This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've looked hard at this article recently while closing a couple of RfCs, and the lead section is annoying me. The first paragraph is full of information about what e-cigarettes aren't, and about what they don't contain. I think this is unsatisfactory. I suggest rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why.— S Marshall T/ C 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's my effort:
E-cigarettes are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vapourised by a heating element. The user inhales this vapour, which usually contains nicotine and flavourings. Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges for this liquid and so can be reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odour, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Any good?— S Marshall T/ C 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
They
are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic.
Levelledout ( talk) 15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)They vary in physical shape and size and are often made of plastic and metal.
I think SM's wording is better and raises a very important issue that AF's editorial comments address. Many devices after first generation eCigs are less eCigs and more PV's. This could be considered semantical, but is akin to saying a cigar is a cigarette or vice versa. Both have strong similarities, but both are generally kept distinct as two different type of products, consumed by different group of users (generally speaking). I would also note that most of the scientific studies (sourced on the article page) are using first generation devices or ones that operate like them. Lumping everything together in one big article is doable, but continues to be a challenge because a) they are distinct devices and b) users of more advanced gear tend to harp on items that may not be the case with first generation-like devices (i.e. advanced gear is ideal for smoking cessation). If the goal here is to shorten up the lead, present info on what an eCig is and stay away from what an eCig is not, then I'd prefer SM's wording. But if goal is to be as comprehensive as possible with all current devices that could plausibly fall under the eCig umbrella and present an article that tries to cover everything, including all political angles, then I would think we'd continue in vein that is already existing. And continue in vain attempt to appease pro-cessation crowd mixed with anti-tobacco (or tobacco control) crowd. Gw40nw ( talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes, and are made of metal and plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vaporized by a heating element. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges for this liquid and most can be reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Any better?— S Marshall T/ C 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Are we nearly there, do you think?— S Marshall T/ C 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc James' view is reasonable and I was hoping he'd weigh in.
1) Are e-cigarettes cheaper?
This will obviously depend on the tax treatment of tobacco in any particular jurisdiction. In June 2013, here in the UK, e-cigarettes were about 20% cheaper to use than conventional cigarettes (
source,
source). In other jurisdictions the difference will vary, but I think cost is a major motivator for people to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.
2) Marketing claims
There are no marketing claims in my draft and I emphatically deny any connection with the e-cigarette industry. My motivation in writing this draft is exactly as I posted right at the start of this discussion: "rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why". The "why" part of that is the key one here. If you're under the impression that it's a good idea to start an article about e-cigarettes with the criticisms of them, then I disagree with you. A thorough criticism section belongs in the article. It doesn't belong in the first couple of paragraphs.
3) Vapor vs aerosol
The lead needs to be a non-technical introduction to the subject for the curious and intelligent, but uninformed, reader. An "aerosol", to the uninformed, is a kind of spray can. "Vapor", to the uninformed, is a suspension of droplets. I think we can, and should, go into this later and explain why aerosol is the correct technical term, but I think that the lead needs to be the view from 30,000 feet, and will therefore necessarily not be strictly accurate on all the details.
I hope this clarifies?— S Marshall T/ C 09:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
We still have two paragraphs. Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear [1] These changes mix content in later paragraphs in the first paragraph (two paragraphs?). The first paragraph should just discuss contruction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic
I propose simplifying the first paragraph to:
An electronic cigarette (also known as e-cig, e-cigarette, personal vaporizer or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. [1] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [2] This produces an aerosol, [3] [4] which is frequently referred to as vapor. [4] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [3] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. [5] They may be single use or refillable.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not keen on DocJames' version, which gives in great detail the exact chemical names and technical terms by which the vapour is produced, without making any attempt to explain what e-cigarettes are, who uses them or why they do it.— S Marshall T/ C 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's basic common sense. It's not just on grounds of public safety. Homeopathic remedies, for example, won't do you any harm at all if you take them, so there are no public safety grounds why we'd insist on medical sources. When it comes to homeopathic remedies we'd insist on medical sources simply because the non-medical sources are, all too often, a tissue of lies written by people with a commercial motive for concealing the truth.
But I think it's important to restrict the reliance on medical sources to the actual medical claims. I mean, to take this to ludicrous extremes, if we wrote an article about cars based on medical sources, then it'd go something like: Cars are petrol-powered devices that emit toxic chemicals. They are the single largest cause of accidental death in the western world. By far the majority of hospital admissions caused by cars involve blunt force trauma... and we might get a few paragraphs about transporting people from place to place halfway down the article.
I'm being a bit facetious but the e-cig article genuinely does have this problem. It goes into details about toxins and harms before describing the essential purpose of the device.— S Marshall T/ C 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Response to User:Doc_James' comments mis-posted in the sourcing section below:
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use. Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Is this an improvement?— S Marshall T/ C 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see there isn't an argument. There's a lack of data, which rather understandably means a significant proportion of the scientific community is unwilling to comment. I think it's well established that using NRT (which gives the nicotine without all the other harmful stuff that's in cigarettes) is better than smoking, and on this basis a few medical sources are speculating that e-cigarettes may possibly turn out not to be a completely terrible idea. What isn't established is whether there are any other harms from using e-cigarettes. For all we know they might contain chemicals that future doctors will realise are as harmful as lead and CFCs. (Probably not, though...)
I don't think that this Wikipedia article should suggest that e-cigarettes are a good idea on health grounds, and I'm trying to be careful not to imply that in the lead.— S Marshall T/ C 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.
E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing (exponentially?) since the first models were marketed in 2004.
I broadly agree with HLHJ's well-reasoned changes.— S Marshall T/ C 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we might be getting too bogged down with singular statements and words here, the proposal has already been edited several times to encompass editors' concerns. Are we in agreement that the proposal is, broadly speaking, an overall improvement on what we have at the moment? We can agree to sort out the minor details at a later date. We also need to answer DocJames' question (see sourcing section) of whether we are intending to replace the first paragraph or the first two paragraphs of the lead. Levelledout ( talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Added after one comment: This section is for sourcing, please make edit suggestions of complaints in the section above. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have started sourcing out some of the claims.
But we will probably need more. Point one out, and I will add it here. AlbinoFerret 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. In my mind it would replace the first paragraph. If someone quibbles about the technical breach of WP:LEADLENGTH in having five opening paragraphs, then we could always remove another paragraph break somewhere in the lead, but I'd prefer to have five paragraphs in the lead until we reach consensus on how to improve paragraphs #2, #3, #4 and #5.— S Marshall T/ C 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Saitta2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion above, please replace entire first paragraph with:
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.
E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004.
Requested by — S Marshall T/ C 11:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, by the way, that if we do get consensus for this draft so many editors have contributed to, there would be redundancies/duplication with the rest of the lede. I think the rest of the lede would need revising. I haven't started that process because it was already like wading through treacle trying to get a broad agreement from the majority of editors just to do the first paragraph.— S Marshall T/ C 01:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If that's your objection, imagine I sourced it using the sources in the discussion above. Would you still object?
The only "other problem that was previously explained" was CFCF's contention that the edit was "not supported by consensus". A month ago, it was. Now I find the whole talk page is populated only by people who want to retain the article in its current, profoundly unsatisfactory state, and who have yet to give their reasons for this position, which is making me tired.
