Jump to content

Talk:Electronic cigarette: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 171: Line 171:


*I'm afraid our article has to be based on the sources, and what the decent sources do is compare and contrast vaping with smoking. I don't think it would even be ''possible'' to write an article that says what e-cigs are, what they're for and who uses them, without referring to cigarettes, tobacco and smoking. They're devices for delivering a nicotine hit used by tobacco smokers, ex-smokers, and a minuscule, negligible number of people who've never smoked.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
*I'm afraid our article has to be based on the sources, and what the decent sources do is compare and contrast vaping with smoking. I don't think it would even be ''possible'' to write an article that says what e-cigs are, what they're for and who uses them, without referring to cigarettes, tobacco and smoking. They're devices for delivering a nicotine hit used by tobacco smokers, ex-smokers, and a minuscule, negligible number of people who've never smoked.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

::And you've failed to address all the substantive points I made, and given a very convoluted explanation for why the article cannot change. It simply MUST be this way. First, let's take 2 giant steps backwards and understand that whatever your merit your points may have, they are based on the fundamental flaw of failing to structure the article accurately, that vaping devices are the general class and "ecigarettes" are a subsection within that class. Now all the limitations you claim exist in your source material evaporate and all that's left to do is construct an honest and informative article about the devices and the activity of using them, instead of the cobbled-together "Frankenarticle" of junk science and FUD. And now we're not encumbered with this ridiculous notion that every single sentence in the article must have a verbatim source, and all the other myriad tactics and strategies that have been employed over the course of this articles "creation" to prevent it from being an accurate and unbiased and encyclopedic article about vaping devices and vaping, instead of a pretext to publish inadequate, biased, and (at least in one particular JAMA article) scientifically dishonest studies. Hundreds of Welsh school children all agree, this article increases the likelihood that they will use cigarettes.[[User:Jonny Quick|Jonny Quick]] ([[User talk:Jonny Quick|talk]]) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


== WHO statement ==
== WHO statement ==

Revision as of 05:44, 27 August 2015

Template:Ecig sanctions

Dated incorrect information

"While tobacco smoke contains 40 known carcinogens,[16] none of these has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes.[16]" See Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. This is false information. For example, "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" See the Electronic cigarette aerosol page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and it red-flagged a bit for me, because it doesn't give some sense of scale. The mere presence of one or all of these carcinogens in nicotine "juice" doesn't necessarily mean that it's noteworthy, but the untempered statement that they are there could be inflammatory. Carcinogens are everywhere, and in everything. The most relevant point is whether or not the levels are high enough to warrant concern. Failing to note their presence could be perceived as bias, but simply saying that they are there is also biased, so some tempering language should be included, i.e. what percentage is present and how close are those levels to (for example) cigarettes. What if nicotine juice as 0.000001% of the toxicity of cigarettes? Then just saying that the toxins are there is misleading. I have no better suggestion now, but that's the direction I'd like to go on this point.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "Depending on the heating temperature, the compounds may surpass the levels of cigarette smoke.[12]" does not necessarily mean that the quantities are more than trace in either. One day someone will analyse and rate the carcinogenic potential of the estimated 15,000 compounds in a cup of coffee. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm wondering how false and misleading that statement is "depending on heating temperature". Sure, if you heat the nicotine juice so that the Propylene_glycol BURNS (like sugar burns carbon-black) then sure it might cause cancer. Burning sugars cause cancer. But who is going to want to inhale nicotine juice superheated to the point that the sugars burn? Doubt Vaping heating technology has advanced to the point that it could even do that, but maybe. In any case, I think the citation needs to get dug into in order to determine if that statement is a legitimate one, or if the citation is some kind of illegitimate shill (or whatever the technical wikipedia word would be). I don't know wikipedia that much, but I've been on the internet long enough to know that internet marketers are capable of anything, to include making up fake and scary-sounding "studies" to scare people away from (vaping) and towards (tobacco).Jonny Quick (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is was I meant. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I've read the JAMA article and it seems JAMA is saying that the nicotine juice COULD be "overheated" to the point that the liquid becomes toxic, but gives no sense of whether or not that is something that anyone would want. I think I remember something a few years back that burned sugars are carcinogenic, and it's possible that is what JAMA is describing, but the question is whether or not it actually happens. Currently researching that. At this point I regard the JAMA article's assertion as a theoretical possibility but has not proven to be a realistic concern. I would think that overheating the e-liquid would cause the flavor of the vapor to be destroyed, and defeat the entire purpose for the activity, and for no possible benefit that I can see at this point. So while the JAMA article may be technically accurate, I wonder how applicable/realistic it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information about the flavor to make it more clear. Most people don't know the e-liquid varies in cytotoxicity. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research on the "JAMA" article, read the article, understood the article, then went around asking some well-informed Vapers what it meant. That article, in particular, is HATED, and I mean HATED by these people, and with good reason. Consensus is what JAMA did was disassemble and modify an e-cigarette so that the heating element superheated the juice (water, propylene glycol, nicotine, flavors, etc...) to the point that it actually was BURNED and not "vaporized". Burned e-juice is well-known in the culture as a "dry hit" and preventing a dry hit is one of the 1st things a new Vaper learns to do. Burned e-juice tastes terrible. There is at least one other way in which a Vape Device can deliver a burned, terrible-tasting gas to inhale, one of which involves actually burning something inside the device known as the "wick". The heating element can also burn. None of these "malfunction" type of situations are normal, or desired, by anyone. This isn't a situation where a dopey teenager uses an aerosol in a manner in which it was not produced for (breathing it, instead of spray-painting grafitti). NO ONE, does this, EVER. Defeats the whole purpose of having flavored juice, and I'd also wonder if the chemical of the nicotine (and it's desired effect) isn't destroyed when the device delivers a "dry hit". So what does this mean about JAMA? It means that either JAMA lied and was patently, openly and boldly dishonest in their "research" by trying to claim that Vaping Devices were capable of delivering carcinogens during normal use, or someone else is trying to use their research to make the false, fabricated, patently dishonest claim that there is some public health concern here to even discuss. It's the intellectual and moral equivalent of rerouting the exhaust of a car directly into the passenger area of the car and then disingenuously standing back, pretending to be stupid and making the claim that operating a car will cause carbon monoxide poisoning, and then expect the entire world to prove you are wrong, lying, or both. SOMEONE is both wrong and lying, the only question is who.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which "JAMA" article you are referring to. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PP 76-77 of the new Public Health England report discuss just this point, and study. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced text deleted from lede

