoky stuff is the meat of the topic, and we secondarily cover how it is packaged and sold before use. The fact that so many people have been misled into thinking it's a vapor is a good reason to use the aerosol title, since this is an encyclopedia with an educational mission, and "vapor", like "juice", is a misnomer. Next, "e-liquid" is both jargon and an abbreviation, which we avoid in titles for severable reasons; we'd surely use "Electronic cigarette liquid" were the merge to run the other way, for WP:PRECISION and for WP:CONSISTENCY with the other articles in the series. It wouldn't present any WP:RECOGNIZABILITY problems (the RM to rename Electronic cigarette aerosol to use "vapor" concluded that as well with regard to that topic). It just would not be the most WP:CONCISE conceivable name, but that's the criterion we most often sacrifice in favor of the others (after commonness, when it does not quite address the full scope of the content).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm a lumper not a splitter. I think that the number of articles we have in this topic area is unnecessarily bloated and will definitely confuse the uninformed reader: see Category:Electronic cigarettes. I think that having separate articles on Safety of electronic cigarettes and Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes can no longer be justified, since the disruption in the topic area has abated for the time being (I think it should now be possible to remove duplicative and superseded content even if it's sourced). I would be in favour of merging e-liquid and electronic cigarette aerosol. However, I also think this is the wrong place for the discussion and would recommend that it happens on the talk page of one of the articles to be merged.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: reduced volts and aldehydes

RfC: Is the first proposal or any other proposal relevant to the Safety section?

First proposal: Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found later-generation and "hotter" e-cigarettes (e.g. 5.0 volts) may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another 2015 review stated that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated at a maximum voltage users could not use the devices because users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and they concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Orellana-Barrios2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Polosa, R; Campagna, D; Caponnetto, P (September 2015). "What to advise to respiratory patients intending to use electronic cigarettes". Discovery medicine. 20 (109): 155–61. PMID 26463097.
5. McNeill, A, SC (2015). "E – cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. pp. 77–78.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Second Proposal by AlbinoFerret - Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out explained that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

1. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Polosa, R; Campagna, D; Caponnetto, P (September 2015). "What to advise to respiratory patients intending to use electronic cigarettes". Discovery medicine. 20 (109): 155–61. PMID 26463097. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. ^ McNeill, A, SC (2015). "E – cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. pp. 77–78.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Third proposal: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."

1. ^ Polosa, R; Campagna, D; Caponnetto, P (September 2015). "What to advise to respiratory patients intending to use electronic cigarettes". Discovery medicine. 20 (109): 155–61. PMID 26463097.
2. Cite error: The named reference Orellana-Barrios2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ McNeill, A, SC (2015). "E – cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. pp. 77–78.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I tweaked the third proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth proposal, a mixture of the last two, using "power" rather than "voltage", and other minor tweaks: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking. Another 2015 review stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the same studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal, adds the study: -

Normal usage of e-cigarettes generates very low levels of formaldehyde. A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes set at higher power may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde compared to smoking citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider. Another 2015 review looking at the Kosmider study stated that these levels were the result of overheating under test conditions that bear little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report looking at the similar studies stated that by applying maximum power and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquids can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. Users detect the "dry puff" and avoid it, and the report concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." AlbinoFerret 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Comments on reduced volts and aldehydes

Backstory: I thought it would be better to shorten the text. The misplaced text was eventually removed from the harm reduction section and I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction. for the previous discussion.

Proposal: I propose including this text in Electronic cigarette#Safety but with better clarification. I think the reader will benefit from knowing reduced volts are generally safer than high volts and according to a report users are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC):

The RFC is malformed. The RFC does not ask a question, and misleads any editors leaving comments. The reason the edit should be removed is the Public Health England report on pages 76-77 shows that the results were obtained by faulty methodology. This paragraph is especially insightful

The EC was puffed by the puffing machine at a higher power and longer puff duration than vapers normally use. It is therefore possible that the e-liquid was overheated to the extent that it was releasing novel thermal degradation chemicals. Such overheating can happen during vaping when the e-liquid level is low or the power too high for a given EC coil or puff duration. Vapers call this phenomenon ‘dry puff’ and it is instantly detected due to a distinctive harsh and acrid taste (it is detected by vapers, but not by puffing machines) . This poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled.