A big part of the problem here is that there's a pro e-cig camp and an anti e-cig camp who're fighting each other on AN/I and I'm starting to wonder if I'm being misidentified as a meatpuppet. I'm not, I'm just a good faith editor who thinks the current lede is utterly crap.— S Marshall T/ C 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes in the UK could go in the 4th paragraph. Maybe along with a statement that they are a 7 Billion dollar US market. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Taxes on e-cigarettes are relatively under-developed as the products are still young. Minnesota and North Carolina have actually levied a tax on e-cigarette tobacco vapor products such as “juice”; Minnesota is at 95% of the wholesale value [1]. and republican Governor Pat McCrory in North Carolina has levied a similar, yet much more modest, tax of $0.05 per milliliter. Though the taxes have some opposition, both democrats and republicans have generally accepted them. [2] New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) headlined a significant sin tax on electronic cigarettes in May 2014. [3] Also, Philadelphia is considering a $2.00 tax on e-cigarettes where revenue would go to a general fund predominately used for schools. [4]
But not all states are passing e-cigarette taxes. In 2013, Utah defeated HB372, which was a tax increase on e-cigarettes and nicotine candies and made it illegal to sell to minors less than 19 years old. [5] These taxes are being met with much concern. Opponents say the blossoming industry will be suppressed by the high taxes, and without much evidence of negative health effects, the taxes are seen as unnecessary. Proponents of the tax claim e-cigarette flavors are enticing children to use e-cigarettes, ultimately undoing decades of anti-smoking headway. Many lawmakers imposing these taxes cite youth smoking deterrence and monetary aid in offsetting the public cost of medical care for ill-fated smokers, similar to the big tobacco bonds from the ‘90s. Taxes might shift tobacco sales to online or out of state. When Utah increased its tax on (traditional) tobacco win 2010, data showed smuggling across state lines as a way to dodge the imposed tax. The same phenomenon is happening in the e-cigarette market. If taxes are imposed, brick and mortar vendors will face online competition with lower overhead costs. [6]
Throughout the world, electronic cigarettes are impacting local governments. The following chronology exemplifies the tumultuous beginnings of this blossoming industry. The conventional tobacco market, as we know, it is on its heels. For example, in 2009, Brazil issued regulations to prohibit the sale and import of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette advertising restrictions. On March 27th, 2009, Canada banned the sale of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine products. In June 2009, Panama banned the import of electronic cigarettes products. In July 2009, the Israeli Ministry of Health banned the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In January 2010, the Maltese consumer electronic cigarette ban in public places, and to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. In July 2010, Singapore introduced regulations to prohibit the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In May 2011, Argentina enacted regulations that prohibit the import, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes. In November 2011, the Greek electronic banned cigarette sales and consumption. [1]
Convenience stores are accountable for more than half of the sale of e-cigarettes. Smoke shops command 22% of e-cigarette sales, and online e-tailers account for about 20%, and 2% are sold in other channels. Since 2008, electronic cigarette prices began to decline, with sales doubling each year. [2] According to the U.S. “Times” recently reported that sales of electronic cigarettes is less than 1% of the tobacco market. But over the past four years, the growth of electronic cigarettes is very robust, doubling every year. [3] Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog says that, "as technology continues to improve, the electronic cigarette market will exceed real cigarette market in the next 10 years. Sales of e-cigarettes are estimated to surpass one billion dollars by 2017". [4] The future of the electronic cigarette market is expected to reach 30% annual growth rate; and more than half of e-cigarette buyers are repetitive smokers, rather than new users. The biggest attractions of electronic cigarettes are perceived lower health risks, lower prices, and the “freshness” of vapor compared to smoke.
I found this in the archives. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"Electronic cigarette sales increased from 50,000 in 2008 to 3.5 million in 2012.[21]" - This is of course just the US figure, sourced to USA Today. And rather meaningless if it just adds disposables to refillables, as it apparently does. Johnbod ( talk) 04:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This entire article reads like it was written by the tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. as a 4 year user of vaping devices, (NOT e-cigarettes) I can tell you from my personal use that they are effective in quitting analogs. But like anything else you have to want to quit first.
I didn't see in the article where the toxicology of Chinese produced Propylene Glycol/Vegetable Glycerin was even mentioned. A tainted batch of Chinese made PG/VG caused a lot of people to get sick about 2 years ago. I didn't read anywhere that reputable purveyors use US/UK/GER produced pharmaceutical grade PG/VG, nicotine solution, and various flavorings. The best ones will have the MDS on the products they are selling you.
Some terminology was incorrect. Mods come in two basic flavors regulated and unregulated. Regulated are those mods that have variable settings, unregulated are the mechanical mods mentioned. But for the most part they are tubes or boxes.
Also the problem of mechanical mods having battery failure, sometimes catastrophically is not even mentioned. At least I didn't read anything about it. But that is caused primarily by folks with little or no knowledge allowing Murphy to get a foothold in the atomizer. 2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)milspecsim 2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Second generation devices are often[original research?] used by more experienced users. See Electronic_cigarette#Device_generations. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Some[original research?] users want to reduce harm from smoking.[78] [4] See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction section. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-NHE2014_78-0. "Some users want to reduce harm from smoking?" This is a statement I can't verify. The source is about e-cigarette users mainly in the UK. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Full protection was ended a couple of days early, yesterday morning, not sure why. Anyway in the space of about 2 hours last afternoon 17 edits were made by one user including a vast 9k edit. With this volume of editing how is it even possible to in anyway keep up with the changes being made?
Some highlights from the 9k edit:
What percentage of the electronic cigarette market is dominated by big tobacco as of 2015? Of the major electronic cigarette companies what percentage is owned by tobacco industry companies. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"Due to many methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, the relatively few and often small studies, the inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and the lack of long-term follow-up no firm conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs. However, they can hardly be considered harmless." [5]
Might be useful for mentioning the issues with conflict of interest in the literature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Levelledout ( talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Health professionals who advocate “harm reduction” compare ECs with CCs, focus on smokers only, believe that ECs have no negative long-term health effects, that nicotine is a harmless recreational drug and that smokers are unwilling/unable to quit. These views are strongly supported by the EC/tobacco industry. On the other hand, health professionals working with public health point out that CCs are the most harmful legal products on the market (everything seems safe compared to smoking) and fear potential long-term health hazards. Other major concerns are that the product is spreading to never-smokers and ex-smokers, citizens unexposed to CCs, that many smokers have dual use (using both products) or switch instead of quitting, and that widespread EC-use will re-normalize smoking. This view is supported by the medical industry producing smoking cessation products.
Well, I don't agree with either of you. There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic. It's certainly not speculation to say so.
As far as Levelledout's point is concerned, to say "Nicotine isn't harmless but neither is any drug/medicine" is to treat e-cigarettes like drugs and medicines, which I think we've overwhelmingly agreed is inappropriate. They aren't drugs or medicines, and the fact that they do cause harm isn't to be concealed behind weaselling language. We ought to come straight out and say so.— S Marshall T/ C 10:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic.. As there is for Caffeine, Taurine, Ethanol, and Capsaicin. Use of all of which is common in recreational consumer products. As with all toxicity the danger is in the dose and nicotine toxicity is not in itself, so the real question is Is nictoine toxic in doses associated with e-cigarettes. And the answer to that is in usage no and in storage of liquids maybe/yes depending on strength and size.
It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states in 2013 "There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette."[41] Spilling a high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can cause intoxication or even death, since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream following dermal contact.
The above is from Wikipedias Nicotine Page SPACKlick ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Safety subsection: As of 2014, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as harmless.
Levelledout ( talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Despite some manufacturers’ claims that electronic cigarettes are harmless there is also evidence that electronic cigarettes contain toxic substances, including small amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which are carcinogenic to humans, [34] and that in some cases vapour contains traces of carcinogenic nitrosamines, and some toxic metals such as cadmium, nickel and lead. [34] Although levels of these substances are much lower than those in conventional cigarettes, [34] regular exposure over many years is likely to present some degree of health hazard, though the magnitude of this effect is difficult to estimate.
Ah, I'm sorry, you're quite right: it does say that. That part of the article is so incredibly boring to read that my brain shuts down in self-defence, so I've failed to observe it until now.— S Marshall T/ C 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Should you wish to do so, please contribute to the current request regarding changing the protection level of the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There might be something useful from this review. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are a lot of sources to consider using for this page. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
QuackGuru ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ref about passive e-cig smoking 87.114.59.45 ( talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following reference to vapers products - It's a great testimonial: http://vapers.com/testimonials/ 2602:30A:2CE1:4F50:81B1:5CD:6ECF:3730 ( talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking. [1] Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke. [2] This vapor is inhaled and the remaining vapor is exhaled into the air. [2] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [3] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [4] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. [5]
Grana2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Saitta2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I propose we simplify the first paragraph as above. The previous version stated to much what they are not rather than what they are. Adjusted to address. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support.
Done in sandbox.
QuackGuru (
talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support but would like to see minor edits:
For clarity I support the proposed paragraph as-is, but would like to see my suggestions too. We can also do this with the proposed paragraph first and discuss my edits later.
Zad
68
03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I made this change. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with this change along with Zad68's suggestions. Propylene glycol and glycerin, by weight are by far the most prevalent ingredients of e-liquid and it would be impossible to produce vapour/aerosol without them. So yes I think its necessary to include the basic ingredients. A break down of the components of the flavourings would be the kind of thing to include outside of the lead but that data is generally not available at present. Levelledout ( talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this change for using the US spelling. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed from the lead "Another considered the data to be inconclusive. [1] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear. [2] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products. [3]" Was there discussion? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit edit summary does not make any sense. The sentences that were deleted by User:S Marshall from the WP:LEDE are a summary of the body. User:S Marshall, your edit was counterproductive. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
All these sources below were deleted from the page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? After over a week, User:Levelledout was unable to formulate a reason to delete all the sources.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Here are some highlights:
Editors want to shorten and tweak the WP:LEDE. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed changes to the lead.
The word "often" failed verification. No argument has been made to keep unsourced text. The source stated "There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers)." Read page 5. This confirms "often" is OR (or at least inaccurate).
The sentence sourced to the the 2014 report from Public Health England is misplaced. It should be next to the other sentence from the same report. The word "some" contradicts the source. The source stated "and evidence to date suggests that smokers are willing to use these products in substantial numbers." Read page 24 under Summary and conclusions. This confirms "some" is OR (or at least misleading). The word "some" cannot be verified but the text can be tweaked so that it is verifiable.
"An e-cigarette can be rigid and a bit bulky." This sentence has been in the article since last year. However, editors can tweak the text. The other sentences can also be tweaked and improved to address the concerns.
The text from Brandon2015 is sourced to a formal policy statement written in Clinical Cancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The source is reliable according to WP:MEDORG.
The text from McKee2014 is sourced to a peer-reviewed editorial in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. The text concerning individual vapers who spend time blogging and tweeting about the e-cigarette products can be attributed with in-text attribution for the concerns that it is an opinion. The text meets WP:V and it is reliable for non-medical claims according to WP:SECONDARY.
Is it reasonable to make a wholesale revert to delete so many sources, including WP:MEDRS compliant reviews? According to this comment it was a mistake to make a "wholesale revert". User:Levelledout accepted that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Consensus is not invalidated by objections lacking policy based rationale. Your question of whether the proposed content is contentious has been addressed by the provision of rationale and the pointers to policy and guidelines. " I don't like it" is not a rationale or even an argument. There is not a controversy surrounding this Wikipedia article. There is a controversy surrounding e-cigs, however. But that does not mean we should not expand the page with up-to-date new research. We should document what reliable sources say rather than wholesale delete pertinent information. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion.
OK, parts of edits since March 20th I have issue with below. Mostly it's poorly written stuff but there are some content and source issues. Also the whole article needs a copy editor to make it readable.
do not contain [[tobacco]], although they do use [[nicotine]] from tobacco plants.<ref name=O2012/>
(FDA) accepted products such as a [[nicotine inhaler]]may beare a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.<ref name=Drummond2014/>
nowikiThe evidence indicates the levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards. [1]</nowiki>
Evidence indicates that the majority of e-cigarette users are middle-aged presently using traditional cigarettes, notably males, to assist them to quit or for recreational use.<ref name=Rahman2014/>. And a general note that several additions lead to disjointed sentences with no information flow making the article even less readable.
Data suggests that the users' motivation for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, whereas another indicted a concern that a considerable proportion of their use is recreational.<ref name=Rahman2014/>
Agreement to the degree that users of e-cigarettes believe they look, feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes, along with whether their likeness to traditional cigarettes was a benefit or a drawback is little.<ref name=Pepper2013/>
The majority of e-cigarette users frequently start with using a device resembling a cigarette and subsequently a majority of them shift to a later-generation device.<ref name=Yingst2015/>
The primary components for the majority of e-cigarettes consist of an aerosol generator, flow sensor, battery, and a liquid storage chamber.
An e-cigarette consist of the materials silver, steel, metals, ceramics, plastics, fibers, aluminum, rubber and spume, and lithium batteries.
a LED
one-time use expandable products
after either the battery is no longer charged
No e-cigarette has received FDA approval as a cessation tool
Data on e-cigarette use for risk reduction in high-risk groups such as people with [[mental disorder]]s is unavailable.
No definite conclusions can be made regarding the safety of e-cigarettes because of various methodological issues, conflicts of interest, a limited number of studies, and disagreements in the results of research.is a repeat of the opening of the same paragraph.
A 2014 [[Cochrane review]] found no serious [[adverse effect]]s reported in trials.<ref name=Cochrane2014/> Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use can include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.<ref name=Grana2014/>
It was concluded that they also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the [[tobacco industry]].Also it doesn't reflect the passage in the source and it isn't notable that one blogger about e-cigarettes is associated with the tobacco industry. The whole McKee section could do with work.
E-cigarettes are not permitted to be used as a smoking cessation aid in some countries, but are regulated as a [[medical device]]
business is handled on the internet.
E-cigarettes are aggressively promoted,
Other than those 20 it seems in general to be adding new information which is great. However the manner in which it was added was bullshit, the writing is terrible, the article still needs a copy edit to make it readable. The next big edit should be a massive reduction in size not additions but that'll never happen while QG exists driving any sensible editor over a cliff with his cavalacade of avalanches of tripe. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1) Editors wanted to shorten the lede. 2) 2 was explained. 3) 3 was explained. 4) thru 14) were addressed. 15) 15 is cited to a review and informative. 16) The sentences are not repetitive and have been in the article since last year. I previously tweaked one of the sentences. 17) The text was shortened. 18) The sentence is informative and has been in the article since lest year. I just previously tweaked the sentence to make it more readable than it previously was. 19) and 20) addressed. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is precisely true and accurate and certainly belongs in the article. But is it necessary to repeat it three times in the same paragraph? At the moment, paragraph #2 is highly redundant:
"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain ... the data [are] inconclusive ... their role ... is unclear."
I propose that we shorten and simplify this phrasing.— S Marshall T/ C 11:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As it appears we have not agreed on new wording of the second paragraph [10] I have restored the previous one until there is consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The POV tag was removed here, here, here and here.
The tag should not be repeatedly edit-warred from the article like this, please discuss the issue here if you think that there is a valid reason to remove the tag. Levelledout ( talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Our goal is simply to reflect the best available literature. That is my only POV. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight
to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. Levelledout ( talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This page desperately needs your help! Please make it comprehensible by editing for coherence and flow and presenting ideas in a clear and logical order. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S Marshall ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A list of the chemical constituents of the aerosol currently appears in the lede. I think the crucial information for the lede is that the aerosol contains nicotine, and the remaining chemicals belong further down the article, as is the case with (for example) our article on cigarette. I therefore propose to take the two sentences reading Emissions from e-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals.[4][13] E-cigarette emissions contain fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and move them down into the body of the article.— S Marshall T/ C 11:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This insert by Quack Guru Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and are spending a huge amount of money promoting these devices.<ref name=Drummond2014/>
contains some unencyclopedic language. The quote from the article is
Major tobacco companies have bought some of these e-cigarette companies and are spending tremendous amounts of money advertising e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes; one product’s advertising funds increased from $992,000 to $12.4 million from 2011 to 2012 (32, 33). In this setting, e-cigarette sales have increased from $20 million in 2008 to $500 million in 2012 and are expected to reach nearly $2 billion by the end of 2013
I can't think of a better way of phrasing it. "Devoting a very large amount of revenue on their promotion"? I'm sure something better can be written. SPACKlick ( talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like "Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and have greatly increased the marketing spend on them" is all we should take from this source on this this point. Johnbod ( talk) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a separate section for one sentence. See Electronic cigarette#Power. Maybe it can be merged into another section. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Among adults or children, the extent to which a dual use tendency exists using e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes is unclear." -- First of all why are we specifying adults or children here? Does that not cover prett much, well, everyone? Secondly, this appears to contradict some very broad statements made in the previous section.Not editing for fact right now but that one twanged my nerves badly enough to get mr to come in here and write up a complaint about it. Elinruby ( talk) 07:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
“As of 2014, they are largely unregulated.” I suggest this could be dropped or changed per the following (and the academic work which it is based on), reporting that about 70% of major nations have regulated e-cigarettes in one way or another: http://ecigintelligence.com/worlds-law-makers-favour-e-cig-regulation-based-on-tobacco/
“E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in many states in the U.S.” This is strictly speaking true, insofar as nine could be "many" - but misleading nevertheless, because a large majority of states (41 out of 50 is the current figure, I think) do have age restrictions. Why not say “E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in some countries and U.S. states.”? Barnabypage ( talk) 21:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
"Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction for those who do not already smoke, [1] but there is no evidence of ongoing use among those who have never smoked. [2]" -- Leaving this as I do get that there is a long hard-fought history here and right now I am just doing language cleanup, but at somepoint I'd like somoene to explainthat sentence to me (?) thankyouverymuch Elinruby ( talk) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
from the lede:
They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that products accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as nicotine inhalers, are probably a safer means to supply nicotine than e-cigarettes. Elinruby ( talk) 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654938142&oldid=654936852 I recommend editors read the sources before changing the meaning of the sentences. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
User:S Marshall claims "Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence." [14] That is not a content dispute. Therefore, I am removing the tag. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No real explanation for restoring the tag was given. This is the same editor who deleted numerous sources, including several MEDRS compliant reviews without a valid reason. So what is disputed? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What you think? Maybe the image could be improved without the box. See Electronic cigarette#Construction. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I found an image without the box. Is there a way to remove the logo from the image? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is to let everyone here know that I've just closed a discussion authorising general sanctions for the electronic-cigarette topic area. The precise wording of the sanctions is as follows:
If anyone has any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me about them either here or on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason the tag is put there, is because it is impossible for the reader to determine whether information is global or US centric, as well as the case that a large majority of the information is US figures or information, without attribution to it being exclusively for the US. Other problems include statements such as "a national advertising campaing..." without explaining that it is the US. Therefore it is not just necessary to add a few items from other countries to resolve it.
