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 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Propose wording: "The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has stated, "While early studies show some potential benefits, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes with nicotine as a smoking cessation device is not fully conclusive," and expressed concerns about the lack of long term studies with regard to health effects to the user as well as second hand exposure. They also note public health officials' concerns about renormalizing smoking behavior undermining current tobacco control as well as being a gateway for nicotine addiction and tobacco abuse." [1]
There is no mention of Canada's position in the Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations section. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you end up with an article that reads like this:- "According to source X, there has never been an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in Colorado. According to source Y, no lesser-spotted sasquatches have been seen in Alabama by separate people who can confirm each other's stories. According to source Z, no black people from Wisconsin have ever seen a lesser-spotted sasquatch at all..." and goes on, and on, and on. What you really need to do is say something like "Four studies could not find an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in any of the areas they covered", stick all four sources after your sentence, and move on.
Which brings me to another point: According to a 2015 review, 47.63% of this article consists of precise and narrowly-defined statistical statements. Those belong, in some areas of the encyclopaedia ---- particularly technical areas that are likely to be read by people with a decent scientific education. They're also popular with Wikipedians, because Wikipedians tend to be in the upper quartile of intelligence and educational attainment (read: nerds). But this article is non-technical and our audience is the general reader ---- including people who are seriously considering using e-cigarettes. And, if I can be permitted a statistic of my own, half of those people will be of below average ability... I'm afraid a lot of the people who want or need to read this article will find the statistics impenetrable. We do need to turn mathematical and statistical sentences into accessible ones.
Going through the e-cig article doing this, to remove repetition and turn statistical statements into conclusions, is really the next important stage in its development, but it's also likely to cause friction, so I'd like to pause here, discuss the ramifications and get consensus for the general approach I propose before continuing.— S Marshall T/ C 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This proposal does involve removing sourced content from the article.
It also involves rephrasing statistical statements as simple declarative statements, so it needs consensus before I start.— S Marshall T/ C 11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
1) "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." ---> "In the UK user numbers tripled in the year to 2013."
2) "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked. Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, those who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012 and those still vaping rose from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%." ---> "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." (The intention here is to delete statistical sentences because they add nothing to the first sentence, but to keep the sources, placing them directly after the first sentence, which they do support.)
3) "In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 51% said they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked, 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% still uses them. In 2013, among those under 18, 7% have used e-cigarettes at least once. Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use. Sustained use was mostly confined to children who smoke or have smoked. In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%, children who have ever used e-cigarettes was at 10%, and occasional or greater use among never-smoking children was at 0.18%. About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers." --> "In the UK, about half of the people who smoke have tried vaping, but only about 1% of the people who do not smoke have tried it. About 7% of smokers' children have tried vaping, but only about 1% of non-smokers' children."
Does that help?— S Marshall T/ C 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the intended audience will be able to make sense of it. On the other hand, articles on everyday devices and utensils mostly do not assume a high level of education on the reader's part and do not lean heavily on statistics, even when these are associated with medicine. Look how our articles on syringe, nebulizer, eye drop, catheter, or transdermal patch are phrased appropriately for the likely audience, and consider the jump in reading age between those articles and this one. We shouldn't be writing this article for scientists and doctors ---- they are not, or bloody well ought not to be, reading Wikipedia to find detailed statistical data about e-cigarettes. We should be writing for schoolchildren who're considering whether to take a puff, who are people who're very likely to turn to Wikipedia for information. I feel that there are good ethical reasons to make this article more accessible to them.— S Marshall T/ C 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)I believe my favourite quote from this discussion so far is The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability
, which as far as I can tell was not meant as a joke. Fortunately, Zad68's view does offer a workable way forward. We could fission off most of statistical content to a series of footnotes. (I agree that a smaller number of key statistics should remain in the text.) I would recommend using a separate footnotes group, and will knock up an example in a sandbox.—
S Marshall
T/
C 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't work out where to fit this response in the discussion so dumping it at the bottom. While the example of absolute numbers in the UK is contentious (and I am in favour of keeping them there although a rephrase of "In the UK user numbers tripled to 2.1 million from 2012 to 2013." The other suggestions look good so far. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently there is no image for the Motivation section, yet I have a wonderful idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.<ref name=Grana2014/> See Electronic cigarette#Motivation. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The image was removed. So I replaced it with another image. The text about cloud-chasing was removed from the motivation section. So I moved the image to another section where it is relevant. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed three images that are basically clip art. The images need to be more than just decoration. We all know what someone smoking looks like. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
See http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/20/the-us-domestic-e-cig-market-is-about-to-be-shak-3.aspx QuackGuru ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
See http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/22/new-orleans-smoke-free-unique-character-smoking-ban QuackGuru ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Cloud-chasing is merged, partially with this article and partially with the sub-article Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes. There is substantial overlap between the Cloud-chasing article and this article - in fact we already mention cloud chasing in Society and culture and Motivation. The concept of cloud chasing does not merit it's own article anymore than the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers warrant their own article. Cloud-chasing is an activity that requires specialist equipment, skill and knowledge and only a very small minority of e-cigarette users actually partake in it.
The article was only created a month ago, has only ever been edited by one user and is very short on content. Some of the sources used are not particularly high quality either.
