Misplaced Pages

Talk:Electronic cigarette: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:59, 2 July 2015 editS Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,418 editsm + in this instance← Previous edit Revision as of 17:02, 2 July 2015 edit undoCFCF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,041 edits →Known unknownsNext edit →
Line 200: Line 200:


==Known unknowns== ==Known unknowns==
{{collapse top}}
There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC) There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. ] (]) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) :The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. ] (]) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Line 209: Line 210:
::::::In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. ] (]) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC) ::::::In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. ] (]) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It's really ] who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.<p>However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC) :::::::It's really ] who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.<p>However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
This discussion is not constructive and I have hidden and closed it. You can see the archives. there is nothing further to add. -- ] ] (]) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:02, 2 July 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.
Article policies
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: 14 days 

Template:Ecig sanctions

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.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconPharmacology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTechnology
WikiProject iconThis 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
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Since we're

This image is quite a good one for showing a range of devices. Wide variation of first gen on the left, 5 second gen and a couple of simple ish third gen on the right. SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's use it. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It has too many brand logos. The image does not differentiate which devices are which generations. The image would be better to have space between the different generations. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This looks like advertising not information. If the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this image doesn't break that out. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I re-uploaded a version without logos. The intent of the image was to show a variety of the more common forms of the devices. so that a reader not familiar with them can visualise the types of device being discussed in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Without the logos is better! However it's still the case: if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models. If the intent is to show generations, this new image doesn't break that out either. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no intent to show generational information in this image. but I'm not sure I can parse your if the intent is to show just wide variation, don't need all the models could you elaborateSPACKlick (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure; if the intent is merely to show variation, then a display of 14 models, most of which vary little from their neighbors, does not add value. The picture seems like a parade verging on advertising. Cloudjpk (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's the best we have at the moment in terms of showing variation even if there's a few more in there than is neccesary to show that variation. I don't see how it can be considered advertising anymore than any other picture that we have of a vaporizer can be considered advertising. In fact since there are likely multiple different brands I'd say its less of an advert than a picture of a single vapourizer.Levelledout (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is cluttered and looks like a display from a vaping shop. QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well with respect so what? We don't have a team of paid professional photographers and a wide collection of equipment for them to capture. We have to rely on freely licensed images, often ones that are already available and these are somewhat limited in number and range. So we can't exactly retake the photograph or easily obtain another one that isn't so "cluttered" or doesn't look so neat and tidy which in my opinion, is a poor complaint anyway. This is the best we have so unless anyone else can come up with something better we should use it on that basis.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Disagree on both points. The individual items are spaced out and presented with neutral space around them. This also looks nothing like the display in any vaping shop I have seen or frequented. What it looks like is a range of different types and sizes of e-cigarette. If I had access to the productes I would probably reproduce it with fewer cig-a-likes but I don't. This is the best image I can find to show the variety of appearances of e-cigarettes which is worth doing. Currently we show very few visual appearances in the article. If I could find one with a box such as the VTR or MVP or maybe a REO that would also work but I am not aware of one such image with the right copyrights and form. this one, for example is too cluttered. If we have a user who has a couple of cig-a-likes a couplr of ego's some 3rd gen tubes, some 3rd gen boxes, some dripfeds and some mods then we could create an image but I don't have that kind of range of supplies. SPACKlick (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. Let's use it. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If the purpose of the article is to show shiny objects, or advertise product, the image is fine and we should use it. If the purpose is to convey information, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There are better images available. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes if it was split into first and second generation it would be a good image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree fully with the need to seperate first and second generation in the initial image to give a visual impression of the subject of the article and I also fully disagree it's advertising to show a variety of generic styles in the illustration to show what the article is about. The image conveys the visual range of a large number of devices. If someone has access to the variety of devices needed to make such an image comprehensive, fantastic but until then it would be good to illustrate the article showing the variety of ways an e-cigarette can look. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is good if the purpose is to illustrate shiny objects (it looks like advertisement). The image is a bad option if the purpose is to illustrate organized concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
One of each in the lead is probably best. Too many makes the image cluttered Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, if we could get the relevant 6 or so devices together we'd have a better illustration however said image doesn't exist yet or at least nobody here seems to be aware of it. So do you prefer the two images of two specific devices we currently have or something else that exists? SPACKlick (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
QG, rather than parroting CloudJPK, could you explain what you feel about the image makes it look like advertising as opposed to illustration? I'm really not seeing it.SPACKlick (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Toxicants and heavy metals

How do "toxicants and heavy metals" magically appear in vapor that were not in the e-liquid to start with? Gigs (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"If propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it may produce propylene oxide, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states is probably carcinogenic to humans."
"When heated at hotter temperatures glycerol may generate harmful acrolein."
"Some artificial flavors have been demonstrated as being cytotoxic."
"Many toxic chemical compounds have been produced from e-cigarettes, especially carbonyl compounds like formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and glyoxal, which are frequently identified in e-cigarette aerosols. The propylene glycol-containing liquids produced the most amounts of carbonyls in e-cigarette aerosols."
"Dripping", where the liquid is dripped directly onto the atomizer, can create carbonyl compounds including formaldehyde."
"The device itself could contribute to the toxicity from the tiny amounts of silicate and heavy metals found in the liquid and vapor."
The liquid can contain small amounts contaminants. The liquid contains chemicals that when heated creates more chemicals. Is there anything you want clarified in this article? QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It might be good to summarize these things somehow so that the article doesn't sound like they come from nowhere. Gigs (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Gigs, I summarised some of the information for now. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How do "toxicants and heavy metals" appear in vapor? I think it would improve the article to clarify this. Based on the above conversation there is an issue with the lede. Rather than delete it could of been moved to another paragraph IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The full sentence is "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals." In other words we are saying that the e-liquid contains PG, VG, flavourings and nicotine whilst the vapour contains these substances and toxicants and heavy metals. That is where I believe Gigs's confusion arose from. But if it is not true, if the e-liquid contains toxicants as well then we should adjust this text instead of adding further confusion to other parts of the article that have nothing to do with safety. However it isn't quite as simple as that, e-liquid may contain very low levels of toxicants depending on what flavour is used and that partly explains how the vapour acquires toxicants. But some of the other toxicants end up in the vapour through chemical breakdowns and also in the case of heavy metals, from the atomizer supposedly. It may be too complex to explain all of this in the lead, we could just say something like, "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants. Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ".Levelledout (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
"Due to phenomena such as chemical breakdown the composition of e-liquid and vapour tends to differ". I can't verify this claim either.
You deleted the sentence that did explain the e-liquid contains "some" toxic ingredients. There is no information in the lede that explains this. The sentence you cited says the e-liquid contains PG, VG and so on but it does not explain anything about the toxicity for the liquid or how the metals got in the vapor. You suggests that we could adjust the existing sentence but the existing sentence does not verify the proposed text you suggests to adjust or anything else useful for specific information about the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is. Well if you are going to take that confrontational attitude then I suggest we leave the text as, don't add anything back in, as its probably less confusing to do so.Levelledout (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Your proposal to not clarify the issue with the wording in the lede will not make it less confusing. We can leave the current sentences as is and still clarify the wording about the toxicants and heavy metals. If we don't add anything to the first paragraph then a better placement is the 3rd paragraph. The reader still does not understand how the toxicants and heavy metals got in the vapor. It will remain unclear unless this is explained somewhere in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you that my elaborately explained proposal will not help to clarify the matter, you have correctly identified from my proposal that we need to insert something in the 3rd paragraph and not into a random position. But I do not support the insertion of random material whose content factually conflicts with the sentence that we already have. That would most definitely add to the confusion. That's my position, as I said.Levelledout (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You have not proposed any text to a specific source as far as I can tell. It will not help to clarify the matter without sources. The text in quotes is all sourced. I agree with Gigs that we could summarise these things. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The onus is on you as the one seeking to add text to justify and gain consensus for your proposal. You have failed to convince me that adding text from a low impact journal that factually conflicts with another sentence in the lead and only tells half the story will improve the situation. Perhaps other editors will disagree.Levelledout (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
What sentence contradicts another sentence in the lead. Not sure what you are referring to. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru: "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." I can't verify this claim.
    How about the source you recently used? Did you read section "Toxicity of Fluid Additives"?--TMCk (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not verify the exact claim with that source and it does not clarify the wording in the lede.
    • The lede says "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."
    • Including "Both e-liquid and vapour contain very low levels of toxicants." is repeating what is stated about the vapour in the lede. We can focus on adding specific information about the liquid and how the toxicants and heavy metals got into the liquid and vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to revive what turned into a somewhat heated discussion, but I think the origin of the claimed toxicants is important, and stripping the claim down for the lede turns it into something that leaves out necessary detail. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The origin is important but the origin is a combination of multiple factors. To avoid the lead ending up too long we are required to summarise only the most important points for the lead and put the full details in the body.Levelledout (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is a combination of factors and that can easily be explained in the lede. The critical points for the lede is to explain how the toxicants and metals got in the vapour. The lede (and the body) does not tell the reader theses things. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gigs, I clarified the important points in the article. Thank you for starting this discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We have an ongoing discussion about this here. The edit seemed to disregard this discussion which showed no consensus for part of what was added, created the situation of contradictory statements in the lead and was far too much detail for the lead. I have therefore removed it. I suggest QG, that we try and actually reach an agreement on what should be in the article through this discussion.Levelledout (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way the contradictory statement is that on the one hand we say that the e-liquid contains toxicants and on the other we imply that it doesn't: "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals."Levelledout (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Those are not contradictory statements. The e-liquid does contain "some" toxicants and toxicants are also found in the vapour. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well you got the first bit wrong and the second bit right. We should not say that "The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals." It is incorrect to imply that the difference between the vapour and the e-liquid is that only the vapour contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. That is what is being implied, that is not correct. I can't make it much clearer than that.Levelledout (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The vapour does contain similar chemicals to the e-liquid and there is some toxicants in the e-liquid before it is heated. It is no surprise that the vapour will contain similar chemicals to the e-liquid because the vapour was made from the e-liquid. When it is heated into vapour it contains trace amounts of toxicants and heavy metals. You deleted the part that does explain the e-liquid has some toxicants. You also deleted how the metals got into the liquid and how other toxicants are formed from heating the liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes well as TMCk likes to say, this is turning into yet another banana discussion. The fact is that those statements are contradictory and misleading to a reasonable person, one can ignore that fact but it happens to be the truth. Yes I did remove some information QG, you see the way that we work on Misplaced Pages is through WP:CONSENSUS. That means that when there is an ongoing discussion, we propose and try and reach an agreement. We don't try and force our own preferred version through after it has been rejected for legitimate reasons. Saying "you deleted this" and "you deleted that" doesn't tend to help move the conversation forwards towards a productive agreement either.Levelledout (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any contradictory statements and the text is well sourced. I see you deleted text from the lede that clearly explained how the toxicants and heavy metals got in the vapour. I thought you previously said that we need to insert something in the 3rd paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to think that verifiability guarentees inclusion, it doesn't and WP:V makes this perfectly clear. Neither does verifiability overide consensus. You need consensus and you don't have it.Levelledout (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You have not directly responded to my comment above and you have not given a good reason to avoid explaining anything about how the toxicants and heavy metals got into the aerosol. It appeared you initially wanted the clarification in the 3rd paragraph, yet you deleted all of the information from the 3rd paragraph rather than edit the text. We should at least mention something in the lede rather than wholesale delete all of the information. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And you have completely and utterly ignored my comment. Once again QG the onus is on you, not on me to justify and gain consensus for your edits. You don't seem to like that but its not my problem.Levelledout (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You did originally agree to include some information the 3rd paragraph. Am I correct? I hope you will attempt to improve the lede or compromise rather than wholesale delete all the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the brief explanation

The e-liquid in e-cigarettes has a low level of toxicity. Metal parts in e-cigarettes can contaminate the e-liquid with metals. Chemicals including carbonyl compounds can be produced when the heated nichrome wire chemically reacts with the liquid.

  1. Cite error: The named reference Bertholon2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Cite error: The named reference FarsalinosPolosa2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. Cite error: The named reference Bekki2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

How did the toxicants and heavy metals get in the vapour? The lede is currently a mystery and does not answer this question? The three short sentences above can improve the lede. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

List of chemicals in the aerosol of electronic cigarettes

Another bold coat rack is on its way.--TMCk (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit-war without arguments...

Why is there a slow edit-war going on over a picture on the article? I thought that generally when a revert happens, then it is required that the contributor starts a discussion on why they feel that their particular change has merit. That is what WP:BRD is about, and what WP:STATUSQUO tells us.

In this particular case - i personally can't see the value, but i'm willing to listen to arguments for the picture. The reason that i can't see the value, is that it is basically just a picture of a building without any outwards characteristics that is different from any other buildings. And i rather dislike that we can see the "brand name" of the store.

So please discuss. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

An image of a vape shop adds tremendous value. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Which value? I could have bought your argument if there had been characteristics in the picture of a building that were different from any other business building. But if you want a picture of a vapeshop - then find one that shows a vapeshop from the inside or at the very least has some qualities that make it stand out as being a vapeshop. --Kim D. Petersen 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Or is your point with the picture that vapeshops look exactly like any other type of shop from the outside? Because that is the only "take away" message i get from it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The name of the shop on the building shows it is clearly a vape shop. That what makes it special. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
So it is the logo/"brand" sign of the shop that is the interesting part? Isn't that against our policies or at least our guidelines (WP:NOTADVERTISING)? --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The name clarifies it is a unique shop. It is very interesting to see an actual vape shop. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Once more. Are you are stating that the logo/"brand" here is the reason that you picked this picture? And not any other characteristics? If that is the case, then it is advertising - even if you do not (which i do not suspect you to) have that intension. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It has all the characteristics of a vape shop. A building with a vape shop inside. It is a high-quality image. This is very clear. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Please answer the question i stated above. And "high-quality image" is not an argument in itself. A building with a "vape shop" inside, is not an argument either. The overwhelming thing here is that there is nothing outside of the logo/"brand" that is special about the image. Thus it becomes, albeit inadvertently, advertising... and WP:NOTADVERTISING is rather clear there: We shouldn't have such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a simple picture of a vape shop. The image represents what a typical vape shop looks like. The non-controversial thing here is that this is what a vape shop is. It is in a building like other businesses. The name on the shop is a generic name. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
If the only typical characteristic of what a vape shop looks like is their sign/logo/"brand" on a building, then it doesn't have encyclopedic value. The only value then is to present the sign/logo/"brand". --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It adds value because now the reader knows what a vape shop looks like. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Unless our readers are dim-witted, they already know that shops are located in buildings. This image brings no encyclopedic value. The only thing that differentiates it from any other picture of a business is the sign/logo/"brand" - thus once more: It is advertising. --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
A vape shop from the outside is not a fancy customized building like a movie theater. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Bingo! That is why it is only the sign/logo/"brand" that differentiates this from any other shop - and therefore an outside picture is nothing more than inadvertent marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"dim-witted" is what I thought when I (finally after it was introduced) removed the image. W/o caption, one would not even know what it is w/o blowing it up and I'm talking about a 22 inch screen with standard resolution. It's sooo sad that we even have to discuss such clear cut non issue nonsense but meat and false loyalties demand wasting time on such. What a pity mess and shame.--TMCk (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
But then again, brains don't mean shit and we're on the internet...--TMCk (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I am not in any way against a picture of a vape shop - it just has to have some characteristic outside of a logo/"brand" that presents to our readers that it is a vape shop. A picture from the inside of such a shop would be very good, and such a picture can be done without being overly promotional. Google image search on "vape shop" shows lots of that kind of images - we just need one that can be used within our copyright restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It should be easy to find such an image. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
If so, why don't you go for it or did so in the first place instead of picking a ready to use invaluable image?--TMCk (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We can also include an image from inside a vape shop. Both inside and outside is the best approach IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
For the reason specified above: No, it is not. At least not unless you present an outside photo that is not indistinguishable from marketing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I have searched and looked at other images of vape shops. This is what they look like from the outside. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Then the outside of vape-shops is uninteresting, and nothing special => no encyclopedic value. On the other hand: The insides of a vape-shop differs quite alot - so that would be interesting => have encyclopedic value. --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You searched with your darkest sunglasses on, didn't you? Try again and look no further than commons. Note that 8 of them are even in the same city! Still think "that's how they look like"? And to Kim's observation, yes, the inside would be much more informative.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
All of them suffer under being either non-descript, or the sign/logo/brand being the major aspect of the picture. We need something that is A) not confused with advertising/marketing B) sufficiently descriptive of a vape-shop. And as far as i can see, that would only be handled with a picture from the inside, with for instance focus on a vape-bar or the like. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I couldn't find any free and fitting images on a search I just did, I asked a Venezuelan photographer living in Brazil to give us a hand. A picture from a Brazilian store or lounge would also cancel out pretty much any potential advertising claims.--TMCk (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a better image. The large red name is a distraction. My first thought it reminded me of Radio Shack. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not worse either and the result of a misunderstanding of what we're looking for. I clarified at the editor's talk page on commons.--TMCk (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we looking for another image of a vape shop from the outside. Since the new image is somewhat of a distraction we should go back to the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no freakin' "distraction". The image is just as good or bad as the previous one. You really want to argue about that image now? There is no deadline here and "your personally picked image" back in would be nothing else but disruptive.--TMCk (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
A big red sign is a "distraction". QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors restored the image that was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some meat joint the editwar. Are you calling for a continuation now?--TMCk (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Quote: "That is what WP:BRD tells us, and what WP:STATUSQUO informs us. The name Vapor Shack is also a big logo which is also distracting."
Your edits are not the status quo and if you go by BRD, then your edit was challenged in the first place. Banana my friend, banana. But don't worry, I'm sure meat is on it's way to make a silly pity revert.--TMCk (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure your position. Do you prefer the new image or the previous image or you have no preference? QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There might be a copyright issue with the name Vapor Shack. I think it would be best to use the previous image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There can't possibly be a copyright issue over two words used as a trading name. There might conceivably be a trademark issue if the logos are similar, but that's none of Misplaced Pages's concern. Editors should use whichever image they prefer in this case, or consider using no image at all on the grounds that a snapshot of an independent vape shop on a high street somewhere is only very tangentially related to the economics of e-cigarettes.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A trademark issue is a concern. The company could be violating Radio shack's trademark. Misplaced Pages should not be propagating the possible issue. I also think the previous image is better. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • On comparing the logos I see there's no similarity and no cause for concern. Even if there was, Misplaced Pages has no policy or guideline that would require us to protect Radio Shack's trademarks.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted this

The massive argument that aerosol and vapor are different does not need to take place in the led of this article. It is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The nicotyrine hypothesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100465 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25542921 QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So What? SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Image of Cloud chasing

Twice now edits to this image have been undone. The image used IS NOT CLOUD CHASING. The source does not verify that THIS IS AN IMAGE OF CLOUD CHASING. In general cloud chasing is done with a dripper, clear in this image is a tank. Also there is a thing waft of vapour not the jet of thick vapour associated with cloud chasing. The image is not of cloud chasing, the source does not verify the image, please do not return the image without a source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The image is a large plume of vapor (and part of the name of the image has cloud chasing in it). The source is for context for the readers. It is better to discuss other potential images rather than deleting this useful image first IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"A large plume of vapor" != Cloudchasing. Deleting the image is appropriate because it is not an image of cloudchasing. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Your other "potential image" is not cloudchasing either... The wording "useful image" is completely inappropriate in this context, since it is not useful for the purpose. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This potential image is even a larger plume of vapor. This is an image cloud-chasing IMO. QuackGuru (talk)
No, it is not an image of cloudchasing. It is not the size of the plume that defines cloudchasing, but the context within which it is being done. And sitting on a staircase on just vaping with alot of VG is not such a context. It would generally be nice if you took the time to actually inform yourself about the topic, instead of guessing. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Cloud-chasing is also done at an amateur level. Not everyone is a professional. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, did you come up with that yourself? There is just a bit of a problem here, even when it is done on an amateur level, it is still done within a context. Cloudchasing is the contest of creating the biggest clouds possible, bigger than the last you made, not just the act of blowing out big clouds.
Btw. which reliable source are you referring to when making these assertions/claims? --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Vapers preferring this variety, many of whom refer to themselves as “cloud chasers,” sometimes participate in cloud-blowing contests for cash." There are contents but...
"Some cloud chasers flaunt it, showing off their cloud-making ability where anyone and everyone can see." ...some like to flaunt it in public. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cloud chasing is the act of trying to blow large clouds. The clouds in the image presented are not abnormally large, the equipment is not designed for large clouds, cloud chasing is not presented in the image. The second image may be someone cloud chasing but neither you nor i can confirm that. Until you find an image that a reliable source says depicts cloud chasing or is unabiguously cloud chasing policy is to not have unverified and contested claims within an article. I'm re-removing the image. If it is returned there damned well better be a source. Neither of our opinions on this matters Quack, we want an image of cloud chasing, sure, and an unabiguous one at that but I can't find one without copyright concerns. Your POV is showing given you just claimed something "in your opinion" and then wanted to include it in the article. SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Known unknowns

Extended content

There have been no scientific studies of the effects of e-cigarettes on echinoderms. Nothing is known about how they would work in zero gravity. To date, there is no evidence about how e-cigarettes are used by left-handed Icelandic amputees. Honestly, we need to go through removing this stuff. Known unknowns belong in scholarly works aimed at professionals and academics, but they don't belong in encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The long-term effects are also unknown. They certainly tell the reader the known unknowns. This is encyclopaedic to explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I observe that the editing environment here is still very hostile and it's still not possible to make any substantive improvements to this article without being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The improvement was restoring the text sourced to a 2014 review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are aware that both inserting and removing reliably sourced text is part of editing and making a article - aren't you? Reliability is a treshold for usability of information, not a guarantee for its inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Another editor restored the highly valued text. Stating the known unknowns is informative. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Who "highly value" that text? --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
In short, who do these three sentences benefit? What function of wikipedia do they serve? You need to justify their inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's really CFCF who needs to justify their inclusion; he reverted me. QuackGuru's supporting him on the talk page, which is expected behaviour from these two editors, but it's not really for QG to explain himself in this instance.

However, there is no policy or guideline which supports me in removing sourced material from the article. That's down to editorial judgment, and we're expected to achieve a talk page consensus. This is impossible when it comes to electronic cigarettes, so what we're actually dealing with is an insurmountable first-mover advantage: any phrase or sentence that's already in the article, cannot be removed if our MEDRS friends are defending it. Experience tells me they'll never consent to its removal, so either we go to RFC or we don't bother. In this case I would suggest not bothering; the population of this talk page will change as editors move on, lose focus, or get topic banned, so real consensus to fix this kind of thing will be achievable in the long run.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is not constructive and I have hidden and closed it. You can see the archives. there is nothing further to add. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories: