Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 18 January 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Ordering of sections

RfC closure

Hi everyone. I've just done an overdue closure of the RfC here. Formerip (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for closing that. and the conclusion that starting out with health effects is impacting the neutrality of the article. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So does this mean we can switch to a more sensible order now?--FergusM1970 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no consensus for a change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It also means there's no consensus to apply an inappropriate medical layout to an article about a consumer product. The conclusion of the RFC does not back keeping this format and it should be changed.--FergusM1970 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC question was narrowly about whether the article should be changed to conform to MEDMOS, and there is not consensus to do that. It does not mean, though, that the structure of the article may not be changed at all. Personally, I would guess that an RfC about moving the "health effects" section might have gained consensus. I don't see any reason why an editor who wanted to couldn't try changing the order and then fall back into BRD if they encounter opposition. Formerip (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. The issue is that some members of Wikiproject Medicine are reluctant to see the article as anything other than medical, despite the fact that e-cigs are not a medical product and have no known health issues. I'll certainly try rearranging it, and if there's any opposition start a new RfC.--FergusM1970 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you know there is going to be opposition maybe try to get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK then. I think we should move the Health Effects section down the article, below at least the Construction and Usage sections, because this is not a medical article. It's about a consumer product with no known health effects. Do you agree?--FergusM1970 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose. People are coming here wondering about the health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what, are you psychic? How do you know what people are coming here to look for?--FergusM1970 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I also would like to know the source of that statement. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Look at what the media write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Look at what the media write about" fails WP:RS so no, I won't.--FergusM1970 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well then, look at what the medical literature writes about. If you won't look at the media to decide what the popular view is of what the most important issues are, what will you use? Your own opinion. Mine happens to differ from yours. That's why we use notability standards. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I share your concern as an ex smoker, but we should not overpromise either. Look at what the studies say. An effect size of 0.2 is almost nothing. They will on average do equally well with a nicotine patch according to Cochrane. And much of what is said about e-cigarettes being helpful compare placebo e-eigarettes to nicotine ones, and so are really showing the efficacy of nicotine and not the electronic cigarette format. We have to be honest with our readers about the evidence. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

These are studies using Gen 1 cigalikes with no choice of equipment, strength or flavor, and they still work better than licensed NRT. The latest study by Polosa used Gen 2 devices and found a 36% cessation rate. My guess is that when someone works out how to do a proper study with Gen 3 equipment the cessation rate will be 75-80%. E-cigs work as a cessation tool; at this point, given 700,000 successful quitters in the UK over the last 4 years, only a fool would deny that.--FergusM1970 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then work with the other editors instead of trying to shut things down or place language in it that is easily misunderstand by the average reader. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see you all up in arms in the epipen article making the same points.... And that is clearly a medical device but the article actually describes what it's talking about before talking about it's effectiveness, which is health related.TheNorlo (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people come here seeking medical information is not valid reason to insist that the Health Effects section remains at the top of the article. We have no evidence as to what people primarily come here to look at but it is probably safe to assume that some people also come here to look at the regulation and construction sections. In any case what WP:BODY says is that we should take precedent from a similar article with regards to section order. Other articles about similar topics such as cigarette and vaporizer do not have the health section at the top. On a logical basis I really cannot understand why someone would want to force it to the top.Levelledout (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that when you are a health professional everything looks like a health issue.TheNorlo (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a prevalent medico-centric ethos amongst some editors. However there is no established consensus for prioritising medical information over all other information simply because it is medical information. The only established consensus is that the article should follow the structure of similar articles, we need to implement this.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As there is controversy on the medical aspect of eCigs and some readers will want to know risks and benefits from use, why wouldn't a link be made, perhaps in lede, to a separate page that deals specifically and perhaps exhaustively, with all the "maybe" suppositions that are currently permeating this debate? I observe vaping enthusiasts who wish to tout the smoking cessation claims and their adversaries who wish to dispute such findings, plus insert own POV into this type of article. I find all of this to be a distraction to the topic of what is an electronic cigarette, that presents a poorly constructed content page on Misplaced Pages. I favor splitting off the controversial items to another page (or ten) that allows those sub-topics to be vetted out with their own talk pages and separate debates. I have made a proposal on this talk page to help get this ball rolling. Gw40nw (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We have one already; Safety of electronic cigarettes. Sadly it is, like this article, an unreadable mess stuffed with duplications and tortured syntax. Feel free to help me clean it up.--FergusM1970 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sections Reorder Proposal

It has that there is no consensus to use WP:MEDMOS as a guideline to this article or to treat the article as a "medical article". Therefore section organization should follow advice at MOS:LAYOUT which states that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." The e-cigarette article is currently placed in the following categories:

• Cigarette types
• Chinese inventions
• Smoking cessation
• 2003 introductions

Of all of these, Cigarette types would appear to be the most useful since some of them contain section headings similar/equal to the ones in the e-cigarette article. Out of these, the most similar ones to the e-cigarette article are:

• Menthol cigarette - Section order: history, usage, regulation, health effects.
• Lights (cigarette type) - Section order history, usage, health claims, regulation
• Kretek - History, structure, health effects, regulation, international availability

The following article is also similar to the concept of an e-cigarette:

• Cigarette - Section order: history, legislation, construction, ....... , usage ... , health effects

As stated there is no consensus to follow WP:MEDORDER and the only WP:MEDORDER example that comes anywhere close to being similar to the concept of an e-cigarette is "drugs, medications and devices". However key sections are missing from this example such as "construction" and other sections do not really fit the current section headings anywhere near as well as the above examples.

I therefore propose the following section order for the e-cig article:

• History
• Construction
• Usage
• Health effects
• Society and culture (includes regulation)
• Related technologies
• References
• External links

This proposal follows the advice given at MOS:LAYOUT and WP:STRUCTURE, attaining neutrality by following established examples. It also follows the advice given at WP:MEDORDER regarding "progressively developing concepts".Levelledout (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Positions

• Support This makes much more sense. Although really we should remove the category "Cigarette types" because, despite the name, an e-cig is absolutely not a cigarette.--FergusM1970 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The order is fine as it is. There is no good reason for this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is: The fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article.--FergusM1970 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hum. We just had a RfC on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we did, and it concluded that "there are not grounds for enforcing the section ordering detailed in WP:MEDMOS."--FergusM1970 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue with the way in which guidelines have been applied in developing the proposal? Or do you just not like it?Levelledout (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine_replacement_therapy is a much better comparator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. NRT is a medical product. E-cigs are a consumer product.--FergusM1970 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have still not explained why you think NRT is a better example. E-cigarettes are a consumer device but NRT is a medical therapy and follows WP:MEDMOS, precisely the guideline that it has just been decided there is no consensus to adhere to. Most section headings on NRT are completely different to the ones on the e-cig article. Doesn't sound like a great example.Levelledout (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NRT expressly goes against the findings of the RFC.AlbinoFerret 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a binary proposal, one that we have debated before and not reached consensus on. Why spend effort on this when there are other subjects we are more likely to be able to reach agreement on?

(Comment above was posted but not signed by Formerly98).

Please specifically state your concerns with the original proposal and Bluerasberry's one.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this, support the following counterproposal AlbinoFerret and I discussed this at Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_17#Workable_proposals. We two came to consensus that this was workable.

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

In my mind, these section headings have the "medical" definition. Albino Ferret probably did not have those definitions in mind. I still would support this order. I think this need not be a discussion at all about medical guidelines; for any product in any context, I think this is a good ordering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks entirely reasonable.--FergusM1970 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better than what we've got at the moment, but why have usage before construction and history near the bottom?Levelledout (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Levelledout The way in medicine, and I would argue the best way, is to first say how a product is used. Currently, this article is presenting a usage section which in a medical article would be called "frequency of use", and in medicine, that kind of information would go in "society and culture". I would like for the usage section (the first section) to say something like "e-cigarettes are plastic battery-powered electric sticks that people put in their mouths so that they can suck vapor/mist/aerosol/cigarette juice as a way to experience the stimulation of nicotine", and otherwise explain to an alien what the things do. History is interesting, but in my opinion and based on precedent of product treatment in medicine - not that I am saying this is medicine - it is most useful to say what something is functionally, then what it is materially, then go on with other topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's the whole point; this is not a medical article. You're also missing the point that a large percentage of e-cigs don't contain nicotine at all, including apparently 96% of those used by Canadian never-smokers (although that's not from an RS).--FergusM1970 21:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970 No one said this is a medical article. I said the first section should describe how and why the product is used, and the second section should describe the product materially. Do you oppose that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really. How about doing that but moving History up between Construction and Health effects?--FergusM1970 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Bluerasberry having heard the details of your proposal I actually mostly agree with it. The only thing I would still question is the placement of history, I think it has to accepted to a certain extent that this article will look a bit different to a medical article, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. But, bottom line, I would support Bluerasberry's proposal if we cannot get agreement on my idea.Levelledout (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It took quite awhile to discuss this with Bluerasberry before. I think its a good order that is better than what we have at present. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd certainly support changing to BR's proposed order. I'm not 100% happy with it, as detailed above, but it's a lot better than what we have now.--FergusM1970 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats just the nature of agreements and compromise. You seldom get exactly what you want, but you hope to end up with progress and something everyone can live with. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is something I can live with. Nobody who's taken part in the discussion seems to object, so maybe this is something we can ask for a change on.--FergusM1970 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK fine, there seems to be some consensus developing on this specific proposal so I will put in an edit request shortly if all is still well. A couple of issues though, we currently do not have the kind of usage section that Bluerasberry is proposing so we have two options, someone can make one in their Sandbox by extracting material from the existing text or we start out without one but with a consensus to add it in. Also, where is the existing usage/'frequency of usage' section going to go? I suggest it goes after health effects.Levelledout (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Levelledout: It was my understanding that during the conversation that came up with the order that the current Usage section was ok. I dont remember any discussion on creating sections, just reordering them. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But I dont have any issue with the usage section BR suggests above. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can add a few sentences to the start of the current usage section to say what BR suggests. "Electronic cigarettes are battery powered devices which release a flavoured aerosol, which often contains nicotine, that is then inhaled by the user through a mouthpiece." Something like that.--FergusM1970 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That would seem a bit strange to me, this is two entirely different sections/concepts we are talking about. I think what Bluerasberry was referring to was "medical uses" or "indications", which in the case of this article would be "general uses" since it isn't a medical product. We can say that e-cigarettes are used for harm reduction and unofficially for smoking cessation but I'm not sure what else we can add to that. I'm going to put in a request for an edit now because we need to take some action, but I'd be happy to alter it if this conversation progresses any further. For now I'm presuming there is some tentative consensus for Bluerasberry's proposal, including the adding of a uses section at some point.Levelledout (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Current structure is inappropriate because this is not a medical article. -A1candidate (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Blue Raspberry's proposal. I would have had construction and usage the other way around but it's not a deal breaker for me. Levelled's proposal would still be better than the current mess. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current section order is appropriate for this article as previously explained in the RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)'