The usage section of Cloud-chasing should be merged with the Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes sub-article, the notable bits from the rest of it can go in the main article under Society and culture. Levelledout ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What part of the cloud-chasing article is relevant to the construction of electronic cigarettes article? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
'"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.'and
"Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.". With regards to the construction proposal, once again please read my original merger proposal, it precisely describes what I would like to do. If you think it's a WP:WEIGHT violation we could always delete it instead, I think some of the material could be salvaged though. Levelledout ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Levelledout ( talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"a week-long series... a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information". Levelledout ( talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"A 2011 review found in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy.[76]" I restored some of the text without the image. It is sourced to a 2011 review. Was there a reason to delete the text too? QuackGuru ( talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
On second thought other newer sources make similar claims. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No specific explanation was made for restoring this dated information except that it is sourced. I did explain why I self-reverted my own edit. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything that needs to be clarified or added to the Electronic cigarette#Construction section? It is 4 paragraphs now. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.— S Marshall T/ C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion is not constructive and I have hidden and closed it. You can see the archives. there is nothing further to add. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This image is quite a good one for showing a range of devices. Wide variation of first gen on the left, 5 second gen and a couple of simple ish third gen on the right. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-uploaded a version without logos. The intent of the image was to show a variety of the more common forms of the devices. so that a reader not familiar with them can visualise the types of device being discussed in the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree fully with the need to seperate first and second generation in the initial image to give a visual impression of the subject of the article and I also fully disagree it's advertising to show a variety of generic styles in the illustration to show what the article is about. The image conveys the visual range of a large number of devices. If someone has access to the variety of devices needed to make such an image comprehensive, fantastic but until then it would be good to illustrate the article showing the variety of ways an e-cigarette can look. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" magically appear in vapor that were not in the e-liquid to start with? Gigs ( talk) 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" appear in vapor? I think it would improve the article to clarify this. Based on the above conversation there is an issue with the lede. Rather than delete it could of been moved to another paragraph IMO. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."In other words we are saying that the e-liquid contains PG, VG, flavourings and nicotine whilst the vapour contains these substances and toxicants and heavy metals. That is where I believe Gigs's confusion arose from. But if it is not true, if the e-liquid contains toxicants as well then we should adjust this text instead of adding further confusion to other parts of the article that have nothing to do with safety. However it isn't quite as simple as that, e-liquid may contain very low levels of toxicants depending on what flavour is used and that partly explains how the vapour acquires toxicants. But some of the other toxicants end up in the vapour through chemical breakdowns and also in the case of heavy metals, from the atomizer supposedly. It may be too complex to explain all of this in the lead, we could just say something like, "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants. Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ". Levelledout ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
Not to revive what turned into a somewhat heated discussion, but I think the origin of the claimed toxicants is important, and stripping the claim down for the lede turns it into something that leaves out necessary detail. Gigs ( talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Gigs, I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."Levelledout ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."It is incorrect to imply that the difference between the vapour and the e-liquid is that only the vapour contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. That is what is being implied, that is not correct. I can't make it much clearer than that. Levelledout ( talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The e-liquid in e-cigarettes has a low level of toxicity. [1] Metal parts in e-cigarettes can contaminate the e-liquid with metals. [2] Chemicals including carbonyl compounds can be produced when the heated nichrome wire chemically reacts with the liquid. [3]
How did the toxicants and heavy metals get in the vapour? The lede is currently a mystery and does not answer this question? The three short sentences above can improve the lede. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Another bold coat rack is on its way. --TMCk ( talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.
In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.
So please discuss. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Other editors restored the image that was deleted. [3] [4] QuackGuru ( talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.— S Marshall T/ C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.— S Marshall T/ C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.
I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Wikipedia being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.— S Marshall T/ C 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." "The impact of e-cigarette use by children on substance dependence is unknown." There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. SPACKlick ( talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note carefully that CFCF does not choose to revert QG's changes, even when he's removing a sentence about known unknowns. This is, of course, because QG is in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club. These two editors are not deliberately acting as a tag team to prevent the wrong people from making any changes; but the practical effect of their behaviour is exactly this.
Note also CFCF's instinctive use of Twinkle's anti-vandalism tools on edits made within policy by established editors. I say "instinctive" because he's so quick with it: it takes him only a few seconds. There's no thought going into that at all.
Still, we need to drop this for the moment, having made more progress than I thought would be achievable. It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around.— S Marshall T/ C 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason I'm reverting your changes is because they are blatant and remove well sourced secondary opinion. Whether QG has removed similar statements is beside the point: regardless of whether I've missed such changes or not the fact remains none of QGs edits have removed the same amount of information. As for my reluctance to reply in this discussion, I find it a waste of time and unlikely to be productive. We've already extensively covered the topic of known unknowns. Please refrain from reverting what is strongly supported by consensus, so that we don't have to waste more time on time-consuming RfCs and whatnot. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 11:34, 3 July 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 produces a similar feel to tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke, which the user inhales. In general, E-cigarettes have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as E-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Some E-liquids are available without the nicotine. E-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is also available." [5]
"There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked. They may encourage users to delay quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting. Emissions from E-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders. No serious adverse effects from E-cigarettes have been reported in trials. Less serious adverse effects from E-cigarette use can occur however, including throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough." [6] Someone copied this page. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed by what source? It's not cloud chasing. It's like you've got a picture of a dog and you're insisting it's a wolf. This is ludicrous Quack and you fucking know it. You are Mr. get everything direct from reputable sources but you can't find one fucking reliable source that will describe this image as cloud chasing because it is not clearly an image of cloud chasing it is YOUR OPINION. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The current source is a non reviewed paper from a non-academic source. The content should be trivial to source to MEDRS for those of you with access to better journals because it's pretty non-controversial. Do any Systematic Reviews make similar statements about non-nicotine users becoming addicted to e-cigarettes?
Addionally, in terms of wording I changed it to make it clearer that the addiction was to nicotine, not to e-cigarettes per the source and common sense. Not sure I did the best job of the reword. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.I'm just saying there's probably a better source than a public guide from WHO for a rather important claim. It's just a completionist thing. The tag was the wrong tag, fully admitted. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that often bedevils this page that a user would revert to retain this so-called "information". The source does say this on page 2 (actually "not a benign chemical"); it's a rhetorical technique, and the technical word for it is litotes. It's too informal for mainspace and not appropriate. It would be appropriate to address the reader in the simple declarative and say that nicotine is toxic, carcinogenic and addictive, as indeed we already do in several other places.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes". It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that plagues this page that a user would revert this.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both". It's yet further evidence of poor editorial judgment that a user would revert this. I am growing increasingly unhappy about poor editorial standards and I'm starting to wonder whether an administrator will be prepared to intervene.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First, Thanks to CFCF for tracking down new images for the lede and other sections, most of them are great improvements. The one added to the Positions of medical organisations section though I feel has two issues. 1) It's quite large, could someone trim down the pixel width on it a bit, also stylistically since we have a lot of right aligned images would it be worth considering this one on the left. 2) It's very text heavy making it unclear what precisely we're illustrating and giving strong prominence to the factlet within it. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I invite your comments on this sentence.— S Marshall T/ C 22:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
But only a fool would actually challenge it in this context, because it's a statement of the incredibly obvious. Of course girls in North Wales who vape find that e-cigarettes appeal to them! The bloody things are addictive!