So they set the experiment up to fail by setting the device to maximum and then increasing the puff length till the wicks ran dry. It is no surprise the found evidence of "thermal degradation" (burning). AlbinoFerret 03:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the simple truth "Under normal conditions e-cigarettes generate neglible levels of formaldehyde" as an entry?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point Merlin, let me try another crack at a proposal, and remove some of the synthesis

Proposal by AlbinoFerret - E-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde. A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage of 5 volts generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking. Another review looking at the same studies pointed out that the levels were the result of overheating during testing that bears little resemblance to common usage. A 2015 Public Health England report that looked at the similar studies concluded that by applying maximum voltage and increasing the time the device is used on a puffing machine, e-liquid's can thermally degrade and produce high levels of formaldehyde. This poses no harm to humans because they detect the "dry puff" and avoid it.

1. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Polosa, R; Campagna, D; Caponnetto, P (September 2015). "What to advise to respiratory patients intending to use electronic cigarettes". Discovery medicine. 20 (109): 155–61. PMID 26463097. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. ^ McNeill, A, SC (2015). "E – cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. pp. 77–78.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

That looks better. AlbinoFerret 09:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO: That sums it up very well.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

At a normal voltage generate is too ambiguous. The part "pointed at" is a phrase to avoid according to WP:CLAIM. I expanded my original proposal. I added below my proposal in case you want to formally propose an alternative. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edited proposal, which should not have been done in an RFC and this whole section has little resemblance to a RFC if any, leaves out to much information. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Voltage generate it too ambiguous"?? Voltage is meaningless! Don't you know the difference between power and electric potential? It seems to me, you're trying to paraphrase some findings, without knowing the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as proposer. Support first proposal. It can be tweaked, shortened or expanded. It is relevant to include information about the safety of different volts in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I have made one formal proposal. AlbinoFerret, I tried to keep the information brief for a WP:SUMMARY. The additional details are in the main Safety page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) As a second option I support Proposal by AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NPOV The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources. AlbinoFerret 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You stated "The changed proposal by QuackGuru leaves out details and makes the summery not reflect the sources.", but you have not stated what was left out for a brief summary. You can make a second formal proposal. The specific question is if the first proposal or any other proposal is relevant to the Safety section? Do you think your proposal is relevant to the safety section? QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare The above "Proposal by AlbinoFerret" to see whats left out, the summery you suggest is to short and leaves out details. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The changed proposal by QuackGuru is misleading and did not reflect the facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This entire topic is Original Research OR being done within Misplaced Pages. There is no thing called "hot" cigs. Normal volts is reference to unregulated power sources, which are now for enthusiasts in 3rd Generation format. Not to get into the weeds to fast, the work the researchers did was without the benefit of an Electrical Engineer EE. Volts are not critical, but rather the delivered Wattage at coil which has the coils resistance factored. If you want to get even more into it you need to look at airflow, in the creation of overcooked E-Liquids. The entire term used in the lede of "hotter" is "OR" not supported by citations or practices. It needs to be removed. I don't think I need to register opposition to OR, but I will say OPPOSE, and will be reviewing uncited content. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See "As e-cigarette manufacturing changes, the newer and “hotter” products may expose patients to higher levels of known carcinogens." QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

When I read that link, its points to data that has widely been discredited under peer review. Simply put, it takes a product that is intended to be used at 3.5-3.9 Volts, and ups the Voltage to 4.8V. This is not some sort of new fangled E-Cig. It is a product purposely being misused and measured. Its a burnt toast means of testing. Taking a toaster that toasts fine on setting 2, and turning it up to 10, and saying the resultant burnt toast is bad for health. 1. Yes of course it is, 2. nobody would eat it regardless. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a better proposal for the wording? I think we might be able agree that "Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

1. Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

We can start here with information about reduced volts. QuackGuru (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we're not able to agree. It would be correct to write: "At normal power levels e-cigarettes generate negligible amounts of formaldehyde." If you ask yourself "what is unnormal?" I suggest, you think of the toasterparable.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to use a primary source, especially when there are reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be even more incorrect to use false/misleading information.--24.134.156.211 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And how are you saying we define it as false/misleading? Misplaced Pages isn't about reporting the "truth", but about what is WP:Verifiable, and the content of reviews trump that from primary sources here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We usually "define it as false/misleading" by using a verifying source (which happens to exist in this case) that points out such false/misleading claims.--TMCk (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The new secondary source below does use normal "at normal vaping conditions, the levels of aldehyde emissions are by far lower than the levels of cigarette smoke." I agree with TMCk that against using verifiable claims with false information. Especially when it is proven to be false by other verifiable sources WP:NOTFALSE. AlbinoFerret 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively."

"Reduced voltage e-cigarettes (e.g. 3.0 volts) generate very low levels of formaldehyde.

1. Cite error: The named reference Cooke2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I think the text is accurate and neutral. Stating it as a "normal volt" is too vague. I'd rather the text be more precise and readable. How is the reader going to know what is a normal volt if we don't tell the reader what is the volt? The source says "at a lower voltage". QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That way you are likely to mislead the reader, as some earlier versions have done, by implying that a particular voltage is "normal", or safer, for all e-cigs. What the normal voltage is relates to a specific piece of kit, and is tied in with the other electrical characteristics. There is no point in just specifying one part of the set-up. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We must not use faulty claims. "Reduced voltage" is incorrect. It is all about the power and not the voltage. The term "normal condition" is reliable and reputable because it is used in an scientific paper AND it is not a health claim!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, do you have a better suggestion that will be easier to understand using the current sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Albino Ferret's version is fine, except we should omit "of 5 volts" for the same reason. "Lower" has the same problems as "normal", if not worse. Since this research has been covered by the PHE report and several reviews, just quoting their summary might be best. Personally I'm hopeless at electrical stuff, but at least it is a "known unknown" for me. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part normal voltage makes no sense because what is a normal volt. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the whole point. What is the normal voltage is what is normal for that particular set-up. What we need to avoid doing is implying any particular voltage figure is normal for all equipment, which is misleading. For this reason we should avoid giving specific figures outside a full description of the equipment used, which would of course be much too long for here. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Normal usage of e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde." I changed the wording to avoid confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes based on johnbod's comments. I think the specifics that replaced the "low" are good. I also think capping the voltage at 5 is the wrong thing to do as other mods likely go higher. Normal is sourced QG. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the last proposal of AlbinoFerret. It provides interesting and informative facts.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, there is a small issue with the following sentence. "Normal usage of e-cigarettes at normal voltage generate very low levels of formaldehyde 13 to 807 times lower than tobacco cigarettes" Both sources do not verify the same claim in accordance with WP:V. One source verifies the first part of the claim and the other source verifies the last part of the claim. This appears to be a WP:SYN violation.