The text summarized the body. See "Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking".[1] There was a previous talk page consensus. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24#Smokeless tobacco. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public Health England - evidence review Aug 2015

E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products". Press release, with links to the review [2] Little pob (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is really interesting, and it's important to give it due weight and balance it properly with the negative reports by for example the WHO. I suggest we propose changes here to avoid an edit war – the findings have already garnered some criticism. We should remember that Wikipedia is not news so lets take it slow.
This was released immediately upon the UK-report. I'm unsure it qualifies a reliable source, but it can give some insight. Stanford – Scientists say e-cigarettes could have health impacts in developing world
Note: The UK report is under the OGL licence – similar to CC-BY, but I think not compatible. I'll look into it. It can be use, see {{OGL-attribution}} -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products"" is not news either - the new report merely endorses the conclusions of: Nutt, D.J., et al., "Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach.", European addiction research, 2014. 20(5): p. 218a 2012 - see page 76 of the report. I haven't noticed that our articles mention that - how strange! Of course they are so indigestible to read that I may have missed it. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We currently state "In 2015 Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than smoking.[95]" here [3]
While this [4] is a primary source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As of a couple of hours ago, yes - that should be qualified a bit. They say "best estimates show" this (p. 5). Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru has now reverted this - I didn't like the exact wording but I don't agree at all that this should not be mentioned here - if so the WHO report and half the other statements should come out too. However I agree with User:S Marshall below that the article should probably remain stable during the Arbcom case, and while the dust settles on the report. After the Arbcom case we should try to begin a comprehensive clean-up of the article, which I think everybody except Quackguru agrees is a mess. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to radical changes to the article until the Arbcom case is concluded. At that point and once we have some behavioural guidelines from Arbcom that will make this article easier to improve, I intend to begin a Medcom case where we'll discuss deleting all of the factlets, most of the statistics, and all of the known unknowns from this article. Then I'll AfD all of the forks one by one with the objective of achieving one, single, comprehensible article on the subject. I'd suggest that we consider the new source during the Medcom case and not now.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I half agree with this - I think it should first be incorporated (along with some other recent stuff) in Safety of electronic cigarettes and Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes before here. That we can start now. I don't think "the forks" should go. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the facts? Ah no that does not sound like a good idea. I personally come to an encyclopedia looking for facts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presume he means the strings of repetitions or virtual repetitions, rather randomly sourced and of various dates, that characterize this article. Anyone coming to this article for "the facts" is likely to emerge baffled on many key points. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. Replacing hard numbers with subjective terminology like "lots" is not something I support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically mean the factlets: small pieces of trivial information which are perfectly true, and well-sourced, and useless to the general reader. At the moment, the only editing technique that has been used on this article has been:- (1) find a source; (2) find a factlet or statistic from the source; (3) cite it carefully and precisely and add it to the article; and (4) group the factlets by topic. It's not currently permitted to remove any sourced text from this article at all, which is why the key points are going to be so hard for readers to extract from the article.