The real problem with the sentence is that it's far too specific. It's not just North Welsh girls who find that e-cigarettes appeal to them. It's pretty much all living nicotine addicts. But how in Heaven's name does it add to the reader's knowledge to say this? If they've got through the thousands of words of turgid factlets and statistics that precede this sentence, then they're well aware that e-cigarette users find them appealing and they fully understand why.— S Marshall T/ C 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The OR was removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I might of made a mistake. See diff. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Kelly Evans, Director of Social Change UK, says that the flavours offered are designed to appeal to youngsters. E-cigarettes have been shown to be appealing to girls as young as 11.
The text is well sourced. There is no need for in-text attribution according to WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem behaviour. Wikipedians are supposed to be willing to try to find consensus. Editors who refuse to use the talk page, or who use the talk page to state an objection without being willing to give their reasons, are doing an end-run around the consensus-seeking process.— S Marshall T/ C 22:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I made this edit, and CFCF reverted it. I began a talk page discussion about the reverted edit. You said you objected to it. But then you made an edit that incorporated the exact changes you'd just objected to, except that you introduced a superfluous "of them". Then I mentioned the superfluous "of them" on the talk page, and you saw my point and removed it. So you made the exact edits which you had objected to when I made them. The wording is exactly the same as I originally proposed. The only difference is that you made the edits instead of me.
This is not the first time that you've argued against one of my edits and then made very similar edits yourself. In my opinion it's simply because you like to be the person who edits the article.— S Marshall T/ C 19:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't seem to be allowed to edit this sentence, I patiently request that you adjust your sentence to reflect what the source really says.— S Marshall T/ C 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I do not understand how you could read that source with proper attention and still say The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds
. I do not think you can possibly have read it with a suitably critical eye.—
S Marshall
T/
C 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable.— S Marshall T/ C 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Electronic Cigarette Convention in North America which started in 2013, is an annul show where companies and consumers meet up."
"annual" is misspelled in the above sentence
BrentWomble ( talk) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This article reviewing the current state of e-cigs in the Oral Health Group journal from Canada puts several concepts in pretty simple lights. Also be worth reviewing their sources. A Dental Perspective On Electronic Cigarettes: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I personally also think it's a pretty good structure for an article on e-cigs but more on that elsewhere. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the recent changes to the lede. The changed were too wordy and difficult to understand. I agree with simplifying the lede. Past changes or proposals that had no consensus or did not improve the lede were Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Proposal and Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Removal. The lede should be concise and summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Smoking cessation comes before harm reduction in the body. The placement in the lede does not follow the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The text in the lede summarises the body. Moving it to the body created duplication. The text in the lede is informative. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
[16] [17] "Nicotine is very addictive,"... The reader will not know it is very addictive without stating it is very addictive. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No specific response was made to the objection. Therefore, I have restored the wording (and made other changes). QuackGuru ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the company chart in Electronic_cigarette#History.
Lorillard sold blu to Imperial [18] [19].
JTI bought Logic [ [20]]
And of course Lorillard doesn't exist any more, RJR bought it.
So clearly the chart needs updating. Only question I have: what happened to SkyCig? Searches coming up empty; does anyone know? Cloudjpk ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page
There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See diff. I replaced it with "at least once" for now. [21] If the text is too vague the wording is uninformative and possibly could be original research. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I also think you often don't understand English the way I do. The clearest example of this was
this edit where you said "a few" is a synonym for "many"
. Can I ask you, is English your native language?—
S Marshall
T/
C 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you've wikilinked data to WP:V. I'm confused by this and I don't understand why you've done it. WP:V is a policy I thought I understood well; according to X!'s tool I've made 147 edits to WP:V and 982 edits to its talk page over the years. Why is data relevant to the word "ever", and does the connection between them have something to do with verifiability?
I do realise the source says "ever", by the way. The role of an encyclopaedia editor is to evaluate the sources and summarise the key points they make. You're normally good at finding sources but I think you have trouble with summarising them. Summarising means using fewer words, and "ever" is one of the words that can be reduced.
I know that you seriously do contend that "few" is synonymous with "many". In the light of that fact, it's neither a personal attack nor a childish smear to wonder whether English is your first language. I'd also just like to point out that the source you've just linked does not say that few is a synonym of many. It says it's an antonym of many. It's important to read sources closely, which is something we've discussed before in the context of your insistence on saying "girls as young as 11" (which the article still says because I'm not being permitted to remove this text). I've shown you in great detail why this source is unreliable but you apparently haven't been able to make the connections.— S Marshall T/ C 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither "a few" nor "few" is synonymous with "many", and your position on that subject is simply indefensible.
In respect of Kelly Evans, you keep linking WP:ASSERT in support of your position. Let's be clear. WP:ASSERT is an essay to which I'm not obliged to pay any attention, and I will not. Like many of Wikipedia's essays its logic is distinctly shaky. In previous discussions I've shown you beyond all possible contradiction that Kelly Evans is neither a scientist or a medic. I've shown you that she's a marketing expert who makes money by lobbying government. I've also shown you that the "study" you wish to cite is by her. This is not a credible source, QuackGuru. Or rather, it's a credible source for the proposition that this is what Kelly Evans says ---- but its claims should not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice.
I am quite sure that e-cigarette flavours have some appeal for young people and this is a concern. However, the claim that e-cigarette flavours appeal to Welsh girls aged eleven is a lurid exaggeration sourced to an anti e-cigarette lobbyist, but our article states it as if it were fact. Please agree that this particular claim should be qualified by in-text attribution or, preferably, deleted.— S Marshall T/ C 20:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Particularly the 1st sentence:
An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking.
The most accurate phrase I see most often is "Nicotine Delivery System", and the purpose of the e-cigarette is to deliver the nicotine and not to "simulate the feeling of smoking". Personal Vaporizer is stupid, ambiguous, and "market-y", and while e-cigarette may be the most common phrase, there isn't much "e" and there isn't any cigarette. There's heat which vaporizes liquid nicotine into vaporized nicotine. And these aren't "smoking simulators", they haven't anything to do with smoking at all, with the very thready exception that there is a heat source that vaporizes the (nicotine) "juice". No fire, no smoke, no burning, and no simulation either. That's real nicotine and at high doses it can kill a person if enough of it comes into contact with the skin. It is very dangerous to use flowery, euphemistic marketing language to describe e-cigarettes. Nicotine is very poisonous, and it can kill you. So accuracy in the way in which e-cigarettes is described is critical, particularly in the lede and most particularly in the 1st sentence of the lede.