We don't care what was explained in the RfC. What matters is what the RfC concluded, which is that there are no grounds for using MEDMOS as a guideline.--FergusM1970 20:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already given above.TheNorlo (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose NPOV has been excruciatingly challenged with content of this article that I, as editor, cannot support an article page for eCigs that insists on headings with: Usage, Health effects, Society and culture (includes regulation). Each of these feed into the other and present two opposing positions that have transformed an otherwise NPOV page of content into one with competing POV's. I understand that these type of headings are likely necessary on the main article page for eCigs, but it has clearly gotten to a point where consensus will be stagnated unless a spinoff occurs. I realize this is not desirable, but also strongly believe it is necessary. So those headings can remain, but POV forking ought to occur to bypass the POV battles and allow those to occur on separate pages. Again, this is all due to fact that science and medical communities lack long term data and so speculation or short-sighted data, with undue weight, is being allowed to hold up what is an otherwise NPOV written content article on Misplaced Pages. Gw40nw (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

With regards to why we need to change it I would have thought the need to follow appropriate guidelines was one good reason. A second good reason is that the current ordering is illogical and talks about concepts before explaining them. I have also yet to hear a genuine reason linked to actual established consensus as to why the health section must remain at the top. Stating that there's no reason to change it is hardly an answer.Levelledout (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC established that there's no consensus to apply MEDMOS and, as this is not a medical article, it's basically just inappropriate.--FergusM1970 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

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

(Details edited) Whilst there is still some issues to be sorted out afterwards regarding the Usage section and a possible new section called Uses, there appears to be consensus for the core of Bluerasberry's proposal (detailed in the discussion above and also below). Thus the request is to change the order of the article's sections to the following:

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects
• History
• Society and culture
  • Legal status
  • Economics
• Related technologies

Levelledout (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for this. The RFC was just closed as no consensus. Numerous editors commented in the RFC and this edit protected request is ignoring the previous comments. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It closed as no consensus but found no grounds for the current order. This is not a medical article and it is not discussing a medical product, so the order should be changed to something appropriate.--FergusM1970 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate to get in the way of progress here as I see that AF and BR seem to be talking, and I think that's a great thing. But I'm not sure we can call this a consensus as BR's proposal has not been commented on yet by myself, Softlavender, Zad68, Yobol, or Cloudpkj and other contributors to the article who don't have time to spend 9 hours a day engaging in this discussion.

I don't think it needs to be unanimous, but I do think all the recent contributors should be pinged before we conclude that there is consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender isn't a contributor; all she's done is post two links to a crank site. Everyone else outside the MED group is opposed to the current order and as this is not a medical article there really isn't any reason for it to stay the way it is. However constructive comments are of course always helpful.--FergusM1970 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Softlavender is a contributor. We should not forget about all the other editors who commented in the recent RFC and the previous RFC. This has been debated for a very long time. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me just quote Softlavender here: "I'm not going to get involved in this article". She is not a contributor. The RfC found no grounds for MEDMOS and no consensus for the medical ordering; it also found that having health effects first does not look natural or neutral.--FergusM1970 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that this has been debated for a very long time because a group of MED-focused editors are insisting, for no reason that they have clearly explained, that a non-MED article be forced to comply to a MED layout. As the RfC has found that there are no grounds for doing so I would say that the burden of proof is now on advocates of the status quo to give a convincing reason why it shouldn't be changed.--FergusM1970 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done per rough consensus established above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; it was long overdue.--FergusM1970 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but MSGJ, presumably by accident the subsections "Device generations", "Atomizer", "Power" and "E-liquid" appear to have been moved out of "Construction" and into "Health effects". Could you please correct this?Levelledout (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow one day. No consensus and still the edit occured. Will give User:MSGJ some time to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep a layout that the RfC found had no grounds for being applied. Nobody has supplied any real reason for using the MED layout. This edit reflects that. I don't see what the problem is.--FergusM1970 06:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There were lots of reason 1) people are looking for health content most often (we see that the coverage of e-cigs is primarily focused on this) 2) so that it follows WP:MEDMOS

There should be a 66% support for changes to occur as is usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked you before: How do you know what people are looking for? There is no reason for this to follow MEDMOS because it is not a medical article. And was there 66% support for using the MED layout in the first place? No. There is no consensus to follow MEDMOS and no grounds to do so.--FergusM1970 08:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just undid the edit but I reverted it until discussion is done on it. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say discussion already is done on it. There was no consensus or grounds for the MED ordering in the first place. It's been discussed ad nauseum and no good reason for the MED ordering has been presented. It was all discussed again yesterday, at length and in detail - a discussion that Doc James took no constructive part in - and it's been decided. This is just disruptive editing.--FergusM1970 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been involved in an edit war. 3 reverts. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've raised this at AN/I. I'm sick of the OWN attitude Doc and others bring to this article.--FergusM1970 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked the locking admin to undo Doc's final edit.--FergusM1970 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So were is this clear consensus for the "construction" content going first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have looked through the whole thing and I see that User:MSGJ did decide that there was a consensus version. So I have restored that version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After 1 day and after User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus" here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop quoting so selectively. FormerIP ruled that there were no grounds for the order you insist on and that it does not look neutral.--FergusM1970 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One typically needs a consensus for a change. Where is that consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to impose medical ordering in the first place? You need to accept the fact that e-cigs are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I have no idea why you can't come to grips with that, but it's making rational discussion with you impossible.--FergusM1970 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Useage

The next thing we need to discuss is the wording for Usage, and what to do with whats in the section now. I dont have wording for it, and perhaps Bluerasberry or someone else has an idea. I dont know what we will do with whats there now, but one option is to create a subsection, perhaps called Statistics to hold whats in Usage now. AlbinoFerret

But the thing is that Uses/Indications is a completely separate topic to Usage Statistics. I would be happy with Bluerasberry's earlier suggestion of putting Usage (statistics) in a subsection under Society and Culture. Then creating a new section titled something like Uses/General uses with whatever text is required.Levelledout (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Either of these options is fine; I prefer moving this content in a subsection under society and culture. I am not sure what source to use to populate this section, but I advocate that the usage/uses section explain fundamentally what the product does and why it is used. I think this is of broad interest to many people, but in particular, the section should explain the concept of using e-cigarettes to someone who has never seen the product and who is not familiar with the concept of inhaling the output of the device. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion, its ok if it is moved to a Statistics subsection under Society and culture. But we need wording to replace it first, empty sections are not a good idea imho. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording

The wording below is a rough draft based on the lede, please make suggestions so it can be improved or make a proposal.

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger devices that look nothing like a cigarette. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not use tobacco. In general, they all have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or in the case of automatic batteries activates it by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

AlbinoFerret 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? -

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette) or personal vaporizer (PV) is a battery-powered vaporizer which emulates tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user.

I think it carries the same meaning, but flows slightly better. I removed ENDS because it's really only used by a few ANTZ and certainly isn't widely recognised. It's already mentioned in the lede and I see no reason to overuse it.--FergusM1970 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think ENDS is an antis' term, specifically? IMHO it's actually rather a useful one, though obviously MHO isn't an argument for using it here. :) Barnabypage (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's basically an ANTZ term. The intent is to imply that vaping is just about getting nicotine, therefore why don't we use nice, safe (useless) patches or inhalators? There was a recent article about why vapers should oppose the term; I'll try to find it later (need to sleep now). It is nice to have an alternative to e-cig, which personally I hate but use because it's the common term. PV isn't bad. I like Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation System, but that's just because I have a sick mind. I totally hate ENDS though. Vaping is our thing, not the WHO's, and they don't get to decide what stuff's called.--FergusM1970 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I like that wording, minor nitpicks. "aerosol," Should be "aerosol." and I would prefer "aerosol, commonly known as vapor." although we may need to add a source for that claim. We probably also need to specify a source for the last couple of sentences. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted the comma that should have been a full stop but was too lazy to change it. Do we really need an RS to say it's commonly known as vapour? I know, the wikilawyers will be all over me for saying that, but it's not actually something that anyone with a functioning brain could dispute (see OED Word of the Year).--FergusM1970 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheng, already in the article can be used to source the last sentences as well as the "commonly called vapor", its #3. AlbinoFerret

Yeah just found the same source as the right one. I say source basically every claim in the article to begin with. It's a controversial topic there should be a source for any claim that any advocate on either side might dispute.SPACKlick (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I take your point and I agree that we should source everything as thoroughly as possible, but I doubt anyone could dispute that it's commonly called vapour with a straight face.--FergusM1970 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hayden McRobbie, #38 could source the generations and how they look. As well as #31 Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 23:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding! Sorted then. Any comments on this wording? Any suggested improvements? Anyone just not like it?--FergusM1970 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Since Bluerasberry and Levelledout have been involved in this, I think we should give them a chance to chime in. AlbinoFerret

Absolutely. We do finally seem to be seeing some progress at building consensus, rather than people just refusing to agree with edits.--FergusM1970 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It obviously repeats the lead a fair bit but I think its a decent starting point. I think we need to say something about why the device is used, we could use Public Health England for this which states that: "Most users use them to either replace cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited or discouraged, to cut down on smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, or to quit smoking".