The sentence "A review found that later generation e-cigarettes at a higher voltage generated equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking." is not accurate. " A 2015 review found that later-generation e-cigarettes at a higher volt may generate equal or higher levels of formaldehyde than smoking." is closer to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, your comments have been very helpful. I rewrote my proposal. Please review and edit the third proposal if you wish. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the first source verifies the claim entirely, I was thinking of removing the second source. I will wait until others have chimed in before agreeing to your newest proposal QG, but its looking good. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source says "The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively." I could not verify "Normal usage of e-cigarettes" using the first source. There is still an issue with another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source also says this "however, in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke." Which can be paraphrased as normal usage. I have removed it since striking doesnt work on references, it underlines them. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we are getting very close to agreement, which is good. I've done a 4th proposal above, a bit of a mix and using "power" instead of "voltage", which I think is better. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the 4th proposal! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin 1971 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good and usable. AlbinoFerret 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The part "looking at the same studies" is editorialising. Does the source state is was "looking at the same studies" as another source? QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In the references attached to the claims in the sources they both look at the exact same studies, Kosmider, L.; Sobczak, A.; Fik, M.; Knysak, J.; Zaciera, M.; Kurek, J.; Goniewicz, M.L. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tobacco Res. 2014, doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu078 is one of them. If you would prefer we can add the studies each looked at, but that will be rather long and wordy. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The source did not explicitly state is was "looking at the same studies". It is not necessary to state it reviewed the same studies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is an important fact, we can leave the wording in, or list the study, your choice. AlbinoFerret 21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader does not know what the same studies are. I do not have a suggestion to improve the wording except for deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fith proposal added the wording. If same study is a problem now, I can add the full studies name there also. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it would be much simpler without having to debunk the "flat earth" claim in the first place but so far the 5th version is agreeable.--TMCk (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader who does not know what the same studies are, is able to read the sourced papers.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I spelled out the study looked at in the 5th version Merlin. One slight change to the 5th, the PHE report looked at similar studies, not the same. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, this is way too much attribution, especially the part "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason its in there is because they looked at the same studies and you objected to the same studies wording. Why do you want to remove wording shows the false methodology claim is talking about the same study as the one that found high levels? AlbinoFerret 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, I have an issue with the part "looking at the same studies" with your proposal. If you could remove it or reword it then I can support your version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, as proposer. It is relevant to include specific information about the levels of formaldehyde in Electronic cigarette#Safety. I support the Third proposal and Fourth proposal. The difference between the third and fourth proposal is that the fourth proposal includes the part "looking at the same studies". The fifth proposal has too much in-text attribution such as "citing "Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage" by Kosmider.". QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• The fourth version above seems mostly reasonable. The long source-naming in the middle of the prose, in #5, isn't necessary; that's what we have citations for. I kind of liked the specific figures in the earlier versions, but maybe that makes me geeky. Also prefer "voltage" over "power" which can be mistaken for "potency of delivery" or something. In all of them, I suspect that the "dry puff" debate can be compressed to a single sentence with less detail, maybe by leading with the important part, then saying it refuted earlier assumptions, and avoiding the jargon. That bit borders on trivia anyway; it's basically reporting on an idea that turned out to not be a real concern and wasn't widely reported to begin with, so it's probably an idea few readers are familiar with and don't need to know about to understand the overall topic, thus it may not really be encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

"What to Advise to Respiratory Patients Intending to Use Electronic Cigarettes" by Riccardo Polosa, Davide Campagna, and Pasquale Caponnetto. Published Sept 2015, a review, and free access. AlbinoFerret 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, and at least 2 of the authors are well-known, but is it strictly a review? Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I an not 100% sure if its strictly a review, but that is what it appears to be as it reviews work by others and is not new research by the authors. The article is undoubtedly a secondary source in a pubmed indexed peer reviewed journal and not an editorial. That two of the authors are well know and have other sources already in the articles is a plus. I like the fact that its newer source that is free to access, that is a plus to verifiability as readers of the articles may not have access to pay walled journal articles. AlbinoFerret 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

exploding cigarettes

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-seriously-injured-by-e-cigarette-explosion/

I thought only cigars were supposed to do that. I'll leave it here in case anyone wants to use it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Want to update "mobile phones", "laptops", "Powered Screwdrivers", etc everytime a battery fails? They are battery powered - every now and then a battery fails. Simple.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already claims on the Safety page about explosions. If it goes any place that would be the best location. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass changes to smoking cessation

Sourced content to reviews was replaced with a randomized controlled trial. The reviews are not outdated content. Sourced content was deleted again. The part "A 2015 review found e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation." is original research. This edit appears to be a WP:COPYVIO because the 2014 review stated "Our meta-analyses demonstrated a higher smoking cessation rate of 20% achieved with e-cigarettes, suggesting that factors beyond nicotine replacement alone may contribute to smoking cessation." This edit replaced accurately sourced content with original research and deleted one sentence that is accurately sourced. This edit deleted sourced content. This edit made the text less accurate than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: I have asked for help regarding your editing. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=692779454 If I need to escalate to something more official, I will find out how and do so. You are running ruff-shoot over multiple pages as if you are the owner of the content.