[1] The user automatically activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff;[2] other devices turn on by pressing a button manually.[3]
Second I object to the "stream-of-consciousness", "walk a mile in their footsteps", "this is how you do it" writing style in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. It's not encyclopedic, and it undermines the credibility of the rest of the article that follows. Also, in case anyone is wondering about my bias, I'm strongly in favor of e-cigarettes and they are (at least right now, based on information that I have) a much better alternative to (burning) tobacco products and methods of delivery. My way of promoting e-cigarettes is to try to make the description of them as clinically accurate as possible. I've read some of the controversy around this article and I want no part of it. All I want to do here is help to make this article as interesting and informative on the topic as it can be. Jonny Quick ( talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I made this change to clarify it is different than e-cigs. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that deliver vaporized propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin (or a mixture of both) and nicotine when users inhale while using them.[18] Electronic cigarettes are a promising harm reduction technology because they deliver nicotine without the dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke, while remaining attractive to smokers.[2] While the eventual regulatory status of e-cigarettes in many countries remains uncertain,[2] public health advocates view electronic cigarette as having a valid place within tobacco harm reduction strategy.[19] Public health researchers in the UK estimated that 6,000 premature smoking-related deaths per year would be prevented for every million smokers who switched to e-cigarettes.[19] Since currently approved smoking cessation methods have a 90% failure rate, the use of e-cigarettes as a prominent THR modality is likely to substantially reduce tobacco-related illness in the United States, with the potential to save 4.8 million lives over the next 20 years.[1] The role for e-cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[20]"
I'm inclined to lift this directly from "Harm Reduction" and drop it in whole to replace the current Lede. What do other people think? Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The text summarized the body. See "Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking". [33] There was a previous talk page consensus. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24#Smokeless tobacco. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"While tobacco smoke contains 40 known carcinogens,[16] none of these has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes.[16]" See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. This is false information. For example, "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" See the Electronic cigarette aerosol page. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use. [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
From para 2: "but high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, which was determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than long-term smoking.[9]". This, and the follow-up studies which only replicated this under "dry-burn" conditions, are covered at pp. 76-78 of the PHE report. They conclude (p. 78) "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." They are especially critical of the publicity given to this & another study, saying on p. 80: "Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that EC use is dangerous. These were based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users, but there is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes; stressed mice poisoned with very high levels of nicotine twice daily for two weeks were more likely to lose weight and die when exposed to bacteria and viruses, but this has no relevance for human EC users. The ongoing negative media campaigns are a plausible explanation for the change in the perception of EC safety (see Chapter 8)." - also in their "key findings and summaries". I don't think we should include this in the lead at all, and probably not in sections below in this article either, or if so with the follow-up studies included. It is discussed at more length in Electronic cigarette aerosol, and the "safety of" article also needs adjustment. Johnbod ( talk) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should probably temper the phrasing of this as further studies have found and the PHE article has recognised that while you can use an e-cig to generate high levels of aldehydes it is not found in real world settings. When the wattage is increased (usually by increasing the voltage in more common devices although it can be achieved by lowering the ohms of the coil in rebuildables) the vapour becomes intolerably unpalatable before reaching the high levels of formaldehyde given world wide exposure in the two studies. I am attempting a reword. SPACKlick ( talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use. [35] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
After a couple of weeks research, I am of the opinion that using the term "ecigarette" as a comprehensive word to describe the entire class of personal vaporizers is one of the fundamental problems of the article. The broad category class "umbrella" term should be something like "Personal Vaporizer" or "Personal Vaping Device" or similar, with old-school, 1st generation e-cigarettes, cigalikes, etc... as separate sections within the article. Many of the research studies being quoted in the article were done on e-cigarettes and not the newer personal vaping devices and so that research does not, and/or may not apply to the entire class of devices. People searching for "e-cigarettes" specifically could be redirected to the more general article on the entire class of devices. Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If the text is unsourced please add a citation needed tag or verify the claim with a citation. Unsourced text is forbidden. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue with this edit is that there is a reference at the end of the sentence that did not verify the claim. In the future I hope a tag is added to the sentence if the meaning is changed or ask on the talk page for a source. No worries. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
See diff. Do both sources verify the word "some"? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is about the first of these where I agree with Quack. Do we have any source claiming certainty on this? The "some" is clearly OR and I have removed pending source. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
a) mine: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][79] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from the two randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had been published at that point,[13] but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary. For some, the benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain,[15][41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[8]..."
b) QG's: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][78] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from two randomized controlled trials (RCT).[13] The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[7]..."
QG's text implies that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven," - where do they say that? That does represent WP:SYN (as regards "unproven" - "uncertainty" naturally goes with the territory). Johnbod ( talk)
The article has, at the start of "Harm reduction": " Tobacco harm reduction has been a controversial area of tobacco control. [1] The health community has not endorsed e-cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction strategy, in part in response to tobacco industry deception. [1]"
- The online version was published in December 2010. I can't see the full paper, but the abstract reads (in full): "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco. We review the existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes. We then revisit the tobacco harm reduction debate, with a focus on these novel products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate."
Please comment on [38] and [39]. Thank you! EllenCT ( talk) 23:23, 3 September 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 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Propose wording: "The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has stated, "While early studies show some potential benefits, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes with nicotine as a smoking cessation device is not fully conclusive," and expressed concerns about the lack of long term studies with regard to health effects to the user as well as second hand exposure. They also note public health officials' concerns about renormalizing smoking behavior undermining current tobacco control as well as being a gateway for nicotine addiction and tobacco abuse." [1]
There is no mention of Canada's position in the Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations section. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you end up with an article that reads like this:- "According to source X, there has never been an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in Colorado. According to source Y, no lesser-spotted sasquatches have been seen in Alabama by separate people who can confirm each other's stories. According to source Z, no black people from Wisconsin have ever seen a lesser-spotted sasquatch at all..." and goes on, and on, and on. What you really need to do is say something like "Four studies could not find an independently-verified sighting of a lesser-spotted sasquatch in any of the areas they covered", stick all four sources after your sentence, and move on.
Which brings me to another point: According to a 2015 review, 47.63% of this article consists of precise and narrowly-defined statistical statements. Those belong, in some areas of the encyclopaedia ---- particularly technical areas that are likely to be read by people with a decent scientific education. They're also popular with Wikipedians, because Wikipedians tend to be in the upper quartile of intelligence and educational attainment (read: nerds). But this article is non-technical and our audience is the general reader ---- including people who are seriously considering using e-cigarettes. And, if I can be permitted a statistic of my own, half of those people will be of below average ability... I'm afraid a lot of the people who want or need to read this article will find the statistics impenetrable. We do need to turn mathematical and statistical sentences into accessible ones.
Going through the e-cig article doing this, to remove repetition and turn statistical statements into conclusions, is really the next important stage in its development, but it's also likely to cause friction, so I'd like to pause here, discuss the ramifications and get consensus for the general approach I propose before continuing.— S Marshall T/ C 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This proposal does involve removing sourced content from the article.
It also involves rephrasing statistical statements as simple declarative statements, so it needs consensus before I start.— S Marshall T/ C 11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
1) "In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013." ---> "In the UK user numbers tripled in the year to 2013."
2) "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked. Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, those who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012 and those still vaping rose from 0.6% to 1.1%. Over the same period the percentage of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes fell from 7.5% to 6.7%." ---> "E-cigarette use is rapidly growing among teenagers and young adults, and in young people who have never smoked." (The intention here is to delete statistical sentences because they add nothing to the first sentence, but to keep the sources, placing them directly after the first sentence, which they do support.)
3) "In the UK in 2014, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 51% said they had used them in the past. Among those who had never smoked, 1.1% said they had tried them and 0.2% still uses them. In 2013, among those under 18, 7% have used e-cigarettes at least once. Among non-smokers' children, 1% reported having tried e-cigarettes "once or twice", and there was no evidence of continued use. Sustained use was mostly confined to children who smoke or have smoked. In 2014 child regular users was at 1.8%, children who have ever used e-cigarettes was at 10%, and occasional or greater use among never-smoking children was at 0.18%. About 60% are smokers and most of the rest are ex-smokers." --> "In the UK, about half of the people who smoke have tried vaping, but only about 1% of the people who do not smoke have tried it. About 7% of smokers' children have tried vaping, but only about 1% of non-smokers' children."
Does that help?— S Marshall T/ C 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Because the intended audience will be able to make sense of it. On the other hand, articles on everyday devices and utensils mostly do not assume a high level of education on the reader's part and do not lean heavily on statistics, even when these are associated with medicine. Look how our articles on syringe, nebulizer, eye drop, catheter, or transdermal patch are phrased appropriately for the likely audience, and consider the jump in reading age between those articles and this one. We shouldn't be writing this article for scientists and doctors ---- they are not, or bloody well ought not to be, reading Wikipedia to find detailed statistical data about e-cigarettes. We should be writing for schoolchildren who're considering whether to take a puff, who are people who're very likely to turn to Wikipedia for information. I feel that there are good ethical reasons to make this article more accessible to them.— S Marshall T/ C 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)I believe my favourite quote from this discussion so far is The proposal to "streamline" the text will decrease the readability
, which as far as I can tell was not meant as a joke. Fortunately, Zad68's view does offer a workable way forward. We could fission off most of statistical content to a series of footnotes. (I agree that a smaller number of key statistics should remain in the text.) I would recommend using a separate footnotes group, and will knock up an example in a sandbox.—
S Marshall
T/
C 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't work out where to fit this response in the discussion so dumping it at the bottom. While the example of absolute numbers in the UK is contentious (and I am in favour of keeping them there although a rephrase of "In the UK user numbers tripled to 2.1 million from 2012 to 2013." The other suggestions look good so far. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently there is no image for the Motivation section, yet I have a wonderful idea for the text. Here is well written text for the caption: Common reasons people use the e-cigarette is a desire to quit smoking cigarettes, cut down on their smoking habit or for use where smoking is prohibited by law.<ref name=Grana2014/> See Electronic cigarette#Motivation. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The image was removed. So I replaced it with another image. The text about cloud-chasing was removed from the motivation section. So I moved the image to another section where it is relevant. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed three images that are basically clip art. The images need to be more than just decoration. We all know what someone smoking looks like. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
See http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/20/the-us-domestic-e-cig-market-is-about-to-be-shak-3.aspx QuackGuru ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
See http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/22/new-orleans-smoke-free-unique-character-smoking-ban QuackGuru ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that Cloud-chasing is merged, partially with this article and partially with the sub-article Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes. There is substantial overlap between the Cloud-chasing article and this article - in fact we already mention cloud chasing in Society and culture and Motivation. The concept of cloud chasing does not merit it's own article anymore than the concept of sub-ohm vaping or rebuildable atomizers warrant their own article. Cloud-chasing is an activity that requires specialist equipment, skill and knowledge and only a very small minority of e-cigarette users actually partake in it.
The article was only created a month ago, has only ever been edited by one user and is very short on content. Some of the sources used are not particularly high quality either.