Solutions to this could be:
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a sentence which I removed and CFCF re-inserted which I feel adds practically no information to the article and merely adds bloat.
As of 2015 [update], there is no information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women.<ref name=Orellana-Barrios2015/>
Asking for consensus to remove it SPACKlick ( talk) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Not this again, I reverted your edit with the comment "bloat?" because I don't see how you identified it as such. Now that I understand I think we have to clear up a logical fallacy some people here are engaging in. The sentence most certainly adds information in that it is a known unknown that is both relevant to the topic and reported by a credible source. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
However, I'm acutely conscious that we're giving CFCF a hard time over one single factlet when QuackGuru is introducing bucketloads of them every day. We're not tackling the main offender here.— S Marshall T/ C 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't include every factlet that can be verified about knowns and unknowns. That isn't how articles are written. IT is howeer how you are writing this article and it's almost impossible to clean up while you keep adding snippets worthy of no weight to the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.The objection is that this information does not improve the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 07:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead of this article states "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." This seems like an accurate representation of that review's conclusions, but I don't think the body describes it as well. Specifically, I think the sentence "A 2014 Cochrane review found that e-cigarettes can help people quit, but was based on a small number of studies" should be changed. This seems to be an oversimplification of this review's findings. Maybe something like "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes were effective for smoking cessation, but rated the confidence in their effectiveness for this purpose as "low"." Everymorning talk 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wording for lede: "One review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid." Wording for body: "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." The wording was improved. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the last paragraph details mainly country-level issues and begins with "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common..." It might be better to put the stances of global organizations there instead, like WHO, International Union of Toxicology, World Lung Foundation, etc and move local issues to relevant section. Brandmeister talk 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If one looks at the size of medical organizations the NIH is largest followed by the CDC and than WHO. Thus the US has better data than most places and thus why we often given data on usage there. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking.[1]" -- somebody edit that please. It produces a something that creastes a sensation similar to that prroduced by cigarette smoke is presumably what is meant here but yes, that is an incredibly awkard sentence and that is what I didn't just go ahead and make the change. That and I see the talk page, which is apparently so active that all three of the RfCs I have received have scrolled off the page. Boy oh boy. Elinruby ( talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
See Template:POV:
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.
I specifically asked what is disputed? The reply was " I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required." KimDabelsteinPetersen, nothing in you response indicates that there is a serious dispute. No major content was disputed to suggest there is a serious dispute. Apparently there is no serious dispute among editors. No relevant discussion can be found on the talk page for a serious dispute according to WP:PAG. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Any neutral observer can tell by the above comments there was no specific reason for keeping the POV tag. Making vague objections about the article confirms there is no serious dispute. The "status quo" is not a reason to keep a POV tag. According to Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The burden for keeping the POV tag has not been met. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm "Vague objections?" Seriously?— S Marshall T/ C 08:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See Template:POV: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. |
The serious dispute must be with WP:PAG not among editors making vague objections. No evidence has been presented on the talk page that this article has multiple issues. Please show not assert what are the "multiple issues". So far editors have not shown what are the multiple issues. The are several vague objections, such as the article is "badly written". Claiming there are multiple issues without showing there are multiple issues is counterproductive. The article has been improved over the last year, which includes documenting the "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", and "limited evidence" according to high-quality sources. This is not speculation. The bat signal was a joke. Not everyone is happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is largely supported by high-quality sources so it is obviously better than many articles. It is a contentious topic but the Wikipedia article should not be contentious. The real world debate should not spill over into Wikipedia. Do you understand that adding 3 maintenance tags at the top of the article without showing there is a serious problem on the talk page is not helpful? The 3 tags appears to be added to "warn" readers rather than discuss legitimate concerns for improving the article. Putting 3 tags to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes solves nothing. Repeating that this article is "badly written" or continuing to make vague complaints won't attract outside editors to make wild changes against WP:LEADLENGTH. Copy editors won't delete sourced text claiming it is unsourced. At WT:MED project there are uninvolved editors who are interested in improving articles. That's how I found this article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 48#I actually hate it here and I.27m leaving. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
move onbecause despite what you think you don't own this article. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The {{ multipleissues}} tag related to the three main problems the article has:-
PS: Please note that my statement of the problems with the article is not meant to be exhaustive, and fixing those specific examples would not be sufficient to remove the tag.— S Marshall T/ C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
SPACKlick proposes various edits, and QuackGuru objects to every single one of them.— S Marshall T/ C 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Stub/Summary Potato/Potahto. They were overlong, and contained excess non-applicable information. I trimmed them. Do you have any specific exceptions to the trimmed sentences beyond WP:OWN? SPACKlick ( talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've worked out what's wrong with this page. This page reads like "A history of scientific studies on e-cigarettes" for the most part. I've started editing various sections so that they summarise the findings of the various studies rather than reporting every single study. This lightbulb moment has given me a significant second wind and I share it in the hopes of giving that second wind to you guys as well.
In terms of my actual edits. Can someone less enthused with e-cigs than me check that the first paragraph accurately summarises the position. What I'm trying to say with it (and what I interpret the sources to say) is that "There are studies that show very little cessation success for e-cigarettes, esp with dual users. There are other studies coming out that suggest e-cigs may actually help quitting smoking. There's a tiny suggestion they might be better than NRT. The data is not even in the ballpark of conclusive yet so no strong claim can be made and high caution should be exercised" SPACKlick ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
vapour. On reconsidering the ENDS posing risk to adolescents and fetuses should probably be re-inserted although I'm not sure where. The WHO 2013 was removed as out of date as there is more discussion of studies performed since on smoking cessation effectiveness. and the WHO position changed about the recommendation from "strongly advised not to use" to "mokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting...[but]...e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods." SPACKlick ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've looked hard at this article recently while closing a couple of RfCs, and the lead section is annoying me. The first paragraph is full of information about what e-cigarettes aren't, and about what they don't contain. I think this is unsatisfactory. I suggest rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why.— S Marshall T/ C 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's my effort:
E-cigarettes are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vapourised by a heating element. The user inhales this vapour, which usually contains nicotine and flavourings. Most e-cigarettes have refillable cartridges for this liquid and so can be reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odour, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Any good?— S Marshall T/ C 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
They
are generally cylindrical in shape, roughly the size of a conventional cigarette, and often made of plastic.
Levelledout ( talk) 15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)They vary in physical shape and size and are often made of plastic and metal.