You really jump the shark, when you say that I am doing a copyright violation, by using a near quote from the conclusion of a public study...where I attribute to the authors and cite them. You are taking meta-studies, which find 2 clinical trials that support the efficacy of cessation of smoking, in randomized trials....and then that is absolutely bastardized into a phrase " Researchers found limited information" They found 2 randomized trials, which are not cheap. Other places you want to put content in from a meta-study which is attributed to the source study, and after I go through the time and effort to look up the source, to find its being absolutely misquoted...you simple delete that, revert it, and say it was duplication.

QuackGuru, Please Stop this. I kow have to spend the time to undo you edits. And that is not time that you should FORCE me to spend. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now had to do a manual revert, because of this. Please, if you want to edit and make changes, do it line by line, so people can see what you are doing. I will do the same. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff Why did you combine Construction and E-liquid again , they are separate pages as you well know. How is the reader to determine what page to go to if the information is mingled? Every other page that is separate has its own section. First I simply made it a sub section, you reverted, then I made it its own section, you reverted. Please explain why. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret Let me apologize for problem. I had to do a manual revert to vandalism by QuackGuru. He did a mass of edits with little explanation, and a manual revert was the only way. My manual revert could have be mechanically executed better and I think I know how to do it better. It was late and I did not capture well a couple of edits you had, and the manual revert was what would have caused them. Because of the style of QuackGuru the page is in such flux with so little explanation, its hard to sort things out. As far as the pages I believe that E-Liquid is its own thing. Contraction of the device can talk to it....but after a quick dialogue it should send people over. As you know E-Liquid page is being shredded up by QuackGuru. Keeping information in line with each page, is something I want to work on as well. It should not be that there is duplication to the point that a single edit needs to be changed in 5 places. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:OR was restored along with the WP:MEDRS violation. Sourced text to reviews were also deleted. The WP:COPYVIO was also restored after I rewritten it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru ::I regard the changes that you are doing as destructive. You are at the point of removing references to the full studies. When you see a link that was not auto-generated to a full study, and delete it in favor of an abstract, that is a problem. When you delete longitudinal studies with zero explanation, it is a problem. When you slap in edits after edits, with little or no explanation it a problem. Other editors can not see what you are doing. I don't want to play the game with you that citing a source is with the conclusions made, is some form of copyright violation. Your claim that the University of East London is not an acceptable source is outrageous. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a study not a WP:MEDRS review. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The nature of observational studies and those of medicine are different. The MEDRS is being used as a catch-all to remove content that you don't want to see. QuackGuru, I have already read you suggesting that 90% of this page was created by you, and you are concerned about other editors changing it. There is an existing ARB concerning you (or whatever is the right term) that you should review. If you wanted to explain what the issue SPECIFICALLY with "A longitudinal study of smokers and e-cigarette use, reported that daily users of e-cigarettes, were 6 times as likely as nonusers/triers to report quitting." Otherwise I am simply too frustrated deal with it more tonight. Your persistent incremental edits won't just undo all new contributions, they may tonight though Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the two studies. After I also tagged the OR you restored it again, among other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur the U. of London study seems to be a valid source for this. MEDRS does not prevent the use of all sources that aren't medical literature reviews. A study like that is a WP:PRIMARY source, but a peer-reviewed one from a reputable publisher, so it can be included with attribution and without trying to make it say something it doesn't. We just can't, per the WP:AEIS rule in WP:NOR, present its novel claims as fact in WP's own voice, and WP:NPOV prevents us from presenting novel claims, even with attribution, that don't have wide acceptance without also providing the sourced alternative view(s). WP:FRINGE prevents us giving novel claims that are considered nonsense without making it clear that mainstream science regards them that way. Better understanding of this interplay would go a long way to easing a lot of strife here. What we don't want to see is "This was disproved by a newer 2015 study." Primary research that has not been independently validated doesn't really demonstrate anything, it just says "here's our methodology and results; what do our colleagues think of this?" When it's undertaken to check the results of previous work, it means "We know they said that, but we just ran these tests and got this result instead, so this needs further research attention".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I did write information about the latest and third RCT using a WP:MEDORG compliant report. See "A third RCT in 2014 found that smokers who were not interested in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions from smoking in the e-cigarette group." The Cochrane review covers the other two RCTs. See "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two randomized controlled trials (RCT). " QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 is near