The usage section of Cloud-chasing should be merged with the Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes sub-article, the notable bits from the rest of it can go in the main article under Society and culture. Levelledout ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What part of the cloud-chasing article is relevant to the construction of electronic cigarettes article? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
'"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.'and
"Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.". With regards to the construction proposal, once again please read my original merger proposal, it precisely describes what I would like to do. If you think it's a WP:WEIGHT violation we could always delete it instead, I think some of the material could be salvaged though. Levelledout ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Levelledout ( talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"a week-long series... a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information". Levelledout ( talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"A 2011 review found in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy.[76]" I restored some of the text without the image. It is sourced to a 2011 review. Was there a reason to delete the text too? QuackGuru ( talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
On second thought other newer sources make similar claims. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No specific explanation was made for restoring this dated information except that it is sourced. I did explain why I self-reverted my own edit. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything that needs to be clarified or added to the Electronic cigarette#Construction section? It is 4 paragraphs now. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.— S Marshall T/ C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|
This discussion is not constructive and I have hidden and closed it. You can see the archives. there is nothing further to add. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This image is quite a good one for showing a range of devices. Wide variation of first gen on the left, 5 second gen and a couple of simple ish third gen on the right. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I re-uploaded a version without logos. The intent of the image was to show a variety of the more common forms of the devices. so that a reader not familiar with them can visualise the types of device being discussed in the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree fully with the need to seperate first and second generation in the initial image to give a visual impression of the subject of the article and I also fully disagree it's advertising to show a variety of generic styles in the illustration to show what the article is about. The image conveys the visual range of a large number of devices. If someone has access to the variety of devices needed to make such an image comprehensive, fantastic but until then it would be good to illustrate the article showing the variety of ways an e-cigarette can look. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" magically appear in vapor that were not in the e-liquid to start with? Gigs ( talk) 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
How do "toxicants and heavy metals" appear in vapor? I think it would improve the article to clarify this. Based on the above conversation there is an issue with the lede. Rather than delete it could of been moved to another paragraph IMO. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."In other words we are saying that the e-liquid contains PG, VG, flavourings and nicotine whilst the vapour contains these substances and toxicants and heavy metals. That is where I believe Gigs's confusion arose from. But if it is not true, if the e-liquid contains toxicants as well then we should adjust this text instead of adding further confusion to other parts of the article that have nothing to do with safety. However it isn't quite as simple as that, e-liquid may contain very low levels of toxicants depending on what flavour is used and that partly explains how the vapour acquires toxicants. But some of the other toxicants end up in the vapour through chemical breakdowns and also in the case of heavy metals, from the atomizer supposedly. It may be too complex to explain all of this in the lead, we could just say something like, "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants. Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ". Levelledout ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
Not to revive what turned into a somewhat heated discussion, but I think the origin of the claimed toxicants is important, and stripping the claim down for the lede turns it into something that leaves out necessary detail. Gigs ( talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Gigs, I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."Levelledout ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."It is incorrect to imply that the difference between the vapour and the e-liquid is that only the vapour contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. That is what is being implied, that is not correct. I can't make it much clearer than that. Levelledout ( talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The e-liquid in e-cigarettes has a low level of toxicity. [1] Metal parts in e-cigarettes can contaminate the e-liquid with metals. [2] Chemicals including carbonyl compounds can be produced when the heated nichrome wire chemically reacts with the liquid. [3]
How did the toxicants and heavy metals get in the vapour? The lede is currently a mystery and does not answer this question? The three short sentences above can improve the lede. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Another bold coat rack is on its way. --TMCk ( talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.
In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.
So please discuss. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Other editors restored the image that was deleted. [3] [4] QuackGuru ( talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.— S Marshall T/ C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.— S Marshall T/ C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that you and CFCF are actually defending, in all seriousness, a sentence that says The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown. Now, this is a really badly-written sentence. "Abuse in youth" is ambiguous and hard to parse; in context what it actually means is "nicotine dependence in young people", and this is what it should say, if we were going to include the sentence at all. But I put it to you all that the sentence should be excised completely. It's a perfectly well-sourced fact but it's also utterly obvious, utterly trivial, and of absolutely no help at all to an uninformed reader who's curious about e-cigarettes and, possibly, considering taking a puff.
I really believe that the reason why I'm not being allowed to remove this sentence is ideological. I think that if I'd spent some of my ten-plus years on Wikipedia being active on WT:MEDRS, nobody would have reverted me. But I haven't so I'm not permitted to make any substantive changes.— S Marshall T/ C 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown." "The extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to abuse in youth is unknown." "The impact of e-cigarette use by children on substance dependence is unknown." There may be an argument for including any of them but no such argument is being presented and I don't see one at all for the first two, the third I have the impression could be useful but would likely come from a source discussing the reason there are concerns about it having some impact in the first place. SPACKlick ( talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note carefully that CFCF does not choose to revert QG's changes, even when he's removing a sentence about known unknowns. This is, of course, because QG is in the allowed-to-edit-the-article club. These two editors are not deliberately acting as a tag team to prevent the wrong people from making any changes; but the practical effect of their behaviour is exactly this.
Note also CFCF's instinctive use of Twinkle's anti-vandalism tools on edits made within policy by established editors. I say "instinctive" because he's so quick with it: it takes him only a few seconds. There's no thought going into that at all.
Still, we need to drop this for the moment, having made more progress than I thought would be achievable. It's on the list of things to fix at a later date when there are fewer obstructive editors around.— S Marshall T/ C 08:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason I'm reverting your changes is because they are blatant and remove well sourced secondary opinion. Whether QG has removed similar statements is beside the point: regardless of whether I've missed such changes or not the fact remains none of QGs edits have removed the same amount of information. As for my reluctance to reply in this discussion, I find it a waste of time and unlikely to be productive. We've already extensively covered the topic of known unknowns. Please refrain from reverting what is strongly supported by consensus, so that we don't have to waste more time on time-consuming RfCs and whatnot. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 11:34, 3 July 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 produces a similar feel to tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes produce an aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke, which the user inhales. In general, E-cigarettes have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as E-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Some E-liquids are available without the nicotine. E-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is also available." [5]
"There is no evidence they are regularly used by those who have never smoked. They may encourage users to delay quitting smoking, or act as a deterrent to quitting. Emissions from E-cigarettes may contain ultrafine particles, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke and is likely to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes to users and bystanders. No serious adverse effects from E-cigarettes have been reported in trials. Less serious adverse effects from E-cigarette use can occur however, including throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough." [6] Someone copied this page. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed by what source? It's not cloud chasing. It's like you've got a picture of a dog and you're insisting it's a wolf. This is ludicrous Quack and you fucking know it. You are Mr. get everything direct from reputable sources but you can't find one fucking reliable source that will describe this image as cloud chasing because it is not clearly an image of cloud chasing it is YOUR OPINION. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The current source is a non reviewed paper from a non-academic source. The content should be trivial to source to MEDRS for those of you with access to better journals because it's pretty non-controversial. Do any Systematic Reviews make similar statements about non-nicotine users becoming addicted to e-cigarettes?