So we could say:

• "Electronic cigarettes are used for tobacco harm reduction, smoking cessation, reducing tobacco intake or as a tobacco substitute in places where smoking is prohibited."
  Levelledout (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. While we're at it can we agree to get rid of "to circumvent smoke-free laws"? That's pure POV, because not smoking isn't circumventing a smoke-free law; it's obeying it.--FergusM1970 00:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah of course, it's blatant POV, might be best to start another section to sort that out though.Levelledout (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• support I like the intent here. I am going to qualify my support. I would like for this to include information about why the device is used. "The device is used for the same reasons that people would smoke tobacco or use tobacco" or "the device is used because... (it is a social custom, or whatever)". There is a sentence saying "Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine". In my opinion, if this is a minority usage (less than 10%?) then it should be noted as a minority usage, or if it is a really small percentage of sales then just included in sales figures. I wish to avoid indicating that this is a typical use if smoking/using non-nicotine solutions is uncommon. The article on drug culture comes closest to what I imagine, but right now there is no smoking culture article like there is for many other concepts in Category:Drug culture, like drinking culture, tea culture, coffee culture, kava culture, and others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Electronic cigarettes are used to inhale a flavoured vapour that usually contains nicotine." I'm rummaging for stats on how many vapers use nic-free, but it's definitely pretty common. I'd say that most "advanced" vapers who use drippers would use nic-free at least some of the time. The "e-shishas" that teens like are all nic-free as well.--FergusM1970 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nic-free usage seems to differ quite a bit among countries. I suspect it's talked about more than it actually happens because it's more likely to be the more vocal, interested vapers with the more advanced tech who do it than the casual, not-particularly-interested cigalike users. Barnabypage (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could always create an article on vaping culture :-) --FergusM1970 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Caponnetto, Pasquale; Campagna, Davide; Papale, Gabriella; Russo, Cristina; Polosa, Riccardo (2012). "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1586/ers.11.92. ISSN 1747-6348. PMID 22283580.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii11 – ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Weaver, Michael; Breland, Alison; Spindle, Tory; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 234–240. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000043. ISSN 1932-0620. PMID 25089953.
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This proposal is deleting parts of other sentences based on the lede. Oppose. I starting a new proposal without deleting other parts based on the lede. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Proposal_to_expand_the_lede_without_changing_other_sentences_in_the_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James and others disagreed with the word "emulated". There was a previous discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quack, what are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the lede. If you don't understand what people are talking about please ask them to explain it to you; don't start arguing with them.--FergusM1970 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The above proposal is for based on the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not. It is for the Usage section. Please DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THINGS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. You are not helping the article by blundering around like this; you are just interfering with, and annoying, everyone else.--FergusM1970 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 opposes changes to the lede for now. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You misread what I said. QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand what you said, because what you said is blindingly obvious; you thought this discussion was about changing the lede because you either did not read, or could not understand, what had been written.--FergusM1970 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this proposal for the usage section? "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which has a similar feel to tobacco smoking. There are different generations of devices that look quite different. They range from devices that look like cigarettes to larger models that do not resemble smoking implements. They do not produce cigarette smoke but rather an aerosol, which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, although they do use nicotine from tobacco plants. In general, they have a heating element which atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids are usually a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. Others have similar ingredients but without nicotine. The user activates the e-cigarette by either pushing a button while inhaling or, in the case of automatic batteries, by puffing on the device. The device then produces a vapor that can be inhaled by the user."

1. Cite error: The named reference Caponnetto2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grana2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cheng2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference O2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Weaver2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Saitta2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It has no advantages over the previous proposal and several issues. Vaping does not have "a similar feel to tobacco smoking". It's very different. Adding "(mist)" is a) unnecessary and b) stupid, because outside this article nobody calls it mist. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is just exactly, and pointlessly, duplicating text which is already in the article.--FergusM1970 09:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the point here is that it has a much more similar feel to smoking than, say, using a patch or chewing gum, and that is part of its appeal to some users. Feel may not be quite the right word, and it is certainly psychological feel as much as if not more than physical feel. Barnabypage (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed mist. The word "emulate" was previously rejected. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_18#Nothing_more_than_feelings. Adding "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" is not duplicated in the body and we should accurately summarise the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Emulate" was not rejected for this section because it has never been discussed in the context of this section. AF claimed that it was contrary to MEDRS so unsuitable for the lede. As this is for the Usage section, and not about health claims in any way, MEDRS is irrelevant. "which is frequently but inaccurately referred to as vapor" adds nothing to this section, which is about how e-cigs are used; it is not about fluid dynamics. I do not support your proposal in its current state. I also do not think you are competent to edit this article, for the reasons I have explained at AN/I. I have no intention of having any further discussions with you about any vaping-related article, because either you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can go for WP:BOOMERANG or you are failing, at a fundamental level, to understand why your behavior is an obstacle to progress. Either way, talking to you is pointless. Closing this net; Fergus out.--FergusM1970 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose QuackGuru's version A workable one is already in progress that is only on Usage and doesnt add things that are off topic to Usage such as the word vapor is inaccurate. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where we are on this re-write. Is any of it in the article as yet? SPACKlick (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing ever goes in the article, because we're all too busy explaining for the millionth time why this isn't MEDMOS.--FergusM1970 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections 2

There have been ongoing disagreements regarding the ordering of sections of this article. A prior slightly different RfC was closed as "no consensus". A new discussion but not a RfC was open the next day and after a day of discussion. Might be good to have another formal RfC regarding the ordering of the first three sections.

Option 1

• Health effects
• Construction
• Usage

Option 2

• Usage
• Construction
• Health effects

Option 3

• Usage
• Health effects
• Construction

Positions

• Option 1 (second choice is Option 3). If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily. The weight we give within our articles should be similar to the weight given in the literature. Also per WP:MEDMOS we discuss "health effects" before we discuss construction or chemical composition of medical devices or medications. As e-cigs are a type of nicotine replacement therapy follow MEDMOS is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:

• Health: 23 Articles
• Regulations: 22 Articles
• Usage: 10 Articles
• Other: 25 Articles

I don't see this "one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily" claim your making to be valid. TheNorlo (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake. MEDMOS is not relevant here because these are not medical devices and this is not a medical article. I might be more easily persuaded if there were some actual health effects to include, but what you are demanding is that speculation about potential health effects comes before any information about the actual subject of the article. No. This is not a medical article, Doc. Please just accept that and move on.--FergusM1970 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to that, e-cigs are not a type of nicotine replacement therapy. They are not licensed as such anywhere. They are not intended as such. Many of them don't even contain nicotine. By this point I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't realize this. The RfC found no grounds to use MEDMOS and as you well know there is not a majority in favour of doing so. You're verging on deliberate dishonesty now.--FergusM1970 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 2 It is the standard layout in most medical journal articles. What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources. Its also the same outline Cigarettes uses and most cigarette types use a similar outline. The Health effects first leads to a POV slanted article as the closer of the last RFC on this topic found. The previous RFC found no consensus for a medical order with Health effects first. It is better to describe how something is used, and how its made before its Health effects (mostly unknown, unclear, and and uncertain statements) are presented. It is best to present what is known, before the unknown.AlbinoFerret
• Option 3. Information about what it is and how it is used is probably the reason most people come to the article, probably because they saw an advert somewhere and were curious about it. Information about what impact it has on health, the risks/benefits, what research has been done on safety etc is probably the second most common reason people come to the article. The minute details of their construction (which could probably be trimmed considerably with no loss to article quality) would seem to be of interest to a much smaller subset of enthusiasts, so it makes sense to bury it later in the article. The Wordsmith 22:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2, the standard order for articles about consumer products. Option 3, with extreme reluctance, if someone can present a very compelling reason. Not option 1 because it is inappropriate. Doc still witters on about how articles on medical devices should be written. Sorry, that's just WP:IDHT. These are not medical devices and he should stop pushing this bizarre POV.--FergusM1970 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 Contrary to the inaccurate wording of the RFC, the majority of editors (7/11) supported the change. The 4 editors that opposed the change either provided inadequate reasons (i.e. "this is a better example") or basically no reasons whatsoever (i.e. "it isn't necessary"). Conversely, detailed discussions, a compromise and a consensus developed between the rest of the editors. Some editors appear to be refusing to accept this consensus. Firstly, a discussion was started on the talk page of the admin that made the protected edit to try and persuade them to revert the edit. That didn't go to plan, so attempts were made to simply edit war the previous order back into the article in spite of consensus. Finally we have this RFC, I'm sorry to say that I'm unable to see this as anything but WP:IDHT.
  Edit: I also refer you to my previous argument which details how the previous RFC found that there were no grounds for enforcing WP:MEDMOS, how the article must consequently follow WP:MOS and subsequently should follow the page order of similar articles, hence my continued support for Option 2.