We'll make relatively little progress on this point until we can reach agreement about who the target audience is. Right now, the article is only accessible to people who're comfortable with statistics, polysyllabic words and writing that's densely populated with data; people who can read large amounts of data-rich, noun-heavy text and extract the key points with little effort; in fact, people with university degrees who make decisions for a living. Once the article ownership issues are in remission, the correct behavioural constraints are in place and the time has come to discuss this article's content, I will argue that this article is written for the wrong audience.

I also have specific concerns about the practice of grouping statistics from different studies together into the same paragraph. We should only be inviting readers to compare statistics from different studies if we're sure the studies used similar methods.—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian story. There is an arbcom case about this article now?!? EllenCT (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single report. It is not a review. The evidence presented in reviews has not change yet, anyhow. It belongs at Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. See Talk:Positions_of_medical_organizations_regarding_electronic_cigarettes#Public_Health_England_Report_August_2015 for the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, QuakGuru - But: Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom and NOT a medical organization! Furthermore IT IS an expert independent evidence review.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SUMMARY. Do they cite a (PMID 24714502) primary source or a review? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the review at all? 185 sources where cited!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular page you want summarised? QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a quote from the introduction of the report stating they are "95% less harmful", not more safe – (how do you measure safety?). I know this soundbite was picked up by a number of news agencies, but I'd like to go through the report before taking it as the only conclusion from the report. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

95% less harmful for those who actually quit cigarettes; the report notes most don't: "Given that around two-thirds of EC users also smoke". Cloudjpk (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report begins with two sections of summaries at different levels of their conclusions. At 111 pages it is I think far longer and in-depth than any other recent review, and very comprehensive on the key issues. It should be mentioned at several places, as its predecessor is, and the WHO 2014 report is. Several assertions currently in the article are contradicted by it, and as the latest and most detailed source it should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"One review found, from limited data, their safety risk is similar to that of smokeless tobacco, which has about 1% of the mortality risk of traditional cigarettes.[17]" I did summarize very similar information using a review earlier this year. See Electronic cigarette#Safety. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Caponnetto2013_17-2
Let me know what you would like summarised for a specific section. I need to know the page number.
For now I added this to "Frequency". QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the gatekeeper for this article. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added it the other page.
I previously explained the text is redundant for the safety section.
Does anyone have any suggestions for this page? QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The text about the estimated 95% is currently in two other pages. See Positions_of_medical_organizations_regarding_electronic_cigarettes#United_Kingdom. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Health_benefits_and_concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general idea of the recent article deserves general treatment in the Lede. The Lede is already horrible and biased and it is wrong to delay the inclusion of contradictory information simply because it's new, after arguing for months and years that the cherry-picked, superficial and inconclusive studies that meant very little to the average reader, nor did they address their most substantive concern which is whether or not vaping was or was not safer than smoking and now we know it the answer is a simple and definitive "Yes". People do not browse Wikipedia to see the bureaucratic output from overcautious editors that go from freely and broadly over-interpreting the early FUD of negative reviews with abandon, who then suddenly become paragons of caution and discretion and want to limit Reader's awareness of balancing information that substantially indicates what we've known all along, despite propagandic attempts at feigned hand-wringing. The Lede is horrific and has been for a long time, and it hasn't bothered anyone enough to actually do anything about it besides find reasons why nothing should be done. Now the same failed methods are being proposed in advance of any interest in fixing this misbegotten article, and I have to wonder if there's more going on here than some odd sense of paternalistic responsibility. Cigarettes kill people every single day, and every day this article fails to provide necessary information about a safer alternative, it contributes to those deaths. The hand-wringers here should be thinking about how many people might be dead or dying as a result of being unable to find a safer alternative than smoking.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added it the proper section and the other related page. It was originally added to the safety section but it was not a WP:SUMMARY.[5] For the lede we are going by the overall evidence in accordance with MEDRS and reviews. When the evidence according to MEDRS changes in reviews we can update the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for the article yet

