Talk:Electronic cigarette

Template:Ecig sanctions

Legal status of electronic cigarettes vs Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Legal status of electronic cigarettes is limited to only legal status. But with the title Regulation of electronic cigarettes it is very broad. I can create a new article for Regulation of electronic cigarettes. Please provide at least six refs and possibly start a sandbox if anyone is interested in my services. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• ... or you could, you know, let someone else do it. Just a thought. I've asked Arbcom to stop you from editing in the topic area until the case is over.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, please provide some references and we can create a new page. After you provide the references you will soon see a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to play to our relative strengths - you provide the refs, & i'll write it up? Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not have time to gather the references. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, the previous discussion here fell on deaf ears and we now have effectively two articles covering the same, legal status and legal status disguised as "Regulations of electronic cigarettes". Yet another article that needs competent rewriting.--TMCk (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a start! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. At the moment all it does is repeat legal status stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, now he's moved "legal status" to the ungrammatical Regulations of electronic cigarettes, without discussion! We should have two pages, which I'd suggest should be called Legality of electronic cigarettes (by country, essentially exists) and Regulation of electronic cigarettes (by issue; yet to be created). Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Having two articles on the same subject with nearly identical names that basically say the same thing is confusing. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, one is answering the question "Are e-cigs legal in Aruba", the other should deal with the far wider range of types of regulation (I recently gave a sample list here) and not degenerate into a by-country list with no generalizing narrative. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allow others to fix it.

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

(Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) AlbinoFerret 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting source

This may be of interest, its a review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598199/ .AlbinoFerret 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Farsalinos, Konstantinos; LeHouezec, Jacques (2015). "Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)". Risk Management and Healthcare Policy: 157. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S62116. ISSN 1179-1594. PMC 4598199. PMID 26457058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The impact factor is zero. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Impact factor, while important isnt a clear reason to not use it. The author is also the author of other reviews we are using. There is more in it than just medical claims, it also addresses regulation and usage. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to it being a zero impact journal, the authors have a potential COI. See "A small minority of KEF’s studies were performed using unrestricted funds provided to the institution (Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies. JLH has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre."[1]

They are contradicting many high-quality reviews. Some of the reviews by the authors are grandfathered in but moving forwarding we should try to be cautious of non-neutral sourcing. There is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Which "many high-quality reviews", and how? Our article is chock-full of "non-neutral sourcing", which is not surprizing in an area of controversy. If there "is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources" why is our coverage of regulation issues so vague, spotty and poor, as previously discussed, here and in other articles (see last section)? We repeat a bunch of assertions by non-specialist clinicians suggesting "regulation" without specifying which of the dozens of types of possible regulation they actually want. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do we dump papers by scientists who have at some point in their careers done research for the pharmaceutical industry... because they might have a "potential COI"? Do we start now to figure out which papers that should be chucked? Because we need to do so, if COI of this kind is considered. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Framing legitimate criticism as "dumping papers" doesn't do anything to make this paper less biases. This is not potential COI - that phrase is in the disclosure section of the paper. Also there is an enormous difference between a low impact factor journal and a zero impact factor journal. CFCF 💌 📧 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I was reacting to a particular aspect of the "criticism". A particular aspect that has no relevance here, as other than a Red herring, the COI referenced is not something that has impact on the paper. The COI aspect as used in QG's commentary is thus not legitimate criticism - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author. While it may have a zero impact factor, there are non medical uses for this paper. AlbinoFerret 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author." How can you say that AlbinoFerret?!