Since E-cigarette is a fast moving field of study, we should be replacing all the references from 2011 and before that can be replaced. There may be some that cant be, but I think its best to update all that we can to keep the article up to date. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of quitting language in Harm reduction

QG replaced a claim that quitting would reduce harm more. This is not a harm reduction claim. Harm reduction is not quitting. Harm reduction is switching to a device that causes less harm for those that cant or wont quit. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The diff shows an insertion, not a replacement. And it's sourced. I'm skeptical that any harm reduction system/regimen or even individual therapist would deny the claim presented. I.e., it would appear to be a claim within harm reduction in the EC context, just not one unique to harm reduction. The insertion appears to be for reader understanding of the topic of the article, not for reader understanding of the harm reduction therapeutic philosophy's exact statement positioning. I've been through a harm reduction regimen, and it was repeatedly made clear that quitting entirely would produce better health results and was also a more successful strategy on average, because of the tendency to slide back to excessive usage. This would not necessarily apply to all things, e.g. someone who has developed a dependency on pain pills that they actually need for medical reasons, so it's correct that it's not always a central tenet of harm reduction in all contexts. But in this particular case that kind of conflict doesn't arise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved the text to Electronic_cigarette#Smoking_cessation. Either section is fine with me. The current text is "If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both." Don't be surprised if it gets deleted again without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Check sources

http://www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/ QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru PLEASE READ THE TOP OF THE PAGE This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of spaces

QG looks like he wants to remove all the spaces in references. As a byproduct there are no spaces in the references at the bottom of the page making them harder to use by readers. AlbinoFerret 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru is also removing references. I have no idea why he is doing so many changes to references but it harming content. CERTAINTY removing spaces is not productive. I bring in a reference to the full study, and that reference is deleted in favor of a source that puts out an Abstract, and then paywall for them to sell you the full study. These are often publicly funded studies, which are published in multiple places. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The spaces in the reference section are still there. Reducing the bytes is not a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret informed you of a problem, I confirmed and told you of other problems with your edits to reference. You now say you are trying to save space on the internet by removing ASCII spaces here and there. WHY? Why is this even a thing. Use the standard Citations mechanism. Its really really quite good. It will either create the reference automatically from the link, or it will just ask you to plug in information. After that there is nothing else to do. Use the standards, this is not your webpage. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the references before and after the changes. The references are the same. I wanted to reduce the bytes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever's going on, it would be helpful if we settled on a WP:CITEVAR, such that references were formatted consistently. I would advocate using the most common way, which is this: {{cite journal |title=Yadda Yadda |first1=Jane |last1=Smith |first2=John |last2=Doe |...}} (without implying anything about particular parameter order, though I have a practical approach to this, which varies based on whether Harvard referencing is being used or not). This formatting makes it easy to read and edit, permits usable line wrapping, and uses minimal but not impractically minimalist space. The various conflicting vertical styles are pain in the butt and vastly lengthen the page, while also making it hard to get any sense of the paragraph structure. Also of poor utility, taking up too much space and looking like symbolic soup, is "super-spacing" of the form {{cite journal | title = Yadda Yadda | first1 = Jane | last1 = Smith | first2 = John | last2 = Doe | ... }} "super-spacing"; because of the amount of horizontal arrow-key scrolling required, it palpably slows down editing. The worst is run together with no spacing at all, which is hardly human readable and has major line-wrapping problems in source view:{{cite journal|title=Yadda Yadda|first1=Jane|last1=Smith|first2=John|last2=Doe|...}} PS: It works best to add one space between the = and URLs, as another line-wrapping aid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2014 study