Addionally, in terms of wording I changed it to make it clearer that the addiction was to nicotine, not to e-cigarettes per the source and common sense. Not sure I did the best job of the reword. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.I'm just saying there's probably a better source than a public guide from WHO for a rather important claim. It's just a completionist thing. The tag was the wrong tag, fully admitted. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that often bedevils this page that a user would revert to retain this so-called "information". The source does say this on page 2 (actually "not a benign chemical"); it's a rhetorical technique, and the technical word for it is litotes. It's too informal for mainspace and not appropriate. It would be appropriate to address the reader in the simple declarative and say that nicotine is toxic, carcinogenic and addictive, as indeed we already do in several other places.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes". It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that plagues this page that a user would revert this.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I altered this clumsy and redundant sentence to say "some smokers will switch completely to e-cigarettes from traditional tobacco but a "sizeable" number will use both". It's yet further evidence of poor editorial judgment that a user would revert this. I am growing increasingly unhappy about poor editorial standards and I'm starting to wonder whether an administrator will be prepared to intervene.— S Marshall T/ C 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First, Thanks to CFCF for tracking down new images for the lede and other sections, most of them are great improvements. The one added to the Positions of medical organisations section though I feel has two issues. 1) It's quite large, could someone trim down the pixel width on it a bit, also stylistically since we have a lot of right aligned images would it be worth considering this one on the left. 2) It's very text heavy making it unclear what precisely we're illustrating and giving strong prominence to the factlet within it. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I invite your comments on this sentence.— S Marshall T/ C 22:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
But only a fool would actually challenge it in this context, because it's a statement of the incredibly obvious. Of course girls in North Wales who vape find that e-cigarettes appeal to them! The bloody things are addictive!
The real problem with the sentence is that it's far too specific. It's not just North Welsh girls who find that e-cigarettes appeal to them. It's pretty much all living nicotine addicts. But how in Heaven's name does it add to the reader's knowledge to say this? If they've got through the thousands of words of turgid factlets and statistics that precede this sentence, then they're well aware that e-cigarette users find them appealing and they fully understand why.— S Marshall T/ C 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The OR was removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I might of made a mistake. See diff. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Kelly Evans, Director of Social Change UK, says that the flavours offered are designed to appeal to youngsters. E-cigarettes have been shown to be appealing to girls as young as 11.
The text is well sourced. There is no need for in-text attribution according to WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem behaviour. Wikipedians are supposed to be willing to try to find consensus. Editors who refuse to use the talk page, or who use the talk page to state an objection without being willing to give their reasons, are doing an end-run around the consensus-seeking process.— S Marshall T/ C 22:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I made this edit, and CFCF reverted it. I began a talk page discussion about the reverted edit. You said you objected to it. But then you made an edit that incorporated the exact changes you'd just objected to, except that you introduced a superfluous "of them". Then I mentioned the superfluous "of them" on the talk page, and you saw my point and removed it. So you made the exact edits which you had objected to when I made them. The wording is exactly the same as I originally proposed. The only difference is that you made the edits instead of me.
This is not the first time that you've argued against one of my edits and then made very similar edits yourself. In my opinion it's simply because you like to be the person who edits the article.— S Marshall T/ C 19:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't seem to be allowed to edit this sentence, I patiently request that you adjust your sentence to reflect what the source really says.— S Marshall T/ C 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I do not understand how you could read that source with proper attention and still say The text that verifies the current claim does not say it was Kelly Evans who said it was the 11 year olds
. I do not think you can possibly have read it with a suitably critical eye.—
S Marshall
T/
C 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a secondary source, it's clearly reliable.— S Marshall T/ C 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The Electronic Cigarette Convention in North America which started in 2013, is an annul show where companies and consumers meet up."
"annual" is misspelled in the above sentence
BrentWomble ( talk) 19:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This article reviewing the current state of e-cigs in the Oral Health Group journal from Canada puts several concepts in pretty simple lights. Also be worth reviewing their sources. A Dental Perspective On Electronic Cigarettes: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I personally also think it's a pretty good structure for an article on e-cigs but more on that elsewhere. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the recent changes to the lede. The changed were too wordy and difficult to understand. I agree with simplifying the lede. Past changes or proposals that had no consensus or did not improve the lede were Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Proposal and Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Removal. The lede should be concise and summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Smoking cessation comes before harm reduction in the body. The placement in the lede does not follow the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The text in the lede summarises the body. Moving it to the body created duplication. The text in the lede is informative. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
[16] [17] "Nicotine is very addictive,"... The reader will not know it is very addictive without stating it is very addictive. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No specific response was made to the objection. Therefore, I have restored the wording (and made other changes). QuackGuru ( talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the company chart in Electronic_cigarette#History.
Lorillard sold blu to Imperial [18] [19].
JTI bought Logic [ [20]]
And of course Lorillard doesn't exist any more, RJR bought it.
So clearly the chart needs updating. Only question I have: what happened to SkyCig? Searches coming up empty; does anyone know? Cloudjpk ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page
There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See diff. I replaced it with "at least once" for now. [21] If the text is too vague the wording is uninformative and possibly could be original research. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I also think you often don't understand English the way I do. The clearest example of this was
this edit where you said "a few" is a synonym for "many"
. Can I ask you, is English your native language?—
S Marshall
T/
C 09:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you've wikilinked data to WP:V. I'm confused by this and I don't understand why you've done it. WP:V is a policy I thought I understood well; according to X!'s tool I've made 147 edits to WP:V and 982 edits to its talk page over the years. Why is data relevant to the word "ever", and does the connection between them have something to do with verifiability?
I do realise the source says "ever", by the way. The role of an encyclopaedia editor is to evaluate the sources and summarise the key points they make. You're normally good at finding sources but I think you have trouble with summarising them. Summarising means using fewer words, and "ever" is one of the words that can be reduced.
I know that you seriously do contend that "few" is synonymous with "many". In the light of that fact, it's neither a personal attack nor a childish smear to wonder whether English is your first language. I'd also just like to point out that the source you've just linked does not say that few is a synonym of many. It says it's an antonym of many. It's important to read sources closely, which is something we've discussed before in the context of your insistence on saying "girls as young as 11" (which the article still says because I'm not being permitted to remove this text). I've shown you in great detail why this source is unreliable but you apparently haven't been able to make the connections.— S Marshall T/ C 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither "a few" nor "few" is synonymous with "many", and your position on that subject is simply indefensible.
In respect of Kelly Evans, you keep linking WP:ASSERT in support of your position. Let's be clear. WP:ASSERT is an essay to which I'm not obliged to pay any attention, and I will not. Like many of Wikipedia's essays its logic is distinctly shaky. In previous discussions I've shown you beyond all possible contradiction that Kelly Evans is neither a scientist or a medic. I've shown you that she's a marketing expert who makes money by lobbying government. I've also shown you that the "study" you wish to cite is by her. This is not a credible source, QuackGuru. Or rather, it's a credible source for the proposition that this is what Kelly Evans says ---- but its claims should not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice.