I think SM's wording is better and raises a very important issue that AF's editorial comments address. Many devices after first generation eCigs are less eCigs and more PV's. This could be considered semantical, but is akin to saying a cigar is a cigarette or vice versa. Both have strong similarities, but both are generally kept distinct as two different type of products, consumed by different group of users (generally speaking). I would also note that most of the scientific studies (sourced on the article page) are using first generation devices or ones that operate like them. Lumping everything together in one big article is doable, but continues to be a challenge because a) they are distinct devices and b) users of more advanced gear tend to harp on items that may not be the case with first generation-like devices (i.e. advanced gear is ideal for smoking cessation). If the goal here is to shorten up the lead, present info on what an eCig is and stay away from what an eCig is not, then I'd prefer SM's wording. But if goal is to be as comprehensive as possible with all current devices that could plausibly fall under the eCig umbrella and present an article that tries to cover everything, including all political angles, then I would think we'd continue in vein that is already existing. And continue in vain attempt to appease pro-cessation crowd mixed with anti-tobacco (or tobacco control) crowd. Gw40nw ( talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are somewhat larger than conventional cigarettes, and are made of metal and plastic. Typically, when the user takes a puff from the e-cigarette, a liquid within the body of the device is vaporized by a heating element. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. E-cigarettes can have refillable cartridges for this liquid and most can be reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Any better?— S Marshall T/ C 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and they are considerably cheaper to use. E-cigarette manufacturers and some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although medical sources are cautious about these claims. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Almost all users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Are we nearly there, do you think?— S Marshall T/ C 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc James' view is reasonable and I was hoping he'd weigh in.
1) Are e-cigarettes cheaper?
This will obviously depend on the tax treatment of tobacco in any particular jurisdiction. In June 2013, here in the UK, e-cigarettes were about 20% cheaper to use than conventional cigarettes (
source,
source). In other jurisdictions the difference will vary, but I think cost is a major motivator for people to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.
2) Marketing claims
There are no marketing claims in my draft and I emphatically deny any connection with the e-cigarette industry. My motivation in writing this draft is exactly as I posted right at the start of this discussion: "rephrasing the lead so that it tells us in simple English what e-cigarettes are, who uses them, how they're used and why". The "why" part of that is the key one here. If you're under the impression that it's a good idea to start an article about e-cigarettes with the criticisms of them, then I disagree with you. A thorough criticism section belongs in the article. It doesn't belong in the first couple of paragraphs.
3) Vapor vs aerosol
The lead needs to be a non-technical introduction to the subject for the curious and intelligent, but uninformed, reader. An "aerosol", to the uninformed, is a kind of spray can. "Vapor", to the uninformed, is a suspension of droplets. I think we can, and should, go into this later and explain why aerosol is the correct technical term, but I think that the lead needs to be the view from 30,000 feet, and will therefore necessarily not be strictly accurate on all the details.
I hope this clarifies?— S Marshall T/ C 09:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
We still have two paragraphs. Most reviews state that the health effects are unclear [1] These changes mix content in later paragraphs in the first paragraph (two paragraphs?). The first paragraph should just discuss contruction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic
I propose simplifying the first paragraph to:
An electronic cigarette (also known as e-cig, e-cigarette, personal vaporizer or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. [1] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [2] This produces an aerosol, [3] [4] which is frequently referred to as vapor. [4] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [3] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. [5] They may be single use or refillable.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not keen on DocJames' version, which gives in great detail the exact chemical names and technical terms by which the vapour is produced, without making any attempt to explain what e-cigarettes are, who uses them or why they do it.— S Marshall T/ C 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's basic common sense. It's not just on grounds of public safety. Homeopathic remedies, for example, won't do you any harm at all if you take them, so there are no public safety grounds why we'd insist on medical sources. When it comes to homeopathic remedies we'd insist on medical sources simply because the non-medical sources are, all too often, a tissue of lies written by people with a commercial motive for concealing the truth.
But I think it's important to restrict the reliance on medical sources to the actual medical claims. I mean, to take this to ludicrous extremes, if we wrote an article about cars based on medical sources, then it'd go something like: Cars are petrol-powered devices that emit toxic chemicals. They are the single largest cause of accidental death in the western world. By far the majority of hospital admissions caused by cars involve blunt force trauma... and we might get a few paragraphs about transporting people from place to place halfway down the article.
I'm being a bit facetious but the e-cig article genuinely does have this problem. It goes into details about toxins and harms before describing the essential purpose of the device.— S Marshall T/ C 09:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Response to User:Doc_James' comments mis-posted in the sourcing section below:
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid within the body of the device. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are some disposable models.
In contrast to normal cigarettes, e-cigarettes create almost no odor, and in many jurisdictions they are cheaper to use. Some users feel that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes as well, although in medical sources the benefits and risks of e-cigarettes are unclear. Use of e-cigarettes has been steadily increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers.
Is this an improvement?— S Marshall T/ C 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see there isn't an argument. There's a lack of data, which rather understandably means a significant proportion of the scientific community is unwilling to comment. I think it's well established that using NRT (which gives the nicotine without all the other harmful stuff that's in cigarettes) is better than smoking, and on this basis a few medical sources are speculating that e-cigarettes may possibly turn out not to be a completely terrible idea. What isn't established is whether there are any other harms from using e-cigarettes. For all we know they might contain chemicals that future doctors will realise are as harmful as lead and CFCs. (Probably not, though...)
I don't think that this Wikipedia article should suggest that e-cigarettes are a good idea on health grounds, and I'm trying to be careful not to imply that in the lead.— S Marshall T/ C 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.
E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing (exponentially?) since the first models were marketed in 2004.
I broadly agree with HLHJ's well-reasoned changes.— S Marshall T/ C 09:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we might be getting too bogged down with singular statements and words here, the proposal has already been edited several times to encompass editors' concerns. Are we in agreement that the proposal is, broadly speaking, an overall improvement on what we have at the moment? We can agree to sort out the minor details at a later date. We also need to answer DocJames' question (see sourcing section) of whether we are intending to replace the first paragraph or the first two paragraphs of the lead. Levelledout ( talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Added after one comment: This section is for sourcing, please make edit suggestions of complaints in the section above. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have started sourcing out some of the claims.
But we will probably need more. Point one out, and I will add it here. AlbinoFerret 16:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. In my mind it would replace the first paragraph. If someone quibbles about the technical breach of WP:LEADLENGTH in having five opening paragraphs, then we could always remove another paragraph break somewhere in the lead, but I'd prefer to have five paragraphs in the lead until we reach consensus on how to improve paragraphs #2, #3, #4 and #5.— S Marshall T/ C 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Saitta2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion above, please replace entire first paragraph with:
E-cigarettes (also known as electronic cigarettes, e-cigs, personal vaporizers, PVs, etc.) are electronic devices that mimic the sensation and effects of cigarette smoking. They are made of metal and plastic. Typically, the user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. This causes a heating element to vaporize a liquid. The user inhales this vapor, which usually contains nicotine and flavorings and is almost odorless. Most e-cigarettes can be refilled and reused, although there are disposable models.
E-cigarettes are not harmless to users or bystanders, although their full medical effects are not yet known. Some people use e-cigarettes because they believe that they are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but the medical evidence is weak. Most users are smokers or ex-smokers. In some jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes; in others they are illegal. Use of e-cigarettes has been increasing since the first models were marketed in 2004.
Requested by — S Marshall T/ C 11:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, by the way, that if we do get consensus for this draft so many editors have contributed to, there would be redundancies/duplication with the rest of the lede. I think the rest of the lede would need revising. I haven't started that process because it was already like wading through treacle trying to get a broad agreement from the majority of editors just to do the first paragraph.— S Marshall T/ C 01:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If that's your objection, imagine I sourced it using the sources in the discussion above. Would you still object?
The only "other problem that was previously explained" was CFCF's contention that the edit was "not supported by consensus". A month ago, it was. Now I find the whole talk page is populated only by people who want to retain the article in its current, profoundly unsatisfactory state, and who have yet to give their reasons for this position, which is making me tired.