Levelledout (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per Doc James arguments. We should be reflecting the majority of the literature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would that be the same majority of literature which generally starts off by explaining construction before moving on and looking at the health effects?Levelledout (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim nailed it anyway. This is a medical topic, because the majority of the reliable sources focus on health, because the reliable sources we use are medical journals, because this is a medical topic. It's a circular argument.--FergusM1970 03:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 3 would be a nice compromise from my POV, and failing that, Option 1 as a second choice. I agree with Doc James that most of what one sees in published sources is about health (Yes, Norlo, the reason are regulated is because of health concerns). But I also see the arguments of those who think some description of what these things are for belongs upfront. I don't like option 2 in part because the "

Construction section is so long and detailed, putting it up front turns this article into a buyer's guide, and that's not what we do here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, we definitely should right a separate article about the construction section. Maybe that we could call this new article that details electronic cigarettes "Electronic Cigarette". TheNorlo (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly, "Aspects of Electronic Cigarettes Other Than Those Discussed in the Press and Academic Literature" Formerly 98 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we could create an article called "What the press and academic literature say about electronic cigarettes" and make this one about, you know, Electronic cigarettes.--FergusM1970 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of these Options See Expanded Options. If Doc James wants to emphasize the medical aspect of e-cigs, we could maybe direct the readers, in the leed, to the (medical) article that actually talks about the subject, i.e. Safety of electronic cigarettes. But he has to understand that this article here is mainly about the devices themselves not about the health hazards related to these devices. Should we talk about the health issues of these devices here, yes, but it should not be at the forefront TheNorlo (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 per review of sourcing, health effects as a topic make up the plurality (if not majority) of reliable sources. It is likely that readers come to the article to look for that information, given the frequency of discussion of that topic in reliable sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV policy to reduce the emphasis of the health effects topic. Zad68 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of search results given above would seem to disagree.--FergusM1970 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 is best. Option 3 is second choice. Option 2 is not appropriate at all. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Option 2 isn't appropriate, or do you just not like it?--FergusM1970 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the one you favour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Anyway, never mind. By all means, don't give any reason for your position. You don't have to if you don't want to; I was just suggesting it. Feel free to ignore me.--FergusM1970 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1. Saw the notice of this RfC at WT:MED. Option 1 is best because it best mirrors the way this topic is handled in RS. Alexbrn 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't. Practically every source describes electronic cigarettes first then discusses health issues. That's exactly what the article does with the current layout - it describes what they are and what they are used for before moving on to discuss other aspects. Also non-medical articles have their own MOS, so MEDMOS is inappropriate.--FergusM1970 12:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 1 second choice Option 3 Agree with Zad, Doc James. This is not just another consumer product like cheese or ping pong balls. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is the most logical layout, and the layout that is closest to how WP:MEDRS reviews take on this topic. You need an understanding of what a product is before you get to the description of how/what its physiological effects may or may not be. Assertions that people come here for health information is afaict based on gut-feelings rather than facts. To be encyclopedic we need to describe what it is, before we get to its effects. . (second choice option 3, option 1 is simply silly) --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure I just advocated for the article to be ordered like option 2 because I wanted the article to match Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Drugs.2C_medications_and_devices. I will think more about this. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• None of these Options Or really, only 1 of them is warranted at this point: Construction. The other two are creating visible violations of NPOV. As headings they ought to stay, but with content, they ought to be forked to other pages where the controversy that is visible here on talk page and represented on article page as hemming and hawing, ought to not be on the main article page for eCigs. Again, this is due to the fact that the medical and scientific data is currently inconclusive, and lacking long term evidence. As long as that is the case, an eCig article within context of 2 competing views (enthusiasts and antis) are not going to reach a workable consensus. I'd love to be proven wrong about this, but I currently observe a Misplaced Pages article that is locked for 3 months because of these competing POV's. Gw40nw (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Gw40nw Could you please clarify which of the selections above correspond to this statement "Or really, only 1 of them is warranted at this point: Construction." as all the choices contain a Construction section. AlbinoFerret 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret None of the ordered options are warranted. Construction is the only selection (heading) that is warranted on the page at this time for reasons I explained above and elsewhere (i.e. Proposal to Drastically Change). Gw40nw (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 is clearly the best choice. Option 3 is a good compromise. Putting the Construction section close to the top seems to be turning this page into a buyer guide, and that is a no-no. It is primary a medical related product. It is reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as this product is like caffeine. It contains nicotine. Nicotine is a drug. Far more coverage exists on the health effects of electronic cigarettes than the actual construction of the product. If one reviews the sources available such as a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, the majority of the sources are health related. If one searches Google using the word e-cigarette along with the name of any major media outlet one will get the same result as Google Scholar. NPOV requires that Misplaced Pages pages emphasize the WP:WEIGHT of what reliable sources are emphasizing. Of course, that's the health related claims. One cannot argue against that in WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS) the health aspect is by far the most significant aspect of the e-cig topic, and so it should be prominently treated in this page; doing otherwise would damage the fundamental Neutral Point Of View we are required to follow. Given what society knows about the health effects of tobacco, and the perception that e-cigs are probably safer than traditional cigarettes, it is presumable (over even evident) that the majority of readers want to learn more about the health effects of e-cigs than any other aspect. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that putting Health effects as the first section is the most appropriate option. QuackGuru (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2. "I am about to describe a device. Which would you like me to tell you first: what it does, how it works, or whether it harms the health of the user?" Maproom (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

That's exactly it: He refuses to accept what happened. The impression I get is he's just going to do this over and over and over again until we all get fed up and give him what he wants. It is not collaborative or helpful. He has no support whatsoever for his claim that these are medical devices and it's time he accepted that.--FergusM1970 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed these are "medical devices". I have said it is a drug. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc, what I am holding in my hand right now is a six-inch-long stainless steel cylinder with a whacking great industrial battery inside. Are you seriously telling me that it's a drug?--FergusM1970 01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop focusing on trivia and address the point. This is not about whether you are falsely calling e-cigs a medical device or falsely calling e-cigs a drug. It is about your IDHT issue and refusal to help build consensus.--FergusM1970 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so no dif than for "medical devices". So you are saying that e-cigs are not drugs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs are not drugs. --FergusM1970 02:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More precisely, an electronic cigarette may (or may not) contain a drug, in exactly the same way that a needle and syringe may (or may not) contain a drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree, really.--FergusM1970 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have concerns that there is an efforts to de-emphasize the discussion of health effects even though this is what the majority of the popular press concentrates on and thus our readers are likely looking for. The evidence for health benefits are not nearly as positive as those within this billion dollar industry would like so maybe this is not surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Go look at the article on Cigarettes. Health effects is in section 11, despite being what the majority of the popular press concentrates on. Can you give a reason why e-cigs, which carry maybe 1% of the risk associated with smoking, should be so radically different?--FergusM1970 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, it is equally possible that people would be looking for info on the many aspects of e-cigs that aren't covered in the popular press, for precisely that reason. If someone has read about "mods" and wants to know what they are, they're not going to find the answer in their newspaper or on TV. Barnabypage (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Its always best to understand exactly what makes up a device before going into issues with it. There is no way to tell what a general reader is looking for. Its just as possible that some people are interested in the construction of the device because they like hardware and how things work. Those looking for health effects will easily find it in the contents box. Since its a consumer device it should follow the listing of other consumer devices like it, like Cigarette that place construction above health effects. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• In my opinion, WP users (like myself) are likely to come to this page to broadly answer, "what exactly are e-cigarettes?" which includes how they work, how people use them, how prevalent/popular they are, how safe they are, whatever wasn't satisfactorily covered after a conversation or media mention or news report or blog post. As a general encyclopedia article, it should provide all of this information, just as it would for any other device: intro, history, how it works, usage, problems with, the usual. Why not put History first, that is common, and a well-written history section is frequently extremely helpful in WP articles. Otherwise, Option 2 2 or 3 seem...normal. Putting Health Effects first isn't functionally terrible as long as there aren't too many sections to scan in the menu, but seems to be emphasizing that Health is the most important aspect (if so, um, NPOV...), when it is really just one aspect of this mechanical device. To make sure health effects get their due, making sure the section is at all readable is probably the most important thing, not where the link goes in the menu. In all seriousness, take a look at jackhammer, clear and straightforward. --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• The 5-4 against statistic in the wording of the RFC is innacurate:
• Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
• Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)

Levelledout (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote. We do not determine consensus based on raw vote counts. Zad68 14:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tell Doc that; he's the one who (falsely) claimed there was a majority in support of the MED order.--FergusM1970 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am forced to abstain from this RFC because my preferred option isn't there (Option 2 is closest) I prefer Construction, Health effects, Usage. I believe that telling people what the thing they're reading an article about is first makes sense. Then most people will want to know the effects of it and fewer people will want to know how they're used. Using current heading titles I strongly favour Construction, Health Effects, Usage, Society and Culture, History, Related Technologies. SPACKlick (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option X Same here, my preferred order is not mentioned in the arbitrary choices of option above. See below. TheNorlo (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think this RfC is frivolous. It seems to be based on nothing more than Doc's belief that e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine", which is manifestly wrong. I just had a quick scan through the first five RS used in the article. Caponnetto et al refer to them as "devices". O'Connor refers to them as "devices". Cheng refers to them as "devices". Saitta et al refers to them as "devices." Even Grana/Glantz, which is a very controversial paper indeed, calls them "devices". I do not recall seeing them referred to as "drugs" in any source, either general or medical, ever. Doc's argument for applying MEDMOS is wrong. That's really all we need to know.--FergusM1970 19:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I find the argument that a plurality of sources discuss health therefore health goes first spurious. The plurality of articles being about health means we should give more weight, and therefore likely more article words to the health discussion found in RS on e-cigs. It doesn't mean we should make the article less informative by talking about the effects of them before describing them. Also, as others have pointed out, most sources that discuss the health describe the devices first.