I am quite sure that e-cigarette flavours have some appeal for young people and this is a concern. However, the claim that e-cigarette flavours appeal to Welsh girls aged eleven is a lurid exaggeration sourced to an anti e-cigarette lobbyist, but our article states it as if it were fact. Please agree that this particular claim should be qualified by in-text attribution or, preferably, deleted.— S Marshall T/ C 20:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Particularly the 1st sentence:
An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking.
The most accurate phrase I see most often is "Nicotine Delivery System", and the purpose of the e-cigarette is to deliver the nicotine and not to "simulate the feeling of smoking". Personal Vaporizer is stupid, ambiguous, and "market-y", and while e-cigarette may be the most common phrase, there isn't much "e" and there isn't any cigarette. There's heat which vaporizes liquid nicotine into vaporized nicotine. And these aren't "smoking simulators", they haven't anything to do with smoking at all, with the very thready exception that there is a heat source that vaporizes the (nicotine) "juice". No fire, no smoke, no burning, and no simulation either. That's real nicotine and at high doses it can kill a person if enough of it comes into contact with the skin. It is very dangerous to use flowery, euphemistic marketing language to describe e-cigarettes. Nicotine is very poisonous, and it can kill you. So accuracy in the way in which e-cigarettes is described is critical, particularly in the lede and most particularly in the 1st sentence of the lede.
[1] The user automatically activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff;[2] other devices turn on by pressing a button manually.[3]
Second I object to the "stream-of-consciousness", "walk a mile in their footsteps", "this is how you do it" writing style in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. It's not encyclopedic, and it undermines the credibility of the rest of the article that follows. Also, in case anyone is wondering about my bias, I'm strongly in favor of e-cigarettes and they are (at least right now, based on information that I have) a much better alternative to (burning) tobacco products and methods of delivery. My way of promoting e-cigarettes is to try to make the description of them as clinically accurate as possible. I've read some of the controversy around this article and I want no part of it. All I want to do here is help to make this article as interesting and informative on the topic as it can be. Jonny Quick ( talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I made this change to clarify it is different than e-cigs. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that deliver vaporized propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin (or a mixture of both) and nicotine when users inhale while using them.[18] Electronic cigarettes are a promising harm reduction technology because they deliver nicotine without the dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke, while remaining attractive to smokers.[2] While the eventual regulatory status of e-cigarettes in many countries remains uncertain,[2] public health advocates view electronic cigarette as having a valid place within tobacco harm reduction strategy.[19] Public health researchers in the UK estimated that 6,000 premature smoking-related deaths per year would be prevented for every million smokers who switched to e-cigarettes.[19] Since currently approved smoking cessation methods have a 90% failure rate, the use of e-cigarettes as a prominent THR modality is likely to substantially reduce tobacco-related illness in the United States, with the potential to save 4.8 million lives over the next 20 years.[1] The role for e-cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear.[20]"
I'm inclined to lift this directly from "Harm Reduction" and drop it in whole to replace the current Lede. What do other people think? Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The text summarized the body. See "Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking". [33] There was a previous talk page consensus. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24#Smokeless tobacco. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"While tobacco smoke contains 40 known carcinogens,[16] none of these has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes.[16]" See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. This is false information. For example, "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" See the Electronic cigarette aerosol page. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use. [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
From para 2: "but high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, which was determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than long-term smoking.[9]". This, and the follow-up studies which only replicated this under "dry-burn" conditions, are covered at pp. 76-78 of the PHE report. They conclude (p. 78) "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." They are especially critical of the publicity given to this & another study, saying on p. 80: "Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that EC use is dangerous. These were based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users, but there is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes; stressed mice poisoned with very high levels of nicotine twice daily for two weeks were more likely to lose weight and die when exposed to bacteria and viruses, but this has no relevance for human EC users. The ongoing negative media campaigns are a plausible explanation for the change in the perception of EC safety (see Chapter 8)." - also in their "key findings and summaries". I don't think we should include this in the lead at all, and probably not in sections below in this article either, or if so with the follow-up studies included. It is discussed at more length in Electronic cigarette aerosol, and the "safety of" article also needs adjustment. Johnbod ( talk) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should probably temper the phrasing of this as further studies have found and the PHE article has recognised that while you can use an e-cig to generate high levels of aldehydes it is not found in real world settings. When the wattage is increased (usually by increasing the voltage in more common devices although it can be achieved by lowering the ohms of the coil in rebuildables) the vapour becomes intolerably unpalatable before reaching the high levels of formaldehyde given world wide exposure in the two studies. I am attempting a reword. SPACKlick ( talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use. [35] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod ( talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
After a couple of weeks research, I am of the opinion that using the term "ecigarette" as a comprehensive word to describe the entire class of personal vaporizers is one of the fundamental problems of the article. The broad category class "umbrella" term should be something like "Personal Vaporizer" or "Personal Vaping Device" or similar, with old-school, 1st generation e-cigarettes, cigalikes, etc... as separate sections within the article. Many of the research studies being quoted in the article were done on e-cigarettes and not the newer personal vaping devices and so that research does not, and/or may not apply to the entire class of devices. People searching for "e-cigarettes" specifically could be redirected to the more general article on the entire class of devices. Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If the text is unsourced please add a citation needed tag or verify the claim with a citation. Unsourced text is forbidden. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue with this edit is that there is a reference at the end of the sentence that did not verify the claim. In the future I hope a tag is added to the sentence if the meaning is changed or ask on the talk page for a source. No worries. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
See diff. Do both sources verify the word "some"? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is about the first of these where I agree with Quack. Do we have any source claiming certainty on this? The "some" is clearly OR and I have removed pending source. SPACKlick ( talk) 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
a) mine: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][79] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from the two randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had been published at that point,[13] but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary. For some, the benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain,[15][41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[8]..."
b) QG's: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][78] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from two randomized controlled trials (RCT).[13] The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[7]..."
QG's text implies that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven," - where do they say that? That does represent WP:SYN (as regards "unproven" - "uncertainty" naturally goes with the territory). Johnbod ( talk)
The article has, at the start of "Harm reduction": " Tobacco harm reduction has been a controversial area of tobacco control. [1] The health community has not endorsed e-cigarettes as a tobacco harm reduction strategy, in part in response to tobacco industry deception. [1]"
- The online version was published in December 2010. I can't see the full paper, but the abstract reads (in full): "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco. We review the existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes. We then revisit the tobacco harm reduction debate, with a focus on these novel products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate."
Please comment on [38] and [39]. Thank you! EllenCT ( talk) 23:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)