A big part of the problem here is that there's a pro e-cig camp and an anti e-cig camp who're fighting each other on AN/I and I'm starting to wonder if I'm being misidentified as a meatpuppet. I'm not, I'm just a good faith editor who thinks the current lede is utterly crap.— S Marshall T/ C 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That e-cigarettes are cheaper than conventional cigarettes in the UK could go in the 4th paragraph. Maybe along with a statement that they are a 7 Billion dollar US market. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Taxes on e-cigarettes are relatively under-developed as the products are still young. Minnesota and North Carolina have actually levied a tax on e-cigarette tobacco vapor products such as “juice”; Minnesota is at 95% of the wholesale value [1]. and republican Governor Pat McCrory in North Carolina has levied a similar, yet much more modest, tax of $0.05 per milliliter. Though the taxes have some opposition, both democrats and republicans have generally accepted them. [2] New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) headlined a significant sin tax on electronic cigarettes in May 2014. [3] Also, Philadelphia is considering a $2.00 tax on e-cigarettes where revenue would go to a general fund predominately used for schools. [4]
But not all states are passing e-cigarette taxes. In 2013, Utah defeated HB372, which was a tax increase on e-cigarettes and nicotine candies and made it illegal to sell to minors less than 19 years old. [5] These taxes are being met with much concern. Opponents say the blossoming industry will be suppressed by the high taxes, and without much evidence of negative health effects, the taxes are seen as unnecessary. Proponents of the tax claim e-cigarette flavors are enticing children to use e-cigarettes, ultimately undoing decades of anti-smoking headway. Many lawmakers imposing these taxes cite youth smoking deterrence and monetary aid in offsetting the public cost of medical care for ill-fated smokers, similar to the big tobacco bonds from the ‘90s. Taxes might shift tobacco sales to online or out of state. When Utah increased its tax on (traditional) tobacco win 2010, data showed smuggling across state lines as a way to dodge the imposed tax. The same phenomenon is happening in the e-cigarette market. If taxes are imposed, brick and mortar vendors will face online competition with lower overhead costs. [6]
Throughout the world, electronic cigarettes are impacting local governments. The following chronology exemplifies the tumultuous beginnings of this blossoming industry. The conventional tobacco market, as we know, it is on its heels. For example, in 2009, Brazil issued regulations to prohibit the sale and import of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette advertising restrictions. On March 27th, 2009, Canada banned the sale of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine products. In June 2009, Panama banned the import of electronic cigarettes products. In July 2009, the Israeli Ministry of Health banned the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In January 2010, the Maltese consumer electronic cigarette ban in public places, and to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. In July 2010, Singapore introduced regulations to prohibit the import and sale of electronic cigarettes. In May 2011, Argentina enacted regulations that prohibit the import, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes. In November 2011, the Greek electronic banned cigarette sales and consumption. [1]
Convenience stores are accountable for more than half of the sale of e-cigarettes. Smoke shops command 22% of e-cigarette sales, and online e-tailers account for about 20%, and 2% are sold in other channels. Since 2008, electronic cigarette prices began to decline, with sales doubling each year. [2] According to the U.S. “Times” recently reported that sales of electronic cigarettes is less than 1% of the tobacco market. But over the past four years, the growth of electronic cigarettes is very robust, doubling every year. [3] Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog says that, "as technology continues to improve, the electronic cigarette market will exceed real cigarette market in the next 10 years. Sales of e-cigarettes are estimated to surpass one billion dollars by 2017". [4] The future of the electronic cigarette market is expected to reach 30% annual growth rate; and more than half of e-cigarette buyers are repetitive smokers, rather than new users. The biggest attractions of electronic cigarettes are perceived lower health risks, lower prices, and the “freshness” of vapor compared to smoke.
I found this in the archives. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"Electronic cigarette sales increased from 50,000 in 2008 to 3.5 million in 2012.[21]" - This is of course just the US figure, sourced to USA Today. And rather meaningless if it just adds disposables to refillables, as it apparently does. Johnbod ( talk) 04:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This entire article reads like it was written by the tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. as a 4 year user of vaping devices, (NOT e-cigarettes) I can tell you from my personal use that they are effective in quitting analogs. But like anything else you have to want to quit first.
I didn't see in the article where the toxicology of Chinese produced Propylene Glycol/Vegetable Glycerin was even mentioned. A tainted batch of Chinese made PG/VG caused a lot of people to get sick about 2 years ago. I didn't read anywhere that reputable purveyors use US/UK/GER produced pharmaceutical grade PG/VG, nicotine solution, and various flavorings. The best ones will have the MDS on the products they are selling you.
Some terminology was incorrect. Mods come in two basic flavors regulated and unregulated. Regulated are those mods that have variable settings, unregulated are the mechanical mods mentioned. But for the most part they are tubes or boxes.
Also the problem of mechanical mods having battery failure, sometimes catastrophically is not even mentioned. At least I didn't read anything about it. But that is caused primarily by folks with little or no knowledge allowing Murphy to get a foothold in the atomizer. 2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)milspecsim 2601:5:C400:EC6:55F0:ECA6:8387:1805 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Second generation devices are often[original research?] used by more experienced users. See Electronic_cigarette#Device_generations. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Some[original research?] users want to reduce harm from smoking.[78] [4] See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction section. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-NHE2014_78-0. "Some users want to reduce harm from smoking?" This is a statement I can't verify. The source is about e-cigarette users mainly in the UK. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Full protection was ended a couple of days early, yesterday morning, not sure why. Anyway in the space of about 2 hours last afternoon 17 edits were made by one user including a vast 9k edit. With this volume of editing how is it even possible to in anyway keep up with the changes being made?
Some highlights from the 9k edit:
What percentage of the electronic cigarette market is dominated by big tobacco as of 2015? Of the major electronic cigarette companies what percentage is owned by tobacco industry companies. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"Due to many methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, the relatively few and often small studies, the inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and the lack of long-term follow-up no firm conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs. However, they can hardly be considered harmless." [5]
Might be useful for mentioning the issues with conflict of interest in the literature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Levelledout ( talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Health professionals who advocate “harm reduction” compare ECs with CCs, focus on smokers only, believe that ECs have no negative long-term health effects, that nicotine is a harmless recreational drug and that smokers are unwilling/unable to quit. These views are strongly supported by the EC/tobacco industry. On the other hand, health professionals working with public health point out that CCs are the most harmful legal products on the market (everything seems safe compared to smoking) and fear potential long-term health hazards. Other major concerns are that the product is spreading to never-smokers and ex-smokers, citizens unexposed to CCs, that many smokers have dual use (using both products) or switch instead of quitting, and that widespread EC-use will re-normalize smoking. This view is supported by the medical industry producing smoking cessation products.
Well, I don't agree with either of you. There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic. It's certainly not speculation to say so.
As far as Levelledout's point is concerned, to say "Nicotine isn't harmless but neither is any drug/medicine" is to treat e-cigarettes like drugs and medicines, which I think we've overwhelmingly agreed is inappropriate. They aren't drugs or medicines, and the fact that they do cause harm isn't to be concealed behind weaselling language. We ought to come straight out and say so.— S Marshall T/ C 10:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There's overwhelming evidence that nicotine is toxic.. As there is for Caffeine, Taurine, Ethanol, and Capsaicin. Use of all of which is common in recreational consumer products. As with all toxicity the danger is in the dose and nicotine toxicity is not in itself, so the real question is Is nictoine toxic in doses associated with e-cigarettes. And the answer to that is in usage no and in storage of liquids maybe/yes depending on strength and size.
It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states in 2013 "There are no significant safety concerns associated with using more than one OTC NRT at the same time, or using an OTC NRT at the same time as another nicotine-containing product—including a cigarette."[41] Spilling a high concentration of nicotine onto the skin can cause intoxication or even death, since nicotine readily passes into the bloodstream following dermal contact.
The above is from Wikipedias Nicotine Page SPACKlick ( talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Safety subsection: As of 2014, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as harmless.
Levelledout ( talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Despite some manufacturers’ claims that electronic cigarettes are harmless there is also evidence that electronic cigarettes contain toxic substances, including small amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which are carcinogenic to humans, [34] and that in some cases vapour contains traces of carcinogenic nitrosamines, and some toxic metals such as cadmium, nickel and lead. [34] Although levels of these substances are much lower than those in conventional cigarettes, [34] regular exposure over many years is likely to present some degree of health hazard, though the magnitude of this effect is difficult to estimate.
Ah, I'm sorry, you're quite right: it does say that. That part of the article is so incredibly boring to read that my brain shuts down in self-defence, so I've failed to observe it until now.— S Marshall T/ C 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Should you wish to do so, please contribute to the current request regarding changing the protection level of the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There might be something useful from this review. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are a lot of sources to consider using for this page. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
QuackGuru ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ref about passive e-cig smoking 87.114.59.45 ( talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following reference to vapers products - It's a great testimonial: http://vapers.com/testimonials/ 2602:30A:2CE1:4F50:81B1:5CD:6ECF:3730 ( talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking. [1] Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke. [2] This vapor is inhaled and the remaining vapor is exhaled into the air. [2] In general, they have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [3] E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [4] Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. [5]
Grana2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Saitta2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I propose we simplify the first paragraph as above. The previous version stated to much what they are not rather than what they are. Adjusted to address. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support.