By a JAMA peice that backs up that e-cig use may lead to increased rates of traditional cig use.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in this new CRUK comment piece by a leading UK expert. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The accompanying editorial makes a clearly point: "Because the only outcome measure was any use of a tobacco product during the past 6 months, the analysis could not distinguish students who had just tried a few cigarettes from those who progressed to regular smoking during follow-up. The latter is the greater concern, and the current study cannot determine whether e-cigarette exposure was associated with that outcome."--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree which is why I say the piece is not ready for the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2012 review found electronic systems deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period."

This point hasn't I think featured much in the many more recent reviews. As the PHE report points out, later generation e-cigs can deliver nicotine more effectively, and in any case vapers not getting enough nicotine can just puff more. They discuss the matter in their Appendix C (p. 109 on) and at pp. 70-75 in the main report, analysing recent research. Unless anyone can point to 2014-15 reviews that take this "question" seriously, I think the sentence should be dropped. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. Removed. Needs updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formaldehyde

From para 2: "but high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, which was determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than long-term smoking.[9]". This, and the follow-up studies which only replicated this under "dry-burn" conditions, are covered at pp. 76-78 of the PHE report. They conclude (p. 78) "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." They are especially critical of the publicity given to this & another study, saying on p. 80: "Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that EC use is dangerous. These were based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users, but there is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes; stressed mice poisoned with very high levels of nicotine twice daily for two weeks were more likely to lose weight and die when exposed to bacteria and viruses, but this has no relevance for human EC users. The ongoing negative media campaigns are a plausible explanation for the change in the perception of EC safety (see Chapter 8)." - also in their "key findings and summaries". I don't think we should include this in the lead at all, and probably not in sections below in this article either, or if so with the follow-up studies included. It is discussed at more length in Electronic cigarette aerosol, and the "safety of" article also needs adjustment. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text is cited to a review. The review cited a study. See here for the study they cited. If the voltage is at 5 then it could create formaldehyde at high levels. See Electronic cigarette aerosol: "One study using a "puffing machine" showed that a third generation e-cigarette turned on to the maximum setting could create levels of formaldehyde between five and 15 times greater than in cigarette smoke.[18]" See Electronic_cigarette_aerosol#cite_ref-McNeill201577_18-0. I made this change to balance the lede. I wrote the text according to each review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But only under artificial/abnormal conditions, as the follow-up studies demonstrated. I'm going to have to take a break on this. Per WP:MEDASSESS this is a high quality source, over which standard reviews should not be privileged. One of the follow-up studies was only published in May 2015. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a study (PMID 25996087). I used two reviews. The review cited another source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that (Jensen, NEJM) is the same source that the follow-up study linked above, & page 77 of the PHE report, discuss. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking[10] when above a standard setting,[19] reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate very low levels of formaldehyde.[20]
I adjusted the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wording isn't the problem. It's just wrong. For a start voltage has nothing to do with it; it's power that matters. For another, as PHE said, it's not relevant to the real world.JoLincoln (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The review has a different view. I tried to carefully word it. There are vapers who turn the device to a higher setting to provide more vapor for better "throat hits". Extra voltage allows the ability to increase the power. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should probably temper the phrasing of this as further studies have found and the PHE article has recognised that while you can use an e-cig to generate high levels of aldehydes it is not found in real world settings. When the wattage is increased (usually by increasing the voltage in more common devices although it can be achieved by lowering the ohms of the coil in rebuildables) the vapour becomes intolerably unpalatable before reaching the high levels of formaldehyde given world wide exposure in the two studies. I am attempting a reword. SPACKlick (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review had a different conclusion but the wording in the lede states "when above a standard setting,[20]". We usually include both views when there is a disagreement. I did not want the wording in the lede to be too long. So I kept it short. I think the wording is fine until more sources in the future clarify this matter. It can be reworded if it is not clear enough. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seeks WP:V

Resolved

If the text is unsourced please add a citation needed tag or verify the claim with a citation. Unsourced text is forbidden. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found a source for this fundamental fact without any difficulty, as I said would be the case. Thanks. Personally I prefer that the text is correct rather than wrong but referenced, though I can see there are other views. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer no unsourced text even if true. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring every single statement in the article be sourced is the primary reason why it is completely unreadable. It's a Frankenarticle.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If one does not source every single statement someone will come along and tag it with [citation needed] in no time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod I agree with you when it comes to less controversial articles, but as any statement here is likely to be challenged we need to properly source all statements.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left an edit summary explaining the issue, & QG then challenged it and fixed it. It was not in fact a statement anyone else was ever likely to challenge. On inspecting a number of statements with accessible sources here, too many have turned out not to accurately reflect their source. Many many more have inaccessible sources, which is concerning. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod If you or anyone needs help accessing any sources just mail me, I have pretty much everything. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this edit is that there is a reference at the end of the sentence that did not verify the claim. In the future I hope a tag is added to the sentence if the meaning is changed or ask on the talk page for a source. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted OR

See diff. Do both sources verify the word "some"? QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources are the "some" - and one could could quickly compile a longer list, probably just from the repetitive titbits that litter the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putting two refs together is obviously OR. The type of OR is WP:SYN. Each individual source must very the claim "For some" otherwise it should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is about the first of these where I agree with Quack. Do we have any source claiming certainty on this? The "some" is clearly OR and I have removed pending source. SPACKlick (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a group of different reviews drawing somewhat different conclusions from the same limited body of evidence you can either follow the QG method of scattering contradictory bullet points over the article at different places with no attempt to give context, or attempt to describe the situation as it is. If several studies say the same thing, it is not OR or WP:SYN to group them as such. SYN deals with the situation where people "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is not what I did. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle but your use of "some" here doesn't group them. It takes a statement of overall position "The benefit is uncertain" and caveats it to a limited group "For some, the benefits are uncertain". This would imply either there is some second group that has certainty or some other group about which we can be certain. Either way it's at odds with the conclusion of the RS's that there is great uncertainty over the long term benefits on smoking cessation. SPACKlick (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to rephrasing but there is a clear division in the conclusions on whether EC are useful in smoking cessation drawn by RS sources in the last two years, and just stating the different conclusions at different places merely baffles the reader. The other group include Cochrane & PHE who conclude ECs can be useful. The two text versions are:

a) mine: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][79] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from the two randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had been published at that point,[13] but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary. For some, the benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain,[15][41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[8]..."

b) QG's: "As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[42][78] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from two randomized controlled trials (RCT).[13] The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22] A third RCT published in 2015 was interpreted as strengthening the evidence for their efficacy in smoking cessation, as was a UK cross-sectional population survey.[7]..."

QG's text implies that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven," - where do they say that? That does represent WP:SYN (as regards "unproven" - "uncertainty" naturally goes with the territory). Johnbod (talk)

The current text does not suggest that Cochrane also thinks that "The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,...". That is a totally different sentence using different citations. The previous text was too wordy. For example, the part "but the conclusions drawn from these trials vary." is unnecessary and does not tell the reader much. This article is written for the general reader.
"These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking."[7]
"Because electronic cigarettes are unproven as cessation aids, are unregulated,..."[8]
"The benefit of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking is uncertain[15] and unproven,[41] and they have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.[22]" The current sentence is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to Restructure Entire Article Titled "Personal Vaporizers" (or similar)

After a couple of weeks research, I am of the opinion that using the term "ecigarette" as a comprehensive word to describe the entire class of personal vaporizers is one of the fundamental problems of the article. The broad category class "umbrella" term should be something like "Personal Vaporizer" or "Personal Vaping Device" or similar, with old-school, 1st generation e-cigarettes, cigalikes, etc... as separate sections within the article. Many of the research studies being quoted in the article were done on e-cigarettes and not the newer personal vaping devices and so that research does not, and/or may not apply to the entire class of devices. People searching for "e-cigarettes" specifically could be redirected to the more general article on the entire class of devices.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research literature does not make this distinction, as such neither do we. You'd have to make a strong case with sourced to back you up. As for name choice see WP:COMMONNAME. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just have a feeling that's simply not true, and I also wonder about how you come to represent "we"? You are throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the path of improving the article when common sense is clear. You seem to be avoiding the assertion that "personal vaping devices" is an umbrella term that includes "ecigarettes". Do you deny this? Are you trying to claim that some vaping devices are ecigarettes, but not all ecigarettes are vaping devices? If so, please give a single example of an ecigarette that is not a vaping device, as I can certainly show hundreds of examples of vaping devices that are not ecigarettes. Also, how come you to know the sum total of all the "research" literature, and are able to speak with some authority? You sound certain that there isn't a single reliable source that places the correct relationship between ecigarettes and vaping devices, and I get the impression you don't want to, and for reasons I can only imagine. Finally I don't agree with, and disagree with, and don't care about whatever added, extra obstruction you seem to think is required here. I think a consensus on the truth of it, with some reasonable research to verify it should be enough. I also think you are trying to use wikipedia policies, etc... to try to prevent improving this article from it's current, laughable and unreadable state. Or do you disagree and believe that the article is fundamentally "good", because if so then perhaps wikipedia policies need to change. My instinct here is that it is your role on this article is to find "Wikipedia" sounding reasons to oppose change and improvement to this article, simply for opposing change. Somewhere there's a thing about "building an encyclopedia". Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or parrot wikipedia policies in order to prevent an inaccurate and useless article from being improved?Jonny Quick (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic cigarettes is the most common term used in teh literature. We should likely stick with this term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in the media too. That some 'vaping devices ... are not ecigarettes' is not the general usage afaik. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly my experience that both in the academic sphere and the end user sphere variations on E-cig/electronic cigarette is the more common label and that PV/vape are more hobbyist terms. SPACKlick (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous common name is "electronic cigarette". QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again back to the point of the question. I say "All ecigarettes are vaping devices, but not all vaping devices are ecigarettes." That statement right there, true of false, will illustrate the direction this article needs to go. It's either "A" or "B". Please pick one and make your explanation as to why you picked one or the other, and not mention less important points, such as the wrong word may happen to be more popular (with media outlets that do not know the difference between the two). Those media outlets come HERE for clarity, and not the other way around.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to put this mildly – it does not matter what you "say". Get some reliable sources according to WP:RS & WP:MEDRS and stop wasting time on anecdotes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to redefine the subject. First I do not "say" (your word) "2 + 2 = 4", 2 + 2 really does equal 4, and I don't care, and no one cares, whether or not every single "reliable source" on the entire internet says otherwise. 2 + 2 does not, and will never, equal 5. Do not use the absence of any reliable sources or published material or whatever irrelevent terminology you are using to prevent basic common sense from guiding this article. Do not try to change the subject from what is to what someone "says" and also stop avoiding answering the basic and fundamental question that should determine the structure and foreseeable future of this article. Are all ecigarettes vaping devices and some vaping devices not cigarettes? Yes or no. Answer this fundamental and direction-defining question. Stop using inapplicable and irrelevant "official" Wikipedia policies to prevent this article from undergoing necessary change. Stop pretending to be interested in improving this article while the actual results of your efforts are to maintain the terribly flawed, inaccurate and biased nature of this article, for reasons that cannot be expressed here, but are perfectly obvious to anyone that happens to read these words. Stop changing the subject to something else. Please answer the question: Are more general terms like "vaping devices" an umbrella term for the entire class, within which other terms like "ecigarettes" should fall, or not. And if not please give useful answers and explanations for why you think the way you do. Also explain how then you propose to deal with the term "Vaping Devices" and similar. Do you propose a completely separate article? If so, how will you (in the exact same absence of any "published material" going to differentiate between "vaping devices" and "ecigarettes". By what standard would you use? This article doesn't even define the ecigarette in a manner that contrasts it with a "vaping device". Perhaps some of the obstructionists would like to include a separate section in the "ecigarette" article titled "vaping devices" so that the encyclopedia gives the false impression to the readers that vaping devices are a subsection of the larger class of "ecigarettes" instead of the truth, which is the other way around. Note to anyone else reading this, I'm not telling these people something they don't already know. Please note how much effort they are putting into pretending to "not get it". Someone else can post the link to the wikipedia thing about "not getting it". I read that in other articles, when discussion pages go south like this. That usually gets pasted when editors that certainly know better pretend that they don't.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF Welcome the new user. It is nice to have comments here from new people.
Jonny Quick, Wikipedia is a summary of what is already published, and not original thought or unpublished observations. Wikipedia is supposed to copy what other sources say and not diverge from what is already published. If there is an idea that you want included in Wikipedia then please present sources which have already published that idea, so that they can be cited. In this article, things get tense because the sources are unclear, so there is lots of room for you to propose ideas if you present sources that first published them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, blah, blah, please read my words to the previous editor as the apparantly apply equally to you. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, and no honest editor acting in good faith would ever propose that the article reflect a falsehood that everyone knows to be false. It's an indicator of a lack of common sense and dishonesty on your part to, whatever nonsense about "good faith" obstructionists may spew, like Forrest Gump says "Good faith is as good faith does." Stop blathering the empty words of building an encyclopedia and build the encyclopedia instead. Please answer the fundamental and direction defining question "Are all ecigarettes vaping devices, and some vaping devices not ecigarettes." and allow the article to be what it is supposed to be, instead of insisting upon it remaining the misbegotten pile of drivel that it is.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaping is Not Like Smoking

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking, but without the tobacco combustion.

I realized last night that the entirety of this article is one long argument against an unstated and false premise, and that premise goes something like "ecigarettes are a safe and effective alternative to cigarettes". Maybe that was a reaction to how ecigarettes were marketed and maybe that is the reaction from corporate lobbies, etc... I don't know, but if you mentally compare that idea, that ecigarettes are a safe and effective alternative to smoking, then almost all of this articles problems are explained. Please note the title of the article is NOT "Reasons why ecigarettes are not a safe and effective alternative to smoking", but if the article is going to be that, then it should be titled appropriately, so if anyone objects to any fundamental changes in the articles POV and underlying structure, then they should also be in favor of changing the title to more accurately reflect what the article is really about.

The very 1st sentence says it all, where it makes the hard-wired connection, and comparison to tobacco and the smoking of tobacco, as if (the more accurate umbrella term) "Personal Vaping Device" (or similar) is not a standalone device with no connection to cigarettes and tobacco whatsoever. Insecticide ALSO has nicotine, so perhaps the Lede should include a few lines about how ecigarettes are similar to, and contrast with, toxic chemicals used to kill insects.

Therefore I propose that the entirety of this article be completely scrubbed of any references to cigarettes, tobacco, smoking, etc... unless there is a specific section in the article for doing expressly that. Otherwise this article conflates two very different devices, activities, etc... and creates confusion between the two, instead of clarity.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid our article has to be based on the sources, and what the decent sources do is compare and contrast vaping with smoking. I don't think it would even be possible to write an article that says what e-cigs are, what they're for and who uses them, without referring to cigarettes, tobacco and smoking. They're devices for delivering a nicotine hit used by tobacco smokers, ex-smokers, and a minuscule, negligible number of people who've never smoked.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you've failed to address all the substantive points I made, and given a very convoluted explanation for why the article cannot change. It simply MUST be this way. First, let's take 2 giant steps backwards and understand that whatever your merit your points may have, they are based on the fundamental flaw of failing to structure the article accurately, that vaping devices are the general class and "ecigarettes" are a subsection within that class. Now all the limitations you claim exist in your source material evaporate and all that's left to do is construct an honest and informative article about the devices and the activity of using them, instead of the cobbled-together "Frankenarticle" of junk science and FUD. And now we're not encumbered with this ridiculous notion that every single sentence in the article must have a verbatim source, and all the other myriad tactics and strategies that have been employed over the course of this articles "creation" to prevent it from being an accurate and unbiased and encyclopedic article about vaping devices and vaping, instead of a pretext to publish inadequate, biased, and (at least in one particular JAMA article) scientifically dishonest studies. Hundreds of Welsh school children all agree, this article increases the likelihood that they will use cigarettes.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHO statement

Before deleting the WHO statement there should be a discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 statement no longer appears on the WHO website, the "original" link goes to the page that replaced it, which refers the reader to their 2014 report, which does not repeat the language used. It can now only be accessed via Wayback. It is clearly outdated and should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't at all agree with the other aspect of your edits here, for a whole range of reasons, but don't have the time to get into that now. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any points that have been backed away from in the 2014 shouldn't be used. We should update with the most up to date position. SPACKlick (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the 2014 reported says "The evidence for the effectiveness of ENDS as a method for quitting tobacco smoking is limited and does not allow conclusions to be reached." which we summarize as "found there was not enough evidence to determine if electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking."
This means the same as "A previous WHO statement from July 2013 said that e-cigarettes have not been shown to help people quit smoking"
I have updated to the new document as it simply reduces duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


New sources daily

See http://www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful BBC story here and Medscape one here. And interesting reflections of an ex-WHO tobacco control guy here. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&oldid=678066554"