Funding is a stark example of Conflict of Interest. It is the pillar of COI. --MarkYabloko (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that what the guideline WP:MEDRS tells us. AlbinoFerret 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried another impact factor search.[2] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? AlbinoFerret 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

After posting that I did a google scholar search.[3] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the impact factor is not 0.[4] it is around 1.57. Researchgate must have failed to calculate impact factor for this journal. --Kim D. Petersen 08:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• This source should certainly be used. It gives more detail on the issues around regulation than we currently have (As I've previously complained, this is an area we cover very poorly). It also provides a useful account of the current state of the controversy, which we lack any coherent coverage of, just piling-up contradictory statements without any attempt at an overall narrative (more comments above). QG's opposition to a paper by one of the leading experts broadly in favour of the harm reduction approach is sadly completely predictable. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Duplication and removal of well sourced material

The edit summary claims it was a review and there was no explanation for deleting the other text. This edit added duplication and removed well sourced material. I did summarise the same source with almost the identical wording in another section. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-McNeill201576_84-0. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a review, and it makes the other text obsolete.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You will have to elaborate.CFCF 💌 📧 20:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a report. I don't think we should add duplication or delete the reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again? Really? We were there before and it's better than just a review - It's a review of reviews, critically evaluating and summarizing existing literature.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, its more than just a review, not just a "report" it has critical evaluations and cites sources rather well. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What about the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As it's safety information it makes sense to remove it from "Positions of medical organizations" and have it under "Safety".--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is other information at Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations that is about safety. The "Positions of medical organizations" is a summary of the main article for positions of organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article needs a rewrite to make it coherent.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for doing this. That text is very coherent using reviews and other sources such as WP:MEDORG complaint sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Getting rid of any overlap that gives even a smidgen of coherence isn't going to achieve that. CFCF 💌 📧 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

AttackOfTheSnailDemons, you also deleting useful material that is still relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When the world's largest health organization says "They're 95% safer than smoking", vague worries are no longer relevant.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDORG does not mention Public Health England. They are not the most authoritative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been round this before - they are very authoritative, and the authors of the report leading researchers. The Nutt estimate they use was also produced by a large group of experts, though all the figures produced by any sources remain pure estimates. Don't forget that we are never going to get RCT evidence on this point, and the best evidence from epidemiology will take 20+ years to emerge. Most of the "reviews" are just shrugging their shoulders and saying "dunno". The (old) text is the usual piled-up heap of points that half-repeat and half-contradict each other without any balance or explanation, and very far from "coherent". The new text is probably a bit too drastic, but we should thin out the old considerably. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no "new text". This sentence is already summarised in the article. WHO is very authoritative but we don't delete or ignore other sources. The text for safety has been continuously updated in the lede and body with new reviews.

There is balance. See "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.[19]" The text suggests vaping is more than 95% safer than smoking when the risk is only 1% that of smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I Think your right Johnbod. AlbinoFerret 04:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The other text is not old and the 95% claim belongs in the section with the positions of other organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Noone has argues against hat Public Health England is authorative-they just aren't the most authorative and it all needs to be balanced against the WHO etc. who are more authorative. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this comment interesting. What exactly makes the FCTC (WHO) more authoritative than PHE? You are aware that the FCTC is not a medical, but a political branch of the WHO - right? And that they make no scientific assessments themselves. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has hit the nail on the head. This one source hardly obviates all others. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i said anything of the sort... but if you can explain why the FCTC would be more authoritative that PHE please? --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See here. WP:MEDORG lists WHO not PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer QG - it is not even an attempt at one. FCTC is a policy arm - not a science arm, while PHE is a science/research arm. So at least make an attempt. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason WP:MEDORG doesnt list it is the page is two years out of date. It does list the British National Health Service. Looking at the Public Health England page we find that it was formed in 2013 in a reorganization of the British National Health Service. It is part of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom. It is very much a major medical organization as described in WP:MEDORG and should be listed. It looks like a combination of the FDA and CDC. AlbinoFerret 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, WHO is not more authoritative because we list them, but exactly the other way around – they are known to be very authoritative and are therefore listed. In general the WHO's opinion is of greater weight than that of any national body, and as for adding PHE to the guidelines: it is a far smaller organization than the NHS (which still gives out plenty of authorative recommendations) and does not need to be added.
(As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO. Neither are they the only WHO division to publishe information about smoking etc.)