• Comment while this has been open for some time. Will request that someone close it. From non blocked users we have 7 supports for "option 1", 4 supports for "option 2" and 5 supports for "option 3". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanded Options

There are 6 options for the order of three sections, it seems silly to consider only 3. It might be best for consensus to see what order people rate them in. Please add to the relevant column your initial, linked to you as a user, for each of the 6 options SPACKlick (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. My question here is, why are we limited to three section heads, and these three in particular? In my opinion, Construction isn't very useful a section, what makes more sense is a Types section organized like this:

Types (with one para overview: various generations, basic similarities and diffs)

Basic components (or Operating principles, or Basic technology, or similar)

Generation 1

Generation 2

Generation 3

Related technologies

That set-up is more functional for this topic, at a glance it informs: "there are several types/generations sharing common technology, plus other technologies doing similar things." It also clearly perpares for breakout articles, for example, when Basic components has a dozen subsections, it's probable time for a separate article on components. --Tsavage (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree but for the purpose of this RFC I wouldn't want to propose changing the section. The construction section is intended to deliver the above information, we can deliver it differently but for the above table consider it those chunks of information, however they end up formatted. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand. My real compound question, then, is, does this painful process actually ever work? Does this series of convoluted arguments and RfCs and invoking of past consensus actually produce results? In three months, with spring in the air, will page protection be removed from a briskly written and informative, conflict-free e-cigs article? Is there any real value for me to stick around in the process, as someone who came to here for info, was disappointed, and stayed to try and help? I have no doubt that the people who have contributed to this page in the last couple of days could turn out a fantastic article in just few hours if they chose to actually collaborate...but will they? In the next weeks? Months? This is the question... --Tsavage (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not really so far because the time of protection has been to short. It has a better chance than people just doing what they want, that wont last till sundown. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of honesty I'll remind everyone that the majority are not opposed to this change. Let's not stoop to making up our own facts, eh?--FergusM1970 01:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to sleep and then came back to realize that WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TheNorlo (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Its Groundhog day!!! AlbinoFerret 03:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We were working yesterday on making the construction section better.... I guess that will have to wait until this ridiculous waste of time is settled. No point in talking reorganizing the construction section now..... You know, the section that actually explain what Electronic Cigarettes are!!! Funny how Electronic Cigarette sounds like the name of this article. Or am I dilusional and the article is actually called Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes TheNorlo (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheNorlo: The section will need to be improved regardless of the order. This RFC should not get in the way of us improving the articles content. AlbinoFerret 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But see how I am not working on improving this section right now because of this rfc? Doc James is disruptive. TheNorlo (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

He is, but unfortunately nobody at AN/I seems interested in looking at him.--FergusM1970 04:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Italic text

I would like to make one comment on my responses in the table. While I would prefer one order, its not always possible. This article needs to be edited as a group and we as editors should make reasonable compromises for the sake of getting things done if the choices are both good. Thats why in the RFC I said I would prefer #2. Sometimes its best to have something that you can live with instead of fighting for your ultimate goal so that progress can be made. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree Formerly 98 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrap this RfC

NOT A VOTE

• I'd like to remind editors that we do not determine consensus on the basis of raw vote counts. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments based in Misplaced Pages content policy and sourcing. Theoretically a vote result of 100-to-1 against a suggestion where the 100 votes are "I don't like it" and the 1 vote is a well-reasoned argument based in sourcing should be decided as consensus in favor of that one vote. Due to the level of contentiousness on this page, we will have to get experienced uninvolved outside editors to review the arguments and determine consensus, we cannot trust ourselves to do it. Vote-count charts of "7 for, 6 against..." are singularly unhelpful. Zad68 14:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you! That's just what we have here; the last RfC on exactly this question found there were no grounds for having the health section first and that it looked neither natural nor neutral to do so. The admin who made the change pointed out that the only argument against the change was "I don't like it."--FergusM1970 16:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad. Thank you. Everyone needs to comment on the RFC based on logic and WP guidelines/policy. The table above while nice is not a comment. Those that have comments will be weighed in the RFC, those that do not, will not. Everyone who has a opinion must comment if they want to be involved in the decision. Simple yes, no, or a number without reasoning behind it is a vote and will likely be discounted by whoever closes this. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, to explain my reason for inserting the table, I wanted to see if there were enough other editors preferring the other three options that it was worth broadening the discussion. Yes discussion is key to consensus but in an issue like this where ultimately the order is going to be, at least in part, stylistic preference, seeing where people prefer in a clear fashion can only improve the consensus building. SPACKlick (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Eliminate or Drastically Change "Health Effects" Section of Article

I preface this proposal for drastically editing the Health Effects section with the following:

• I strongly believe and/or observe that this section, among 3 total in the current article, are precisely what is constantly challenging the NPOV of this article. I therefore argue for elimination, though recognize other editors are unlikely to consider that for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I would argue that "Health Effects" ought to be its own separate page and that one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page as POV is clearly biased in literally everything that currently appears in this section. It is furthermore disputed by competing interests on Talk Page (and found extensively in Archives) and ultimately resides in a vague category summarized by "not enough evidence to determine" one way or the other.
• I have reviewed Archived pages on "Health Effects" before writing this proposal. I have not thoroughly reviewed them because I find the subject either disorganized on the Talk Page (and Archives) or an extension of the "not enough evidence" variety, and thus, in essence, stating very little of importance.
• Perhaps restating the first point, but I believe as long as the inconclusive, and rather biased data is allowed to stay in "Health Effects" section as necessary part of main article page on Electronic Cigarettes, that Misplaced Pages, at best, will be caught up in a NPOV battle for as long as that data is determined, by all parties, as inconclusive or lacking evidence (read as many years to come). And at worst, Misplaced Pages shows up as lacking credibility, even integrity, on the topic of Electronic Cigarettes. I do not make this last assertion lightly. I feel this reflects very poorly on editorial decisions on this topic.

Clearly, the competing interests regarding health effects of Electronic Cigarettes (eCigs) and the topic of eCigs in general, are between tobacco control advocates and vaping enthusiasts. Tobacco control advocates hold an inherent conflict of interest as eCigs are not currently (at end of 2014) a tobacco product, and yet are routinely framed in that light to serve the goals of tobacco control advocates. Vaping enthusiasts hold a conflict of interest because many, or vast majority of eCig users are ex-smokers who are prone to make claims or support positions that seek to establish eCigs as a (wonderful) smoking cessation device. Though, not all vaping enthusiasts have made this claim, and thus a prominent bias is established which just so happens to be the chief competing interest on the Electronic Cigarette page, second only to those who support or tout the Tobacco Control advocacy position.

The 2009 Judge Leon ruling, which is only briefly mentioned on the Legality page and surprisingly not mentioned at all on the main article page, states that the FDA cannot regulate eCigs as drug-delivery devices. Yet, some Misplaced Pages editors hold to that position as to how to process all usage data on eCigs. Moreover, the Leon ruling stated that "absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer" the FDA lacks authority to regulate these products at all (at that time). It does state that FDA could (conceivably) regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA (Tobacco Control Act). At end of 2014, and thru entire duration of this main article on eCigs, the US has not deemed eCigs a tobacco product.

The WHO report, as sourced in the Health Effects section, strongly appears to hold to the position that eCig manufacturers are still making therapeutic claims of smoking cessation. While in 2011 and before this may have in fact been the case, to varying degrees, it is no longer possible to find a majority or substantial amount of manufacturers making this claim. Thus, it comes back to vaping enthusiasts who may, or may not, proffer such a position. Thus POV regarding bias of what an eCig is. And to be sure that vaping enthusiasts are not advancing that position to far, the tobacco control advocacy groups counter this rhetoric with their own bias around 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which again Leon ruled (or explained) that eCig manufacturers are best to avoid.

Even the information mentioned in the main article from the WHO report is biased. It states: found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. It suggested that smokers should be encouraged to use approved methods for help with quitting. But the same report also mentioned expert opinions in scientific papers that suggested e-cigarettes may have a role helping people quit who have failed using other methods.

This is made in around the 21st point of 44 total points. The 2nd point of the report is: (eCigs) are the subject of a public health dispute among bona fide tobacco-control advocates that has become more divisive as their use has increased. This is not mentioned on the main article page, even while it is clearly permeating the talk page on Misplaced Pages and currently leading to the label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The WHO report, also has fueled that divisiveness in many ways, not the least of which is scientific review that has addressed, or clarified, several points of mischaracterization in the WHO report. But, of course we don't mention this on the main article page because of "undue weight" and yet let stand the rather biased position of the WHO report. Neither is there mention of the 20th point in the report that states (in part): At this level of efficacy, the use of ENDS is likely to help some smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

I write all this to convey the inherent bias that is prevalent both on the main article page and in many of the discussions, comments, RFC's found on the talk page. As I've stated before, the whole topic, as presented on main article page, is straining NPOV constantly. Moreover, it comes off as disorganized (which is yet another dispute on current talk page) and presents usage data that is, in reality, outdated.

Because I fully believe a NPOV article can be presented as the main article on eCigs, I write this proposal. I strongly believe usage information is the primary culprit for the dispute, and that it takes two (sides) to tango. While I too have my own bias, I would urge that as long as data is inconclusive on eCigs (as noted in 2nd paragraph of the lede) that usage information (includes all Health Effects data) be shortened and spun off to other pages, with explanation that represents honest disagreement found on the talk page. This is clearly a situation warranting a "controversy" spinoff on Misplaced Pages, as I have seen with other topics. I do not believe, nor observe, a resolution toward consensus on these controversies occurring any time soon (highly unlikely in 2015, very unlikely in next 5 years), or maybe around 2030 Misplaced Pages editors will have more substantial information to present a consensus approach to use type information on eCigs.

I propose drastically shortened text blocks under each sub-heading in the Health Effects section, including elimination of some headings that are likely better served on other pages as "see also" links. In my view, Smoking Cessation, Harm Reduction and Safety could all be eliminated from main article page, yet still appear on Misplaced Pages and linked as a "See Also." This would leave the WHO information, but I strongly believe this ought to be shortened as it is clearly not NPOV either in its relevant data, or in what was cherry-picked from this report. Currently, it is just another form of "smoking cessation" as lead of Health Effects. Addiction is currently the only one that I can think of leaving in there in much the same form it is now. Though I expect that information will likely change over time (read around 2030, when Misplaced Pages editors are actually able to reach reasonable consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw40nw (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose We are obligated by WP:NPOV to present viewpoints as they are represented among reliable sources on the topic. The WHO is specifically called out as a reliable source for medical information in WP:MEDRS, which is an established policy of Misplaced Pages. Furthermore there is a specific policy against WP:POVFORKs. The policy states that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Formerly 98 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Disagree with obligation you cite. Not disagreeing with WP:NOV which I linked to (first), but with your understanding that this is a relevant resource on topic of eCigs, as it is precisely what is creating biased perspective. This article is not medical, and has not been established as such. I also noted that the WHO report data has been cherry picked, and that the 2nd of 44 points was not selected, nor the 20th of 44 points, but only a point that supports those who's end goal is to keep people using 'approved smoking cessation treatments' which clearly represents a conflict of interest either within this debate, and is visible on talk page, or within an editor on an eCig article page.

You also cite POV Forking as is your POV bias. From the page on forking it states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."

The spinoff that I suggested is not to deliberately create a content article that avoids neutral point of view guidelines. It is not me, as editor saying, let's put all the pro-vaping items on one page and all the anti-vaping items on another. That would be POV forking. Instead, it would be a spinoff of the Health Effects section (and related information) which is currently challenging the neutrality status of the eCig main article. That spinoff ought to include all sides editors of that page wish to include. You mischaracterize my proposal for a spinoff, because either you misunderstand my intent or you have POV bias at work, and is perhaps one of several reasons why the eCig article currently shows up with neutrality label for eCig article is questionable.

As the Health Effects information for eCigs is a) controversial, b) inconclusive and c) that which is challenging the neutrality status of the main article on eCigs, then the words found on WP:SS very much seem to apply here: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article.

Again, this is not POV forking as I am not proposing that a particular POV be conveyed in the spinoff. I do care what is put in the spinoff page and may be one of the editors on that page, but believe all relevant and important POV's ought to occur in the spinoff, or in essence that the anti-vaping and pro-vaping factions can vet the "Health Effects of eCigs" on a page that is different than what is the main article for eCigs as clearly this section is what is causing questionable neutrality for the eCig main article. Gw40nw (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The proposal is far too long and confused, please consider shortening it to include only the fundamental details and most important points.Levelledout (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is fair length given the ongoing and exhaustively lengthy discussions on this talk page which have thus far amounted to a main article with questionable neutrality. I bolded the most important parts to clue anyone with short attention span in to key points for this proposal. The background, or preface, is necessary because it explains how editors got to where the article is today and why I, as editor, don't see neutrality for main article ever changing (or for at least 5 years) unless the proposed suggestion to spinoff the Health Effects section occurs thereby eliminating and/or drastically shortening that content on the main article page for eCigs. Gw40nw (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is precisely the difference of opinion between e cig advocates and long term Misplaced Pages editors on the weight to give health issues described in your comments that is the POV difference that this poposal seeks to fork. In fact your own rationale for why this split is desirable us the best evidence that doing so would violate Misplaced Pages policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with Formerly here, even if i think that the current weight in the health sections is somewhat scewed towards a quit-perspective as opposed to a balanced one between harm-reduction and quit. POV-forks are never valid, and you can't just remove things from this top level summary article... you can split off sections that have expanded beyond a reasonable size, and summarize them... but you can't just remove the info because you don't like what it says. The Neutral POV requires that all major and minor views be presented in accordance with their prevalence in the literature. If you feel that a section/part of the article is unbalanced then provide the reliable sources to support your view, and argum that the merit of these sources demand that we change the text - it may (actually is) not be easy, but time and patience will win out, if your arguments are solid, and based on strong sources. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• While I disagree with Formerly 98, that editors who do not like the medical pov on the article are advocates, the forking of the health section at this point in time isnt a good idea. It would be a POVFORK, moving a section with problems off the main page so it can be avoided. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't have the energy to read the endless rows here and on related pages, but the suggestion that, with article at 90K bytes long, for the health aspects "one line, two at most, is sufficient on main article page" seems utterly wrong. I'm rather amazed that anyone can believe this. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. You don't even get the idea. We shouldn't be throwing out well-crafted paragraphs that tie together reliable sources to provide information. That's not what Misplaced Pages does. If you would propose to split the article into several sections, covering each in WP:summary style, not for the purpose of destroying any data but to make it easier to read an overview and dive into the desired aspect in an article with less restriction on length, that I can support, if I believe that goal is sincere. But don't highlight the advantages of not telling the reader about what is known - even when it is sketchy. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Editor Commentary. Currently these well crafted paragraphs of which you write are precisely that which questions the neutrality of the provided information. So, in this case, it is precisely what Misplaced Pages is doing. I have not once advocated for destroying or censoring data. The usage information on eCigs is the battle being had. I observe very little consensus occurring on the smallest of disputes, and none on the major disputes. In reality, the scientific community is still weighing in and has repeatedly noted that long term data is necessary. That won't occur in next year, or likely in next 5. So, on Misplaced Pages, spin will be what editors are to agree on with what goes where on main article page. The WHO report has criticisms from within scientific community, but that doesn't get mentioned on main article page because of a) lack of consensus to mention it and b) POV bias on what makes for reliable source or due weight. Therefore, it is nonsense to say we "tie together reliable sources to provide information" when our talk page makes clear that we are not allowing that tie together to occur, and are cherry-picking the data that some of us think is most relevant to usage.

As long as "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is posted, I feel vindicated in the proposal I am making. Tells me and any reader that Misplaced Pages is not able to present the information without influence from people with agendas (aka biased POVs). I realize that goes at least two ways, and suggest that for the time that scientific community is only focussed on short term data, that editors move that biased information to other pages, or risk a long term label of "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Gw40nw (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic "those who disagree with me are biased and pushing a POV" argument. But many of those who disagree with you have demonstrated their committment to building an encylopedia by editing hundreds of articles over many years. You, on the other hand, showed up a few months ago and have contributed almost exclusively to POV related discussions on this single article. To an outsider, you might look like a better candidate for these labels than those you so casually accuse. I'd recommend keeping such accusations to yourself. striking with apologies to the community. Inappropriate discussion of editor behavior on article Talk page.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have stated that I have bias as well, and would participate on other pages where those biases are warranted. I am trying to overcome the neutrality issue on this page. So to try and say that my position is other people have bias whereas I do not, is nonsense. I recognize that my bias would come into play in much the same way as it has with all other editors on this page. But unlike many of them, I do not wish to continue the spin on "inconclusive data" which would just continue to challenge the neutrality of this article. But, of course, you need to make this about the person rather than the points up for discussion cause heaven forbid we consider moving what is clearly partial tone on eCigs to some other page where we would vet the info more thoroughly while science continues to do its part.

WP:IMPARTIALITY states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

Am glad to show the many (more than a dozen) spots where inappropriate tone is introduced on the main article page, and is based on way in which "facts" are selected, presented, and organized. Gw40nw (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Biases are not warrented on any[REDACTED] articles .... ever! Misplaced Pages works only through the NPOV policy, which requires us to present information balanced in accordance with the prevalence in reliable sources. This means presenting majority views majorly, and minority views as minority views on the same articles. We cannot WP:SPLIT articles according to viewpoints - that is simply not allowed (see WP:POVSPLIT). We cannot "overcome" the neutrality issues.

I agree with you on some of the biases/issues in this article, but the way forward cannot (per Misplaced Pages policy) be the way that you present here. I will also note that you may have a confusion between what[REDACTED] deems neutrality and what the common press usually does, which is False balance. --Kim D. Petersen 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The split proposal is not according to viewpoints. I am not proposing that anything be split with one bias on this page and another bias elsewhere. I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias (as found on the talk page, via a lack of consensus) and as represented via disorganized, non-balanced content on the main article, be all moved to another page. There it would be, or could be, more thoroughly vetted, with all viewpoints discussed, but not constantly straining an otherwise NPOV main article on eCigs. I do think I get WP NPOV as I've reviewed it umpteen times and cited it on this page a few times. I sometimes wonder if other editors get it, but also see that come up from various editors as well. From explanation of NPOV

Achieving what the Misplaced Pages community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Due to lack of consensus around "due weight" and biases that I've already noted which resulted in cherry-picking from the WHO report, the editorial decisions on the main article page for Health Effects lead is violating NPOV. I would say this is obvious to any reader familiar with the issues, and aware of scientific review of WHO report, which has been discussed on talk page (and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages domain), but again was not met with consensus for inclusion. The other sub-headings of Health Effects follow similar examples of editorial bias. And all of this, all of it, is on a topic that pretty much everyone agrees that the scientific data is inconclusive. Gw40nw (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is what comes accross in what you said that leads everyone so far, on both sides of the issue of the articles POV, to say that this is a POVFORK.

I am suggesting the split because the lack of consensus and obvious editorial bias

Splits based on these things is a WP:POVFORK. Please take a few minutes and review that editors from both viewpoints on the POV issue are disagreeing with you on this proposed edit and that the odds on it being done with broad consensus against it are slim and none. Sometimes its important to hear who is saying something. AlbinoFerret 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I have reviewed WP POVFORK. I observe other editors on this page, and particularly on this topic, convey some WP policy to me, but not quote from it. I'll quote from it, to (again) show that I am in fact following policy whereas it appears to me that editorial bias at this time is leading to this article having the standing it does (neutrality is questioned). POVFORK states:

Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.

The additional article I am proposing would be based entirely on the existing POV (with editorial biases at work) and not on a singular POV. So not a violation of WP policies. The current article is not adhering to WP policy because it is disallowing all facts and major points of view on the subject of health effects. It is observably on talk page where these items are disallowed, and it is based on lack of consensus. POVFORK further states:

Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.

I would suggest it is not best to refer to the fork I am suggesting as POV for it strongly implies that the way the current article is written has POV and is thus violating WP neutral point of view. I am not suggesting changing this article (for Health Effects) from what is currently written unless editors on that additional page see fit to do so, by consensus. As WP POVFORK explains, there is acceptable types of forking. I've already alluded to how this applies to this proposal. I do not believe a consensus will be reached anytime soon on Health Effects of eCigs, and do observe that neutrality of the main article is questioned. Oppose this proposal all that is desired, but fellow editors are neglecting the fact that POV and lack of neutrality in POV are present on the current article, and there is currently no other proposed solution on Talk Page to get around that. Gw40nw (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Reduce the nuanced discussion of health effects to one or two sentences? We have dozens of sources of very high quality thus this is completely not reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• More Commentary I strongly believe the nature of this proposal is being mischaracterized. So, I intended to present further information based from WP NPOV and from what I've already stated, to make the case for this proposal stronger. Under Health Effects, the first sentence reads: As of 2014 electronic cigarettes have not been approved for helping people quit smoking by any government. This then continues as main point for Health Effects, even while the lede of the main article has already stated: One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies. Another considered the data to be inconclusive. I emphasize "inconclusive" because that is found in various places of the main article. eCigs are not accepted / approved as smoking cessation because the data is inconclusive. Does any Misplaced Pages editor dispute this? The WHO report speaks to more than cessation with regard to eCigs and health, but instead this point (#21 out of 44) was cherry-picked to make this what Health Effects for eCigs ought to zero in on. Every point in Health Effects points to lack of data. Such as: The UK National Health Service has concluded, "While e-cigarettes may be safer than conventional cigarettes, we don’t yet know the long-term effects of vaping on the body. There are clinical trials in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, but until these are complete, the government can’t give any advice on them or recommend their use." or in the next paragraph: In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded, "E-cigarettes have not been fully studied

And yet, there is no presentation here to represent what has been done, because of lack of consensus around due weight. So, the narrative is that "smoking cessation" is prime aspect of Health Effects, but that data is inconclusive and never mind that in the US eCig vendors cannot, according to Leon ruling, make such claims. This is to be ignored. Never mind that a scientific review of the WHO report does exist in a reliable source, this is to be ignored due to lack of consensus around due weight.

Under Article Structure of WP NPOV, it states: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

I observe no indication of trying to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates of Health Effects into the narrative. This is due to proponents and opponents having a back-and-forth dialogue that is visible on the talk page. The eCig article has managed to create an apparent hierarchy of fact around smoking cessation while simultaneously adhering to notion that the facts are inconclusive.

The main article shows up as one big challenge to WP's NPOV pillar in several ways. I've noted some of that here in this proposal and my comments from those who keep framing my proposal as if I'm trying to fork content in such a way that would result in proponents content goes here, and opponents content goes over there. Instead, I'm saying none of it ought to be on main article for eCigs page precisely because the data is inconclusive, needs more long term scientific study, and is causing unnecessary spin from Misplaced Pages editors. Gw40nw (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I came to this article looking for medical information after seeing a vendor in a mall (at the end of 2014) claim that his products were completely safe and helped smokers quit. Medical claims were the main selling points he made for the product. They're a major topic of public debate. So ignoring medical claims seems silly. There ought to be information on medical aspects, even if the article only said "Nothing is known about whether this product is safe or helps smokers quit". Even defining areas of ignorance is useful.

But saying "Nothing is known about whether this product is safe or helps smokers quit" would not be honest. We all agree (I think) that there is not enough research on this topic, and that having more would give us more information, and more certainty that our knowledge is correct. But there is a big gap between "Existing knowledge is grossly inadequate" and "There is no knowledge at all". There is also a big gap between "Existing knowledge is uncertain" and "There is no certainty of anything" or "All our knowledge is equally uncertain". If we remove information because it is inadequate and uncertain, we might as well delete all scientific knowledge from Misplaced Pages :). Might it help if we used the IPCC plain-English terminology to talk about probability and certainty data (see boxes at bottom of page)?

We seem to have two sources of information:

1. Reasonable extrapolations from existing knowledge, made by expert third-party sources. There is substantial research on the medical effects of inhaling aerosol, nicotine, and several of the other things that are sometimes included in e-cigarettes. We also have information on the effects of bloodstream concentrations of some of these (yeah, not the aerosols, obviously, but nicotine). There is also generic research on what helps people quit, individually and socially. So without anyone ever studying an e-cigarette, we can have some (inadequate, uncertain, but better than a random guess) information on their safety.
2. Short-term studies on the effects of e-cigarettes, and reviews of the same.

Next is the question of what the information is. Lumping everything I read together, my impression is as follows:

• Are e-cigarettes safe for the user? Probably not. They are almost certainly more dangerous than taking nothing, but almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes (the contents of e-cigarettes are variable and sometimes mislabelled, so this assumes common ingredients). They are probably less safe than some tested quit-smoking aids (like behavioural therapy and Nicotine inhalers), but they may be safer than some tested quitting aids.

• Are e-cigarettes safe for bystanders? Probably not. It's probably usually safer to be around a person using an aerosol cigarette than a burning one, but it's probably still bad for your health. Using e-cigarettes while pregnant is probably bad for the fetus (based on studies of similar biochemical pathways; getting ethical approval to study this looks tricky).

• Are e-cigarettes a good way to quit? Maybe, but nothing spectacular. E-cigarettes are not approved anywhere as a medical device to help people quit smoking, so the evidence of safety and efficacy that is normally required to get approval is absent. Nicotine inhalers, which are approved as medical devices for helping smokers quit, are only effective under some circumstances. There is weak evidence that e-cigarettes may help quitting about as much as some well-tested methods. Many smokers who start using e-cigarettes continue to use both.

• Do e-cigarettes cause people to start smoking? Maybe, but not in huge numbers. Since this is a social effect, it may change over time. Studies have been small and short, so the evidence here is weak.

• Are e-cigarettes used by people who have never smoked? Yes, in some groups, including some minors. Since this is a social effect, it depends strongly on the group of people (and time; use seems to be increasing rapidly). Partly because of this variability, the evidence here is weak.

I am not an expert in medical health and safety information. May I ask the people who are to tell me if this summary is accurate, please? If so, could we use a summary with similar information for the lede to Safety of electronic cigarettes (currently far too long)?

I do support changes that will make the section more of a description, giving a good overview. For instance: "A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked, while a 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes." is an uninformative juxtaposition. Both reviews cited in this sentence in turn cite the SAME STUDY, as references 30 and nine respectively. We should be looking at the quality of evidence for different views and weighing them accordingly (WP:MEDASSESS). I realise that a POV conflict (and substantial conflicts of interest in the peer-reviewed literature) make(s) this hard to do. Any suggestions from people who have succeeded in other cases?

I don't think we can justify leaving out information because we argue about it, because it is a controversial topic, because it is often written about with bias, because our knowledge of it is limited, uncertain, or inconclusive, or because manufacturers not longer make legal claims about it (unfortunately, they did in 2012, and the claim is still published). If we did, we'd have to stop writing about most religion :). Are there other reasons I've missed? HLHJ (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Have we beat this dead horse long enough?

This proposal is dead in the water. There is opposition against it from all but one editor. Do we really need 5,000,000 more words to prove this? How about we just not post here as a group and let it be archived unless someone besides the person who proposed it supports it? AlbinoFerret 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with it being archived at this point. I tried and the proposal was not met with support. I still stand vindicated knowing I was in fact following WP policy and that the article is questionable in neutrality as written right now. So, allow this proposal to be archived and part of the endless debate that goes on for another 2 to 15 years where no editor, anywhere, will be able to present reasonably certain information about the health effects of electronic cigarettes. Gw40nw (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2014

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

Request administrator to change two instances of "cartage" to "cartridge" in the "First Generation section. --Pete (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Another good review of the topic More or less supports our current content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

More or less supports our current content Quite, and can I suggest that what is maybe being overlooked in this lengthy discussion is that it doesn't bring very much new or different in terms of either scientific insight or policy proposals, so - regardless of contributors' funding, MEDRS, etc., etc., etc., - on those grounds alone it probably doesn't warrant much treatment in the article at all... Barnabypage (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I see its sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. AlbinoFerret 04:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Um what? Where does it say it was "sponsored" by anyone (other than the obvious endorsement by the two major medical societies publishing it....)? Yobol (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the "Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest". AlbinoFerret 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have, and no where in that section does it say that the report is "sponsored" by any particular company or industry. If you are at all surprised or find it notable that 3 of 11 authors have made declarations about research funding or honoraria in their past, then you clearly have no experience with reading the medical literature. If you think that 3 of 11 authors having previous connections with different companies = sponsorship by those companies, you have no business commenting at all about medical literature in general. Yobol (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are authors who have received funding from industry. It does not say this paper was funded by industry though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Indirectly it was, and the source clearly lists them as conflicts of interest with the subject.AlbinoFerret 14:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. There is no "sponsorship" or funding by any company or industry, and continued insistence that there is despite the lack of evidence speaks volumes about the editor insisting on promoting such ignorance. Yobol (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Its clearly set forth in the source. I suggest you stick to the topic and not other editors. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What you think the source says is not actually in the source. But you can have the last word, this is getting tedious. Yobol (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

An excellent source, which needs to be incorporated into this article. Yobol (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Belongs on Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes - as a review it would be problematic, as it is a policy statement. Policy from policy papers, Health/Medical from pure medical papers, as editors we're not equipped to decipher which parts of such a paper is representing policy views, and which are medical. If it is cited in another WP:MEDRS for findings, then we can use it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Position statements from major medical organizations are MEDRS for parts that discuss where the relevant state of the literature stands. Policy positions can and should be part of this article, but carefully worded to reflect that it is the position of that organization; whether any particular policy statement belongs here would be a WP:WEIGHT issue depending on criteria such as how prominent the organization is, etc. Yobol (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, they are WP:MEDRS - i agree - thus reliable for the position it makes. But you cannot use a political paper for medical statements. Sorry. There are no fields of science where you would use policy documents for science - are you are going to claim that this is the case for medicine ....?? --Kim D. Petersen 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. In this case, the parts of these position statements that summarize the literature are usable as MEDRS as summaries of the literature for medical information. The parts that make policy recommendations may be usable (not so much for medical information) but in discussion of legal/policy matters. Yobol (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Position statements are the equivalent of opinion statements. They are subjective views on a topic area from organizations/societies. And are very valuable in measuring a potential consensus or general view of the scientific community within a particular area. But they are not themselves useful as fact/information outside of the policy/opinion... for that you have the underlying literature that informed the policy/opinion. If you can't find it in the underlying secondary literature, then you most certainly shouldn't use it. --Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Policy statements like these are as much an "opinion" as any review article is an "opinion", as they both try to summarize the medical literature as filtered through the lens of the authors. In the case of these statements, they have the added bonus that we know that these deserve significant weight, if produced by major medical organizations, as they tend to be written by multiple medical leaders in the field (and as such, deserve more weight IMO than some random review article in a low tier journal). These statements are also part of the medical literature and are secondary sources themselves, and are therefore citable as MEDRS sources for statements of fact (you seem to be implying otherwise). In any event, I'm not sure how productive continuing this particular meta-discussion will be until we get some specific proposals on how to improve this article using this source. Yobol (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a legal/policy statement. It might be useful on the positions page, but not much elsewhere. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is both a summary of the medical literature (these parts are usable as MEDRS for statements about the underlying health effects) and a policy proposal statement (which are useful for policy parts of the article discussing policy proposals such as legal and regulatory policies). Yobol (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there is no consensus on it being more than a legal/policy statement. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, we don't even have a firm proposal on how, if at all, to use this source, we should probably start there before jumping to conclusions about "consensus" in this two day old thread. Yobol (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A policy/position statement is supposed to reflect the opinion of the society/organization (and its members) based on the current state of the science, and the society/organizations feelings/views on how this is can be interpreted. This is in an of itself very valuable, specifically for gauging consensus and weight-issues. But it is not supposed to be a medical/scientific evaluation but a policy statement. These things are common in scientific venues. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, there is a difference between a policy statement and a systematic review for instance. Quite a bit of difference, including how the authors aggregate and analyse the information presented. Again I agree, a policy statement is useful as an indication of a particular organisation's point of view, not for reporting medical facts. With regard to conflicts of interest, I think that there is at least some indirect funding present from the pharmaceutical industry. Several authors report "research funding" from pharmaceutical companies and some of their research is included in the policy statement. I think this would be worth a mention if this is used as a source for the article.Levelledout (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quack has already added medical claims form this on the Safety page and Yobol reverted its removal. AlbinoFerret 04:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, your statement about funding is wrong (the work was not funded by companies) but even if it were, MEDRS says: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions". 2) MEDRS also says :"Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." (emphasis added). There is no basis in MEDRS for your objections that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim, is your argument that the two leading cancer research organizations worldwide don't base their policy statements on on their evaluation of the medical issues? It seems to me that their is a lot of hair splitting going on here in the effort to exclude what is clearly the exact type of source that MEDRS places in the first tier. As a "political statement", what agenda in particular do you think the American Association for Cancer Research might have other than minimizing the public health effects of cancer? These arguments seem to me to be going off the deep end. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they do and have - and i can't find anywhere where i said anything other. The main problem here is that a policy statement is an advanced opinion statement, and thus subjective. It is extremely useful when examining consensus and the scientific opinion on a subject, but it does, by its very nature, present a specific take on the subject that is colored. It clearly belongs in Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, and it clearly should influence that article, and its summary here. For instance (in another topic area), we don't use the Academies of sciences position statements on climate change in our science pages, we use the underlying secondary sources that the Academies base their position upon! (such as the IPCC and NAS) --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. I feel so naive looking back on the days when I didn't understand I needed a bunch of vaping enthusiasts to protect me from the slanted viewpoints of the AHA, the World Health Organization, the Americam Society for Clinical Oncology, and the Anerican Association for Cancer Research. Who could know? Formerly 98 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: Do you yourself find that your comment here is in line with our policies? --Kim D. Petersen 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it was out of line and I apologize. But I have to say that the level of advocacy that has gone on at this article in my opinion eptomizes everything that is wrong with the idea of an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We're supposed to be here to evaluate reliable sources (per the criteria that have been set by consensus in a topic agnostic fashion) and to write articles that reflect that. According to these standards, that were created by people who were trying to set the course for developing a universally available 💕, sources like the Journal of the American Heart Association, and policy statements from organizations like the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society for Clinical Oncology, sit at the very top of the hierarchy of reliable sources. But we sit here day after day debating "how and if" to use these high quality sources because their conclusions are out of synch with the opinions of editors whose personal experience has been positive, and who consider that their personal experience trumps the conclusions of those who have studies the subject objectively and across the experience of large numbers of people. Its like the pharmaceutical articles in which which the one person in 100,000 who has a bad experience with Lipitor wants to rewrite the article to reflect their own personal experience.

From my point of view, its sad and pathetic. What this encyclopedia needs more than anything else is a hard rule saying that no one can have their edits on any single article exceed more that 10% of the their total edits for more than 2 consecutive weeks. Because the editors who will sit on a single article for weeks on end to fight for a certain POV are exactly the ones we don't want editing that article. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: Apology accepted... but here is the clinch: I haven't read this policy/position paper in full yet, i'm still digesting it. I have no idea whether it will turn out positive/negative or balanced, i presume that it would be balanced though, because i have faith in the scientific process. But I do comment entirely by "evaluat reliable source - per the criteria that have been set by consensus in a topic agnostic fashion"... Which is why i gave the Academies of Sciences example (it is an epitome of consensus within science, but i'd still not use it, because it is a policy statement). You make assumptions here about other editors based on your preconceived view of what they think and how they would do things... But that is by its very nature, against the way Misplaced Pages should work, per our pillars... and unfortunately a continuation of the previous statement, albeit less terse. --Kim D. Petersen 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we use high quality sources to support medical content. Position statements can be used to support medical content. The comments regarding if this piece is usable or not is out of place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James Cloudjpk (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That would have been an excellent argument if reliability was a binary issue, but it isn't. This is a very reliable and useful source for the views/policy of the organizations in question. But it is not a medical review, and thus a less reliable and useful source for medical material than the underlying secondary sources that they used to form their policy/opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

From my reading of the policy statement it appears that most of it, if not all, is already in the article sourced from those secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes a confirmation that we are well matching the major positions regarding these devices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the purpose of this policy statement in making medical claims? AlbinoFerret 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, just as i stated above, there is no reason to use a policy paper, because the underlying secondary literature should be sufficient. This source should be used for the thing that it is intended to be: As a statement of what the current opinion of particular societies is, and nothing else. --Kim D. Petersen 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yay, another prime example of the blatant editorial bias that has potential to show up on the eCig Misplaced Pages page. Main points in the article are (really):

- may or may not be harmful (meaningless statement)

- definitive data are lacking (which undermines any contention that one might put forth about eCigs as being harmful)

- eCigs are all about smoking cessation (clearly a bias at work)

The entire abstract (like the article) oozes of bias and conflict of interest. That fellow Misplaced Pages editors think this has ANY significant bearing on what is an eCig is very disappointing. But it is what it is, and let the endless back and forth continue as if this is yet another authoritative, neutrally written article about eCigs. I'm sure one day we will reach consensus on these matters. Just not in this decade. Gw40nw (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 January 2015

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

Please add the PMID 25456810 to the source "A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes". Everymorning talk 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncontroversial.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Language tweak edit

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

Change (under Electronic cigarette#Addiction)

• A 2014 systematic review found that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated. A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked, while a 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes.

To (see bolded)

• A 2014 systematic review found that the concerns that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated. A 2014 review found no evidence that they are used regularly by those who have never smoked, while another 2014 review has found that in some populations nearly up to a third of youth who have ever used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes.

Because:

• The first bolded change reflects the review's language ("However, such concerns are unsubstantiated;") and sounds a lot less stupid IMO.
• The second bolded change points out that it's a different review supporting the statement in this sentence; that might be obvious from the ref number alone, but it's better writing.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all changes before using {{editprotected}}, thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I need to discuss fixing a grammatically incorrect and incoherent clause ("A 2014 systematic review found that e-cigarettes could cause non-smokers to begin smoking are unsubstantiated.")? Lol... I'm just going to let it sit there instead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential new source

• Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation This review seems like a good source. It says that e-cigs are almost certainly "far less harmful than tobacco smoking", but also expresses concern about how they could re-normalize smoking. Everymorning talk 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

eCigs as another form of smoking and/or smoking cessation device is the editorial bias on the article page that I keep referencing. On a separate page that wishes to present the argument (written from non neutral POV of 2 sides having a visible disagreement over what eCigs are for) this sort of item is warranted. Just like much of what currently exists under Health Effects and Usage. But for a NPOV article to be presented on main article page for eCigs, I would not like to see this type of information. Gw40nw (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it have a PMID? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 25303892. Everymorning talk 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Content

Please excuse me if I've gone about this the wrong way - I've never used to Misplaced Pages Talk system.

I noticed the following paragraph at the end of the section "Usage" :

Larger numbers of young people are starting to use e-cigarettes. A high number of youths who use e-cigarettes also smoking traditional cigarettes. Some youths who have tried an e-cigarette have never smoked a traditional cigarette; this indicates that they can be a starting point for nicotine use for some youths. There are high levels of dual use with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes.

It seems contrary to multiple preceding paragraphs in the section. The paragraph is also poorly worded and makes redundant statements. In addition, the same reference cited is used for this statement :

Among adults or children, the extent to which a dual use tendency exists using e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes is unclear.

Which seems to be contradict the last paragraph in the section.Aquarat (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It may seem contrary, but please don't get in the way of the anti-smoking narrative that is being retold on the eCig page and sourced to a well known propagandist. While Misplaced Pages does have a pillar of conveying information on a topic from a neutral POV, we have managed to bypass this for this article and are touting the anti-eCig message as highly pertinent to what an eCig is (for). Unclear, uncertain, inconclusive data, and all. Gw40nw (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Health and fitness articles
• Unknown-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• B-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• Unassessed Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Old requests for peer review