Done in sandbox.
QuackGuru (
talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support but would like to see minor edits:
For clarity I support the proposed paragraph as-is, but would like to see my suggestions too. We can also do this with the proposed paragraph first and discuss my edits later.
Zad
68
03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I made this change. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with this change along with Zad68's suggestions. Propylene glycol and glycerin, by weight are by far the most prevalent ingredients of e-liquid and it would be impossible to produce vapour/aerosol without them. So yes I think its necessary to include the basic ingredients. A break down of the components of the flavourings would be the kind of thing to include outside of the lead but that data is generally not available at present. Levelledout ( talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this change for using the US spelling. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed from the lead "Another considered the data to be inconclusive. [1] Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear. [2] They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products. [3]" Was there discussion? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit edit summary does not make any sense. The sentences that were deleted by User:S Marshall from the WP:LEDE are a summary of the body. User:S Marshall, your edit was counterproductive. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
All these sources below were deleted from the page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? After over a week, User:Levelledout was unable to formulate a reason to delete all the sources.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Here are some highlights:
Editors want to shorten and tweak the WP:LEDE. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed changes to the lead.
The word "often" failed verification. No argument has been made to keep unsourced text. The source stated "There appears to be a trend towards more experienced electronic cigarette users (‘vapers’) preferring newer generation electronic cigarettes (often called personal vapourisers)." Read page 5. This confirms "often" is OR (or at least inaccurate).
The sentence sourced to the the 2014 report from Public Health England is misplaced. It should be next to the other sentence from the same report. The word "some" contradicts the source. The source stated "and evidence to date suggests that smokers are willing to use these products in substantial numbers." Read page 24 under Summary and conclusions. This confirms "some" is OR (or at least misleading). The word "some" cannot be verified but the text can be tweaked so that it is verifiable.
"An e-cigarette can be rigid and a bit bulky." This sentence has been in the article since last year. However, editors can tweak the text. The other sentences can also be tweaked and improved to address the concerns.
The text from Brandon2015 is sourced to a formal policy statement written in Clinical Cancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The source is reliable according to WP:MEDORG.
The text from McKee2014 is sourced to a peer-reviewed editorial in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. The text concerning individual vapers who spend time blogging and tweeting about the e-cigarette products can be attributed with in-text attribution for the concerns that it is an opinion. The text meets WP:V and it is reliable for non-medical claims according to WP:SECONDARY.
Is it reasonable to make a wholesale revert to delete so many sources, including WP:MEDRS compliant reviews? According to this comment it was a mistake to make a "wholesale revert". User:Levelledout accepted that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Consensus is not invalidated by objections lacking policy based rationale. Your question of whether the proposed content is contentious has been addressed by the provision of rationale and the pointers to policy and guidelines. " I don't like it" is not a rationale or even an argument. There is not a controversy surrounding this Wikipedia article. There is a controversy surrounding e-cigs, however. But that does not mean we should not expand the page with up-to-date new research. We should document what reliable sources say rather than wholesale delete pertinent information. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion.
OK, parts of edits since March 20th I have issue with below. Mostly it's poorly written stuff but there are some content and source issues. Also the whole article needs a copy editor to make it readable.
do not contain [[tobacco]], although they do use [[nicotine]] from tobacco plants.<ref name=O2012/>
(FDA) accepted products such as a [[nicotine inhaler]]may beare a safer way to give nicotine than e-cigarettes.<ref name=Drummond2014/>
nowikiThe evidence indicates the levels of contaminants do not warrant health concerns according to workplace safety standards. [1]</nowiki>
Evidence indicates that the majority of e-cigarette users are middle-aged presently using traditional cigarettes, notably males, to assist them to quit or for recreational use.<ref name=Rahman2014/>. And a general note that several additions lead to disjointed sentences with no information flow making the article even less readable.
Data suggests that the users' motivation for using e-cigarettes are related to quitting, whereas another indicted a concern that a considerable proportion of their use is recreational.<ref name=Rahman2014/>
Agreement to the degree that users of e-cigarettes believe they look, feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes, along with whether their likeness to traditional cigarettes was a benefit or a drawback is little.<ref name=Pepper2013/>
The majority of e-cigarette users frequently start with using a device resembling a cigarette and subsequently a majority of them shift to a later-generation device.<ref name=Yingst2015/>
The primary components for the majority of e-cigarettes consist of an aerosol generator, flow sensor, battery, and a liquid storage chamber.
An e-cigarette consist of the materials silver, steel, metals, ceramics, plastics, fibers, aluminum, rubber and spume, and lithium batteries.
a LED
one-time use expandable products
after either the battery is no longer charged
No e-cigarette has received FDA approval as a cessation tool
Data on e-cigarette use for risk reduction in high-risk groups such as people with [[mental disorder]]s is unavailable.
No definite conclusions can be made regarding the safety of e-cigarettes because of various methodological issues, conflicts of interest, a limited number of studies, and disagreements in the results of research.is a repeat of the opening of the same paragraph.
A 2014 [[Cochrane review]] found no serious [[adverse effect]]s reported in trials.<ref name=Cochrane2014/> Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use can include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.<ref name=Grana2014/>
It was concluded that they also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the [[tobacco industry]].Also it doesn't reflect the passage in the source and it isn't notable that one blogger about e-cigarettes is associated with the tobacco industry. The whole McKee section could do with work.
E-cigarettes are not permitted to be used as a smoking cessation aid in some countries, but are regulated as a [[medical device]]
business is handled on the internet.
E-cigarettes are aggressively promoted,
Other than those 20 it seems in general to be adding new information which is great. However the manner in which it was added was bullshit, the writing is terrible, the article still needs a copy edit to make it readable. The next big edit should be a massive reduction in size not additions but that'll never happen while QG exists driving any sensible editor over a cliff with his cavalacade of avalanches of tripe. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1) Editors wanted to shorten the lede. 2) 2 was explained. 3) 3 was explained. 4) thru 14) were addressed. 15) 15 is cited to a review and informative. 16) The sentences are not repetitive and have been in the article since last year. I previously tweaked one of the sentences. 17) The text was shortened. 18) The sentence is informative and has been in the article since lest year. I just previously tweaked the sentence to make it more readable than it previously was. 19) and 20) addressed. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This sentence is precisely true and accurate and certainly belongs in the article. But is it necessary to repeat it three times in the same paragraph? At the moment, paragraph #2 is highly redundant:
"The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain ... the data [are] inconclusive ... their role ... is unclear."
I propose that we shorten and simplify this phrasing.— S Marshall T/ C 11:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As it appears we have not agreed on new wording of the second paragraph [10] I have restored the previous one until there is consensus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The POV tag was removed here, here, here and here.
The tag should not be repeatedly edit-warred from the article like this, please discuss the issue here if you think that there is a valid reason to remove the tag. Levelledout ( talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Our goal is simply to reflect the best available literature. That is my only POV. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight
to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. Levelledout ( talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This page desperately needs your help! Please make it comprehensible by editing for coherence and flow and presenting ideas in a clear and logical order. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S Marshall ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A list of the chemical constituents of the aerosol currently appears in the lede. I think the crucial information for the lede is that the aerosol contains nicotine, and the remaining chemicals belong further down the article, as is the case with (for example) our article on cigarette. I therefore propose to take the two sentences reading Emissions from e-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals.[4][13] E-cigarette emissions contain fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and move them down into the body of the article.— S Marshall T/ C 11:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This insert by Quack Guru Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and are spending a huge amount of money promoting these devices.<ref name=Drummond2014/>
contains some unencyclopedic language. The quote from the article is
Major tobacco companies have bought some of these e-cigarette companies and are spending tremendous amounts of money advertising e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes; one product’s advertising funds increased from $992,000 to $12.4 million from 2011 to 2012 (32, 33). In this setting, e-cigarette sales have increased from $20 million in 2008 to $500 million in 2012 and are expected to reach nearly $2 billion by the end of 2013
I can't think of a better way of phrasing it. "Devoting a very large amount of revenue on their promotion"? I'm sure something better can be written. SPACKlick ( talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like "Big tobacco have purchased some e-cigarette businesses and have greatly increased the marketing spend on them" is all we should take from this source on this this point. Johnbod ( talk) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a separate section for one sentence. See Electronic cigarette#Power. Maybe it can be merged into another section. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Among adults or children, the extent to which a dual use tendency exists using e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes is unclear." -- First of all why are we specifying adults or children here? Does that not cover prett much, well, everyone? Secondly, this appears to contradict some very broad statements made in the previous section.Not editing for fact right now but that one twanged my nerves badly enough to get mr to come in here and write up a complaint about it. Elinruby ( talk) 07:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
“As of 2014, they are largely unregulated.” I suggest this could be dropped or changed per the following (and the academic work which it is based on), reporting that about 70% of major nations have regulated e-cigarettes in one way or another: http://ecigintelligence.com/worlds-law-makers-favour-e-cig-regulation-based-on-tobacco/
“E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in many states in the U.S.” This is strictly speaking true, insofar as nine could be "many" - but misleading nevertheless, because a large majority of states (41 out of 50 is the current figure, I think) do have age restrictions. Why not say “E-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in some countries and U.S. states.”? Barnabypage ( talk) 21:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
"Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction for those who do not already smoke, [1] but there is no evidence of ongoing use among those who have never smoked. [2]" -- Leaving this as I do get that there is a long hard-fought history here and right now I am just doing language cleanup, but at somepoint I'd like somoene to explainthat sentence to me (?) thankyouverymuch Elinruby ( talk) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
from the lede:
They appear to be similar in safety to other nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that products accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), such as nicotine inhalers, are probably a safer means to supply nicotine than e-cigarettes. Elinruby ( talk) 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654938142&oldid=654936852 I recommend editors read the sources before changing the meaning of the sentences. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
User:S Marshall claims "Overall, I'm afraid I feel that this article and talk page would be greatly improved by your absence." [14] That is not a content dispute. Therefore, I am removing the tag. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No real explanation for restoring the tag was given. This is the same editor who deleted numerous sources, including several MEDRS compliant reviews without a valid reason. So what is disputed? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What you think? Maybe the image could be improved without the box. See Electronic cigarette#Construction. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I found an image without the box. Is there a way to remove the logo from the image? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is to let everyone here know that I've just closed a discussion authorising general sanctions for the electronic-cigarette topic area. The precise wording of the sanctions is as follows:
If anyone has any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me about them either here or on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason the tag is put there, is because it is impossible for the reader to determine whether information is global or US centric, as well as the case that a large majority of the information is US figures or information, without attribution to it being exclusively for the US. Other problems include statements such as "a national advertising campaing..." without explaining that it is the US. Therefore it is not just necessary to add a few items from other countries to resolve it.
Solutions to this could be:
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a sentence which I removed and CFCF re-inserted which I feel adds practically no information to the article and merely adds bloat.
As of 2015 [update], there is no information available on the frequency of e-cigarette use for pregnant women.<ref name=Orellana-Barrios2015/>
Asking for consensus to remove it SPACKlick ( talk) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Not this again, I reverted your edit with the comment "bloat?" because I don't see how you identified it as such. Now that I understand I think we have to clear up a logical fallacy some people here are engaging in. The sentence most certainly adds information in that it is a known unknown that is both relevant to the topic and reported by a credible source. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
However, I'm acutely conscious that we're giving CFCF a hard time over one single factlet when QuackGuru is introducing bucketloads of them every day. We're not tackling the main offender here.— S Marshall T/ C 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't include every factlet that can be verified about knowns and unknowns. That isn't how articles are written. IT is howeer how you are writing this article and it's almost impossible to clean up while you keep adding snippets worthy of no weight to the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.The objection is that this information does not improve the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 07:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead of this article states "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." This seems like an accurate representation of that review's conclusions, but I don't think the body describes it as well. Specifically, I think the sentence "A 2014 Cochrane review found that e-cigarettes can help people quit, but was based on a small number of studies" should be changed. This seems to be an oversimplification of this review's findings. Maybe something like "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes were effective for smoking cessation, but rated the confidence in their effectiveness for this purpose as "low"." Everymorning talk 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wording for lede: "One review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid." Wording for body: "A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies." The wording was improved. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the last paragraph details mainly country-level issues and begins with "E-cigarette use has become increasingly common..." It might be better to put the stances of global organizations there instead, like WHO, International Union of Toxicology, World Lung Foundation, etc and move local issues to relevant section. Brandmeister talk 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If one looks at the size of medical organizations the NIH is largest followed by the CDC and than WHO. Thus the US has better data than most places and thus why we often given data on usage there. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"is a battery-powered vaporizer which feels similar to tobacco smoking.[1]" -- somebody edit that please. It produces a something that creastes a sensation similar to that prroduced by cigarette smoke is presumably what is meant here but yes, that is an incredibly awkard sentence and that is what I didn't just go ahead and make the change. That and I see the talk page, which is apparently so active that all three of the RfCs I have received have scrolled off the page. Boy oh boy. Elinruby ( talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
See Template:POV:
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.
I specifically asked what is disputed? The reply was " I reciprocate by: No real explanation for removing the tag - and such is required." KimDabelsteinPetersen, nothing in you response indicates that there is a serious dispute. No major content was disputed to suggest there is a serious dispute. Apparently there is no serious dispute among editors. No relevant discussion can be found on the talk page for a serious dispute according to WP:PAG. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Any neutral observer can tell by the above comments there was no specific reason for keeping the POV tag. Making vague objections about the article confirms there is no serious dispute. The "status quo" is not a reason to keep a POV tag. According to Template:POV: The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The burden for keeping the POV tag has not been met. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm "Vague objections?" Seriously?— S Marshall T/ C 08:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See Template:POV: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. |
The serious dispute must be with WP:PAG not among editors making vague objections. No evidence has been presented on the talk page that this article has multiple issues. Please show not assert what are the "multiple issues". So far editors have not shown what are the multiple issues. The are several vague objections, such as the article is "badly written". Claiming there are multiple issues without showing there are multiple issues is counterproductive. The article has been improved over the last year, which includes documenting the "unknown", "uncertain", "unclear", and "limited evidence" according to high-quality sources. This is not speculation. The bat signal was a joke. Not everyone is happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is largely supported by high-quality sources so it is obviously better than many articles. It is a contentious topic but the Wikipedia article should not be contentious. The real world debate should not spill over into Wikipedia. Do you understand that adding 3 maintenance tags at the top of the article without showing there is a serious problem on the talk page is not helpful? The 3 tags appears to be added to "warn" readers rather than discuss legitimate concerns for improving the article. Putting 3 tags to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes solves nothing. Repeating that this article is "badly written" or continuing to make vague complaints won't attract outside editors to make wild changes against WP:LEADLENGTH. Copy editors won't delete sourced text claiming it is unsourced. At WT:MED project there are uninvolved editors who are interested in improving articles. That's how I found this article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 48#I actually hate it here and I.27m leaving. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
move onbecause despite what you think you don't own this article. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The {{ multipleissues}} tag related to the three main problems the article has:-
PS: Please note that my statement of the problems with the article is not meant to be exhaustive, and fixing those specific examples would not be sufficient to remove the tag.— S Marshall T/ C 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
SPACKlick proposes various edits, and QuackGuru objects to every single one of them.— S Marshall T/ C 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Stub/Summary Potato/Potahto. They were overlong, and contained excess non-applicable information. I trimmed them. Do you have any specific exceptions to the trimmed sentences beyond WP:OWN? SPACKlick ( talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I've worked out what's wrong with this page. This page reads like "A history of scientific studies on e-cigarettes" for the most part. I've started editing various sections so that they summarise the findings of the various studies rather than reporting every single study. This lightbulb moment has given me a significant second wind and I share it in the hopes of giving that second wind to you guys as well.
In terms of my actual edits. Can someone less enthused with e-cigs than me check that the first paragraph accurately summarises the position. What I'm trying to say with it (and what I interpret the sources to say) is that "There are studies that show very little cessation success for e-cigarettes, esp with dual users. There are other studies coming out that suggest e-cigs may actually help quitting smoking. There's a tiny suggestion they might be better than NRT. The data is not even in the ballpark of conclusive yet so no strong claim can be made and high caution should be exercised" SPACKlick ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
vapour. On reconsidering the ENDS posing risk to adolescents and fetuses should probably be re-inserted although I'm not sure where. The WHO 2013 was removed as out of date as there is more discussion of studies performed since on smoking cessation effectiveness. and the WHO position changed about the recommendation from "strongly advised not to use" to "mokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting...[but]...e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods." SPACKlick ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)