Goniewicz, Maciej L.; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (3): 500–507. doi:10.1111/add.12410. ISSN 0965-2140. PMID 24345184.

I mentioned the study at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#2014_study. See "METHODS: We studied five UK brands (six products) with high internet popularity." Also see "This study determined the nicotine content of the cartridges..." This study is not a WP:MEDRS review or WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

While reviews are preferred. The amount of nicotine in a cartage sourced to a primary study by authors of reviews already in the article should be ok until someone finds a review. Were not looking at a real controversial claim. AlbinoFerret 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Published since 1884. http://www.addictionjournal.org/ With over 6000 entries in PubMed. Peer-reviewed. What could possibly the argument that it's not reliable??? I am waiting on a large survey to be republished concerning usage, that should help with anything needed on nicotine strengths Mystery Wolff (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is covered in the PHE report. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The argument isn't that the publication isn't reliable, just that the content of the paper is primary-source research. The purpose of such papers is to say "Hey, we just did this study and here are our results; does the rest of the world think this is valid research, or did we do something wrong?" Primary research is very often found to be flawed. This is among the reasons that WP:AEIS claims must come from secondary sources, and that MEDRS wants to see peer-reviewed secondary sources like literature reviews for AIES claims that are medical (a journalist parroting what a questionable primary study said is technical a secondary source, but it doesn't add anything to the reliability of the claims made in the study). When we use primary-source papers from peer-reviewed science journals, they need to be for non-controversial things (just cite them), or not in WP's voice for controversial things and instead directly attributed in the prose as well as cited, and usually balanced with any conflicting views also found in reliable sources, not simply presented a known fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

* Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

* In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source.

* A conclusion written concerning the raw data, is a review, analysis of the primary information. It is for purposes of Misplaced Pages secondary. Publishing through a peer reviewed journal, is a review of the conclusion (if given, as often only data is presented). A conclusion, in science, it is not data, it is analysis and a Narrative review, not primary, and in essence a defacto narrative review. Again I am speaking to Conclusions within peer reviewed journals.

* A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Misplaced Pages.

* Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source.

* Peer reviewed journal entries which provide conclusions, most often do present the other primary data that they used when making their evaluations of all the data, to create the conclusion.

* Every source is the primary source for something.....More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material.

* "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.

* In the case of peer reviewed article which presents a conclusion WE KNOW it is fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. They are not necessarily authoritative or high quality due to demands of publish or perish.

* "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher.

SMcCandlish Of the above most of which is primarily resourced from Misplaced Pages, and a few that are my condensings...of them...exactly which do you disagree with? I do believe I understand the goals of the guidelines, and I do believe the guidelines are being gamed by QuackGuru, which you have guided QuackGuru on those problematic nature of those undertakings. Correct? The Video which is sourced and cited and view-able on this very page, has the Director of the CDC stating that 25% of all Electronic Cigarette users no longer smoke. If I memorialize that assertion by the CDC into the text of the same subsection, will you object to it being cited, as reflective of the current understanding of cessation and the relationship to Electronic Cigarettes? I hope this clarifies for you. If you do decide to respond to each of the bullet list, I can assure you that I will be appreciative. To be extra clear, your remarks are interpreted as support of the multiple deletions by QuackGuru of content that I resourced and placed in this page, and interpreted to be vouching for QuackGuru actions. I am happy to read a clarification to that interpretation. Thank you........ Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Health and fitness articles
• Unknown-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• B-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment