Talk:Electronic cigarette

E-Cig ≠ Cigarette

"Cigarette - A thin cylinder of finely cut tobacco rolled in paper for smoking" - OED

E-cigs are not cigarettes, so to class them as a "type" of cigarette is frankly ridiculous and its only effect can be to associate them with tobacco, which they don't contain. Repeatedly adding them to the "cigarette" category makes the article look POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a mistake in the template. It doesn't list Candy cigarettes.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that e-cigs have, yet again, been added to the "Cigarette" category. Why is this being done? They are not cigarettes. They do not contain tobacco. They do not produce smoke.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not a WP:Category, that is a template WP:NAVBOX. See this discussion where consensus was reached that e cigarettes could be added under a "related products" category. Yobol (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a category or a navbox is irrelevant, because the only thing e-cigs have in common with cigarettes is the name. Nobody's arguing for candy cigarettes to carry the navbox, so why should e-cigs?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you feel it is not appropriate, take it to the template talk page and get consensus. 3 editors already agree that it is appropriate as is. Yobol (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually one of the three says that if ecigs belong on the template so does NRT - a compromise I'd be happy with - and a second is you. I'm not really seeing a huge weight of support for adding something that meets no reasonable definition of "cigarette" to a cigarette template.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it to that talk page, and get consensus, then. Yobol (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As two of three editors who've expressed an opinion say NRT products should also be in the "related products" section I've added them. This is a compromise I'm happy with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mechanical Box Mods

I think that the following paragraph should be refined:

These mods are broken up in two form factors: box mods and tube mods. Box mods are often made by individual from a project box, a battery holder, a 510 connector and an "off the shelf" switch. This is where the term mod came into use; a person would modify these project boxes. They are the original form of the mechanical mod. Tube mods were first produced in late 2011. Originally made from copper plumbing pipe or LED flashlights, they started to be commercially produced in early 2012.

I'm not saying that the gist of it is incorrect, but saying that "These mods are broken up in two form factors: box mods and tube mods" is somewhat misleading. Box mods are not intrinsically mechanical as this paragraph suggests. In fact, most current box mods are electronic (the MVP, Hana Mod, the Duke etc...) and the overwhelming majority of commercially available mechs are tubular.

Again, don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to an historical approach to mech mods and if they really started as boxes, I have no objection for it to be mentioned in the article. But this systematic break down into box and tube categories, seems to me, irrelevant, misleading and obsolete. TheNorlo (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it the first mods were modified torches (flashlights, to you colonials). As you said, most box mods don't qualify as mechs because even if they aren't electronic they do contain wiring.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Double standards?

How come a statement by the RCP, on the RCP website, isn't MED:RS but a press release from the WHO is? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is not a statement by the RCP. It is an opinion from Bogdanovica, Bauld and Britton written in the RCP's Commentary magazine, the opinion is even caveat'ed with The views expressed are those of the authors.. --Kim D. Petersen 03:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair one. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that only sources that aren't critical of e-cigs need to be MED:RS, while press releases from the WHO etc can be used to make alarming statements about addiction that aren't backed up by any actual evidence? This article is being used to push a pro-ANTZ agenda by exaggerating "concerns" and hypothetical risks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Position statements by leading medical organizations such as the WHO clearly meet WP:MEDRS, see WP:MEDRS#Medical_and_scientific_organizations here. That after all this time you have not bothered to read/understand MEDRS is disappointing. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite what the MED:RS criteria say, is it? The WHO's diatribe against e-cigs is only a FAQ, and things like that "are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature". As there isn't a single paper showing a single case of addiction from a pure nicotine product, and substantial evidence that pure nicotine is not significantly addictive, that FAQ doesn't really carry much weight.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a position statement from the WHO, and is therefore MEDRS compliant. Whether or not you believe that their position is supported by evidence is beside the point. We as editors do not substitute our own judgments for those of highly reliable sources such as the WHO. Yobol (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a FAQ and it's written in a blatantly slanted manner, for example statements like "some products claim to contain no nicotine," "flavors that can be particularly attractive to adolescents," "this illusive 'safety' of ENDS" and so on. It's full of ludicrously inaccurate information, such as the claim that e-cig cartridges can contain more than 100mg of nicotine or that e-cigs are disguised as USB memory sticks so they can be used covertly. To treat it as an authoritative scientific source is absurd.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, your personal opinion about the correctness of their position is irrelevant. It meets WP:MEDRS. Might I suggest you try to get outside opinion from the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside comments on whether the WHO is reliable for health claims? Yobol (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What, like the claim from a WHO spokesman that cigarettes are healthier than e-cigs "because they have a filter"?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to, and we have no such commentary in this wikipedia article. Again, if you feel the WHO is not reliable for health claims, you are more than welcome to follow the typical WP:DR process, which includes soliciting outside comments at WP:RSN or asking at WP:MED. Yobol (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, of course, that their e-cig FAQ isn't making health claims. It's just a dreary list of "concerns," hypothetical risks and carefully phrased innuendo. The most striking feature about it is that it completely fails to reference any actual evidence. Nevertheless, as the science builds up and more actual medical experts and smoking cessation groups back e-cigs this article is still dominated by the "reliable secondary sources" like the WHO and BMA, which are remarkable for the absence of primary sources to justify their status.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

PPT

A power point presentations are not reliable sources thus removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Format of publication does not reliability confer or remove. The PPT is the official statistics material for this particular data: See here.

We can discuss whether it is WP:DUE in this particular context, or we can discuss whether or not the Department of Health (United Kingdom)/Cancer Research UK/.. (the publishers) are WP:RS for this information. Editorial oversight can also be discussed. But the format they chose to give their information is not. --Kim D. Petersen 13:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think WP:DUE is an issue here. There's a rapid shift among smoking cessation experts towards embracing e-cigs. At this point it seems to be only zealots with an ideological opposition to (non-pharma) nicotine use who still oppose them. In the UK, for example, ASH are supportive, the NHS have no significant safety worries, the RCP are solidly onside and an increasing number of NHS-run regional stop smoking services are recommending them. The only opposition comes from pharma-funded interests like the MHRA and Martin McKee.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that this is a primary rather than secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? This morning the issue was that it was a PowerPoint presentation. It's not a primary source. It's a review of statistics from stop smoking services throughout England.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In any case WP:MEDRS doesn't say that primary sources cannot be used; it says they cannot be used to debunk a secondary source. As all the secondary sources also say that smoking prevalence is going down as e-cig use goes up, there's no problem with it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

One is chronically POV pushing, the other is just here for trouble. Topic ban more than justified. Already. Lesion 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to cause trouble; I'm here to restore NPOV to an article that places far too much emphasis on vague, unsupported "concerns". One of my own concerns is that the WP:MEDRS ban on using primary sources to refute secondary ones has been gold-plated into a ban on using primary sources at all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

OR?

You reverted my edit on the grounds that it was a primary source being used for OR. It isn't a primary source - it's a review of statistics from the NHS's regional stop smoking services across England - and there was no OR; my edit simply repeated the conclusions of the source. Why did you remove it again?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's OR because you are adding the term "unsupported" to content about why a country banned e-cigs. Lesion 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing

I challenge this pair to produce one or more diffs in which they have built content which is against e-cigs. You should not be editing here, you are POV pushing. Lesion 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)