To rehash once more; PHE's report is valuable and should be presented in this article, but it does not trump other reports – especially not those from more authoritative organizations. CFCF 💌 📧 12:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the NHS makes its "authorative recommendations" on public health issues any more, as the people who covered that are now mostly in PHE after the reorganization. No doubt there is some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are correct. PHE is the science branch, and the NHS the warm hands one. And to back that up, the NHS now is in the process of changing their pages on e-cigs - like for instance[5], which means that we probably should update our NHS info on this and other articles. --Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO <- this is incorrect. The FCTC is a subpart of the WHO, and not part of the medical branch. The FCTC is governed/run not by doctors/medical expertise, but instead by governmental and NGO consensus - and they are not there to provide medical information, but to guide a intergovernmental political solution to the FCTC treaty. Which amongst other things include lobbying, advisory on taxation and other non-medical processes. Thus they are quite distinct from other branches of the WHO. They do not have any medical or research requirements... That part of the process (the science part) has already been done - what they do is guide the war on smoking - which is entirely political CFCF! --Kim D. Petersen 13:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As an example - i would say that the surgeon generals report (SGR) on smoking is a significantly more authoritative document on smoking than anything that the WHO has put out. Simply because that is that the SGR is supposed to summarize the science, while the FCTC is supposed to guide the legislative process. --Kim D. Petersen 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is correct, otherwise it would not be a part of the WHO. The WHO's various bodies are all tied together and its policy bodies communicate with the other bodies extensively. Also I stated that the FCTC is not the only body of the WHO to present reports on tobacco use, and as far as I'm aware we're not even talking about the FCTC. CFCF 💌 📧 10:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know that we are talking about the FCTC here, then i suspect that you haven't looked into this subject at all, or checked the RS. The report was specifically produced for the FCTC by outside consultants - the Grana paper was/is the base. --Kim D. Petersen 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I btw. would very much like an RS that verifies your assertion that the FCTC is tightly bound into the WHO - especially since that normally isn't the case for such treaty commissions within the UN framework... normally the umbrella-organization just delivers the secretariat etc. An example at the top of my mind is the IPCC under WMO. --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we are speaking generally about a number of WHO-reports, one of which is produced by the FCTC. I never mentioned that specific report in any of my comments, which were meant to be very general. But to be explicit we do not need a source for the fact that an auxiliary branch of the World Health Organization builds its policy suggestions upon medical knowledge, that is ridiculous. CFCF 💌 📧 16:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually we are only talking about one FCTC (WHO) report (we're only using one, which other WHO report are you talking about?), which is clearly marked FCTC. The claim of yours that authority(FCTC)>authority(PHE). And the claim that FCTC is tightly integrated into the WHO, and not as i noted above a treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO. --Kim D. Petersen 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO is clearly tightly integrated, and I think the burden of evidence lies on you to prove otherwise. From my first comment I was speaking generally of the WHO, and the fact that this specific report is from a specific branch is irrelevant. CFCF 💌 📧 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. A treaty organization is not "clearly tightly integrated". That is an assertion that you would have to back up, especially since other such treaty orgs. under UN umbrellas regularly aren't. From experience with other such organizations, this is usually not the case. And finally: Where a report is produced is just as important, as it is to know which particular journal publishes a paper. --Kim D. Petersen 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not there position statement

It is not there position statement. Therefore, it does not not updating. It is there campaign website. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been updated. Since it has, and its not duplicative, it can be used for other claims. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health". It is there public health campaign page not a position statement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to go through the articles and remove all the claims from government websites? There are a lot of them. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny that you say so. Because the current NHS link is not to a position statement either. (ref #22 in the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes) And i'm rather certain that you were the person adding that link to the pos article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. Quack says it is not a position statement but then adds this to the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes article?--TMCk (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate claim using public health campaign page

We already state "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84] using a position statement. Now we are adding a very similar claim "They have also stated that e-ciagrettes cause approximately 5% of the harm of conventional tobacco cigarettes."[6] What is the purpose of the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Its another source from NHS, the website is NHS, I just clarified that in the claim. Thanks for the source QG. AlbinoFerret 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Harm reduction is about lowering risk of harm

The edit that moves it to the Positions section is wrong. It should be in Harm reduction as its about lowering the risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The reason i changed "harm" to "risk" in accordance with the RS, was because it indicated that there was 5% harm involved. Ie. there is a risk of harm, but not solid evidence for harm. A figure of risk would normally be set more conservatively to incorporate unknowns. --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other statements about less harm but since they are statements from organizations we add them to the proper place. See "In a joint statement in 2015, Public Health England and other UK medical organizations stated that "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking."[83] for another statement. See Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations. I think when there is a review that make such a statement or similar statements we can add it to the harm reduction section. I added the same claim to the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and placing it in the Positions statements is the wrong place. The claim is specifically about harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So now a lower risk is not (anymore) related to harm reduction? Really?--TMCk (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is specifically about the risk (safety) according to WP:V and how is it not appropriate for the section "Positions of medical organizations" for claims made by organisations when it is a statement made by an organisation. I'm not sure if it is an official statement. If it is just a public health campaign website it might be unreliable. I think the tag was a mistake because we are already using a source from the same website. Now have two sources from the same website next to each other. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Risk of what? AlbinoFerret 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please answer the question, risk of what? AlbinoFerret 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes. According to the source it is about safety. See "The British National Health Service have stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[22] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years.[22]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In what way? Let me tell you, risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplication and misplaced text

In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[96] This is duplication from the same organisation and it is misplaced text. It is mainly about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isnt, its from the same NHS website, not PHE, and the discussion above said that it was better in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[7] To be clear NHS was initiated by PHE. Is there a reseaon to keep the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a duplicate, it is not from PHE https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england. It is on the NHS website http://www.nhs.uk. While PHE may support them, its support and not a duplicate. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were from the same agency, its a different source. We dont disqualify multiple sources from anyone else anywhere else.AlbinoFerret 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like duplicate material from much the same source to much the same effect Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. And the removal was against consensus above. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

One is already on the page. You're welcome to attempt to build consensus for including both. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats easy, we do not have these specific claims in the Harm reduction section, since you moved them and removed one of them. The specific information is Harm reduction related. By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC Are these sources the same?

RFC: Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[8] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[9].

The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.

Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not seeing what is wrong with this dif [10]? The content was just moved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A claim was removed, perhaps you missed that. But the specific question is are the sources the same. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss below in the discussion section

Are the sources the same or different?

• Different sources They are clearly not the same source. They are from two different agencies with distinct url's. While they may say similar things the wording is not the same so one is not a copy of the other. AlbinoFerret 06:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Different sources,, clearly While the conclusions are the same, the wording is not, and it never hurts to have statements from multiple sources anyway, as long as they are high quality. And they certainly are in this case. LesVegas (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• The websites are related. The UK NHS website says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[11] The NHS website was created by PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You should make up your mind whether it is related or not.--TMCk (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we then remove all the duplicative findings from the US government agencies like the CDC and FDA? Should we remove similar statements from different parts of the WHO? AlbinoFerret 19:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Does it matter? If it's the same claim supported by independent sources then we have two references at the end of the claim. Why waste time with an RfC if the only difference is either 1 or 2 references at the end of the same claim? CFCF 💌 📧 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• They look related to me You are welcome to make your case they are separate sources, as you have been all along Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thats unresponsive to the question, the question is are they the same, not are they similar. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Different sources They base their views and opinions on the same background, and thus come to similar/same conclusion, just as many other such agencies and organizations do. Why should there be/is there a different standard between pro and contra organizations? --Kim D. Petersen 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles that cover the similar things regardless of who created the source?

This question is too broad. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No We need a simple across the board rule. Instead of allowing editors to pick and choose what claims they want to add that are similar but remove others they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course the question is too broad. Editors apply judgment. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Idealy we shouldn't single cite individual statements/papers, but instead strive to summarize the literature with a nod towards notable outliers, as per Wikipedia's pillars. But since this isn't done in this article, which instead consists mainly from individually cherry-picked sentences from papers - then the answer is No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Doing anything else invites gaming. We need to be consistent and should never allow cherry picking to take place with regard to claims from articles that cover similar things like this. LesVegas (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove claims from the articles if they are from the same group or author and discuss similar things?

It would be better to provide a specific example. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are full of duplicative claims, read it. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This should be applied the same across the articles, regardless of the conclusions. We should not pick out things we disagree with to remove. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifics needed here in my opinion. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Again in an ideal world, we shouldn't have an eye for individual papers/authors, but instead focus on what the weight of the literature tells us. Instead there should be summarization of what the literature in general says about particular subgroupings of particulars about the topic. So yes: we should, but currently we can't. --Kim D. Petersen 06:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment MEDRS is already clear about this: editors should not reject high quality sources because of content or conclusions, but instead focus on the quality of the source. LesVegas (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove sourced claims if they are based on findings from other sources?

It depends on the claim and the sourcing. This is another vague question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No That allows gaming of the system and editors picking and choosing to remove things they disagree with. AlbinoFerret 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Confused about this question. But again, see my two other answers: We should summarize the literature - not focus on individual papers/authors. --Kim D. Petersen 06:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment is there an example of this having occurred in the past? I too am confused about this question. LesVegas (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No, LesVegas so far we have lots of duplicate findings and I cant remember any others having been removed. AlbinoFerret 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, every article and talk page should have some reasonable consistency. It's unfortunate that parameters like these need to be put in place to keep editors from removing duplications when an editor just feels like it, but I entirely think it's reasonable. I will say it again: duplications should never be used for multiple government agencies and should only be removed in cases of much lower source-status, such as systematic reviews all the way down to primary studies. But as a general rule, duplications don't need to be removed and I think only should be considered in cases of lower level sources. This was clearly not such a case. LesVegas (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems that there is some confusion, British National Health Service is quite different from Public Health England. They are not the same agency. They are both agencies of the UK department of health. Just like in the US we have a Department of Health, and the FDA, CDC, ect. From the Public Health England wikipedia article

Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom that began operating on 1 April 2013. Its formation came as a result of reorganisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England outlined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took on the role of the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and a number of other health bodies.[1]

AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, claims by the NIH are different from those by the FDA or CDC, for instance. Governmental bodies often have nuanced statements that differ slightly depending on context (and that's interesting and helpful) and even when they are exactly uniform, multiple such sources should still be used in tandem to illustrate consensus. LesVegas (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions added after the start of the RfC above

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove text sourced to the UK NHS website if it is repetitive?

• Remove duplication. In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[99] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years, and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor.[97][12] The part "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders" and "there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor" is repetitive. They virtually mean the same thing but in different words. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. I will add they only appear to be duplication because they were moved together from their orignal location in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Remove duplication Seems much the same source saying much the same thing. Of course it doesn't follow that all other sources are repetitive. When different sources come to the same conclusion, that's hardly the same as the same source saying the same thing twice. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Loaded question - it implies that there is repetition. Rather invalidates the RfC. (defaults to No) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• No There are many reasons for duplication or partial duplication of citation or external opinion. Duplication may be justified for example to indicate the range of opinions or support (say from different times, places, or schools), or to include citations of sources that overlap but are not identical. Removal should require individual justification, such as for when someone strings together half a dozen assorted citations to lend support to a contentious point, not merely because one editor thinks that one citation is on principle adequate, and two must accordingly be excessive. JonRichfield (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• No I have looked at the text and it might be nice to rewrite it completely to make a non-redundant, stable, cogent, watertight document, but by the nature of the topic and situation that will not happen. The material is not unduly repetitive because its degree of repetition conveys some of the climate of opinion in different bodies concerned in the matter. It would be simplistic assume that a single reference to a single position of a single source amounts to the same as invoking more than one source in a matter open to opinion and position rather than undebatably rigid fact. If it were a matter instead of tediously quoting a long roster of sources, that would be another matter. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Different bodies even coming to the same conclusion illustrates consensus. Where I would suggest duplications should be removed are in lower level claims, such as systematic reviews, which often go either way, and are often cherry-picked by editors with a strong bias. But, no, consensus statements or statements by national health bodies, even if the statements are exactly the same, only further illustrate consensus about a claim and these are our best sources and should, in fact, be used liberally. LesVegas (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove repetitive text from the UK NHS website when there is another claim from the Public Health England website?

• Remove duplication. AlbinoFerret stated "By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix."[13] I came to the conclusion it is redundant text. "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84]" "The UK National Health Service stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[86]" Wherever the text I highlighted in bold is placed it is still duplication. Both are from related UK organisations. The "Positions of medical organizations" section is meant to be a WP:SUMMARY. It is not a summary when the "approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes" claim is not in the main article. It is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include both. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you remove the part from the positions article and then you come here to say it doesn't belong here because it's not over there?--TMCk (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I initially added it but I came to the conclusion it was repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No We dont do this with any other source that is in the articles. When multiple sources come to the same conclusion or are based on other sources they remain. AlbinoFerret 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But are the two sources in question really multiple sources? Seems like much the same source. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The British National Health Service (NHS) is quite different from Public Health England (PHE). They are both agencies in the UK department of health. AlbinoFerret 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the case you're welcome to make. Do they have different missions, funding, purposes, clientele, activities, staff? Would it be possible for them to come to different conclusions? And so on. It's a question of these sources; not a broad question of editing policy.Cloudjpk (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The answer to these concerns is yes they are diffrent. Much like the FDA and CDC in the US. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just as loaded a question. NHS != PHE according to (amongst others) QuackGuru, thus the two are not the same and statements similar but not same => No. --Kim D. Petersen 06:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Remove duplication. The sources are similar if not identical; the conclusions are identical. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, for the same reasons as AlbinoFerret above, plus what I said in the immediately previous sub-question. In any case, removing duplication may sound fine, but not when the duplication is relevant and functional. The articles we write are not permitted to be essays (OR and similar religious war cries) and we accordingly are compelled to limit ourselves to citations that might entail redundancy. JonRichfield (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Repetitive text and repetitive claims possibly shouldn't be used if we have two similar claims from lower level systematic reviews, of which there are now many for E-cigs and vapors, but should always be done when it's high level governmental health authorities making claims, even when the claims happen to be identical, because that illustrates consensus amongst public health authorities analyzing meta-data. LesVegas (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion for text

I started these new questions because the questions for the other RfC were too vague IMO. According to User:AlbinoFerret the conclusions are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So its ok when you add duplicative conclusions [14] but not others? AlbinoFerret 17:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yale study finds state youth e-cig bans lead to increased traditional cigarette smoking

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/yale-study-finds-state-youth-e-cig-bans-lead-to/article_dc594f51-b940-5dad-a2ba-3f9e53823978.html

Even if it's not MEDRS it is instructive and I hope it gives people pause to consider the life and death magnitudes of the issues at stake. 75.148.42.9 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, although I would characterize the issue as life and death in the same way as obesity and sedentary lifestyles - cumulative effects that kill you off twenty or thirty years early. Sizeofint (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting new source

From the CDC [15] AlbinoFerret 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Smoker v Non-smoker

Hello User:SPACKlick I see you reversed some recent changes in the Electronic cigarette article, because, according to you, "Not per source, sentence refers to all people not just users". Would you then kindly explain to the rest of us, how is it "The benefits.." include non-smokers? And how is it that the safety risk from inhaling smokes from e-cig is like that of watching smokeless tobacco chewers for non-smokers? The article is obviously comparing the "benefits" for smokers ONLY, isn't it? And hence, changes should be made to reflect that, or in other words: THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING, Agree? --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not SPACKlick, but it appears he reverted you because of failed verification. All content must be based on a WP:MEDRS source for that type of claim. We cant add anything unless the source makes the same claim. AlbinoFerret 13:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not a matter of verification. The way the wordings stand right now imply that there are benefits to non-smokers too, which is obviously misleading at best. --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarkYabloko, I tried to clarify the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better QuackGuru, thank you!

But wouldn't 'smokers' be even better than 'users'? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not every vaper is a current smoker or former smoker. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. What about adding the word "users" to: "Their safety risk is like that of smokeless tobacco"? --MarkYabloko (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I added users to clarify it is users. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you QuackGuru --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark, this page requires WP:MEDRS sources to state any medical claim, you might want to read the guideline. Also please be aware that daughter pages exist with much more detailed health risks. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. --MarkYabloko (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Logical concepts in these types of arguments are very sensitive to context, which can distort or even invert flat conclusions. Consider:

"THERE ARE NO BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE ANYTHING"

certainly sounds conclusive rather than only persuasive, but on analysis it is less of a principle than a slogan, with all the question-begging characteristic of most slogans.

For example try instead:

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE SOME THINGS RATHER THAN OTHERS, EVEN IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS UNDESIRABLE

or

THERE ARE BENEFITS FOR NON-SMOKERS TO PASSIVELY INHALE LESS OF SOME THINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE UNDESIRABLE

Each of these separately and both of them together are relevant to the question of the acceptability of vaping, if not necessarily of its positive desirability. However consider also:

THE UNDESIRABILITY OF INTRODUCING VAPING INTO A NON-SMOKING COMMUNITY HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE BENEFITS OF INTRODUCING IT INTO A SMOKING COMMUNITY

Note that I speak as a non-smoking, non-vaping non-industry-connected disliker of smoking, who has yet to be significantly incommoded by vapers. I fully realise that that proves nothing, including my own honesty, good sense or relevant experience, but possibly I am gun-shy and I do wish to forestall certain classes of ad hominem responses that are common in such debates. JonRichfield (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification

The review does not mention "cigalikes",[16] but we do mention "cigalike" in the lede.[17] QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So add one of the hundreds of MEDRS sources that do use the term, eg the PHE Report Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigarettes in general are not called "cigalikes". There are many different names for different types of e-cigs such as box mods. We don't need to name all the different types in the lede. But the lede does have specific information on "cigalikes". See "There are disposable "cigalikes" which are known as first generation cigalikes and there are reusable versions.[6]" See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Bhatnagar2014_6-0. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a common term that has made its way to MEDRS sources. I see no reason it cant be added if its sourced. There is also still a ton of cigalike problems in the articles where claims about cigalikes are applied to all generations. AlbinoFerret 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the specific names we also state "There are also second generation,[7] third generation,[8] and fourth generation devices.[9]" The first sentence would be too long to include all the names. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Farsalinos2015_9-0. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While its true that these generations are in sources, I think it best to only mention those that have specific common names tied to them like cigalike, I am waiting for a Medrs source to use "ego type" to describe second generation as this is common usage. AlbinoFerret 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The lede now says "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco combustion.[2]" QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. AlbinoFerret 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, coming to this late, I don't like the current start: "An electronic cigarette (EC, e-cig, or e-cigarette), cigalike, eGo, mod,[1] personal vaporizer (PV), or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". There are too many bolded names in a row, and "cigalike, eGo, mod," are terms for particular types. It would be better to move these to the "generations" sentence a line or two down, and keep just the general terms that can cover all types at the start. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree here, that many alternatives when you are beginning a definition is not readable. Best to use the term Electronic Cigarette, continue the sentence, and then another sentence of alternative names. Possibly an entire section to have names reflected in relationship to Generations of devices. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now changed, & I'm happy with the current version. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Secondhand Vaping

There was a time when people were led to believe that smoking is good for them, or at least, not harmful. Now, some decades later, they know better. Yet, that same tactic is used on them again, into believing that e-cig and vaping are mostly harmless. While certainly people should have the right to decided what is good for them and what's not, the article should emphasis to them that "lack of evidence" does not equate "safe". What's even worse, is that bystanders, including children, are forced to inhale these carcinogenic and hazardous particles with complete disregard to their welfare and right because it is supposedly not that harmful, or at least not as harmful as secondhand smoking! Why they have to choose between two evils? Shouldn't they have the right to vape fresh air?

This article "Electronic cigarette" seems to completely evade the subject of "Secondhand Vaping", and finding some info digging through its multilevel links is no excuse.

http://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-secondhand-vaping-harmful-your-health --MarkYabloko (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have referred you to WP:MEDRS, it is clear that source is not MEDRS compliant. I will also point out that these points are on a breakout or daughter page Safety of electronic cigarettes sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. AlbinoFerret 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again AlbinoFerret. I DID agree you with you that the above link is NOT MERDS compliant. No arguments about that.

The point that I am trying to make it that lack of MERDS evidence does not mean something is safe. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is 100% safe. The articles reflect this. Right now there is a controversy as to how safe, or safer they are. Current MEDRS sources say they are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. If you are seeing this article as saying they are completely safe, I urge you to reread it. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The key point is whether e-cigs are less unsafe than cigarettes, and there is MEDRS evidence that they are, by about 95% on current evidence. There is also evidence that the false perception that they are about equally as unsafe as cigarettes is growing in the general public, smokers and non-smokers both, which concerns public health experts. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several reviews and reports that comment about "second-hand vape", but contrary to your personal point of view they are not as uncertain as you make them nor do they document a significant increase in harmful substances. In fact the most comprehensive report to date notes that:

EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11

And as AlbinoFerret notes above: We can only write what is found in WP:MEDRS's, and describe it so that WP matches the prevalence of evidence in the literature. Popsci is a really really bad source for science and/or health information, even if it, if you read it carefully, says much the same as our article and the PHE report. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicotine is certainly much less in e-cig, but this is not the issue here, is it? There are many other harmful pollutants in cigarettes and e-cig other than nicotine.

A July 2014 WHO report cautioned about potential risks of using e-cigarettes.[23] The report concluded that "the existing evidence shows that ENDS aerosol is not merely "water vapor" as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses.

And going back, the fact is: No amount of nicotine is safe to administer to fetuses which has nothing to do with my point of view or yours point of view. --MarkYabloko (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the PHE2015 report closer - since they aren't referring to "just nicotine". Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes, and that most measurements have found the amount of substances to be within the norms for air-quality. There are no raised red flags - sorry. And even in the WHO report there is no alarming data. --Kim D. Petersen 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Kim D. Petersen, I wasn't commenting on PHE2015 p. 11, I was commenting on your statement " EC use releases negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders PHE2015 p. 11".

I also agree with your statement that "Fact is that the number of chemicals released from e-cigarettes is significantly lower than from cigarettes", but that is not the point!

The implication is that if you are a Smoker then you are better off switching to e-cig. My point is that Non-smoker should not to be forced to compromise. --MarkYabloko (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article is not written from the view of a smoker, but for and about the general conclusions that the literature presents. You may not like the material, but it is what is there. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I will also add that Wikipedias role, and our role as editors, is not to right great wrongs but to put forth what is found in reliable sources, in this case MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good start in reading would be from page 76 and forward in the Public Health England report, which covers most of what you are commenting on. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kim D. Petersen. Popsci was pointed as an example NOT as WP:MEDRS. I am sure as more studies start piling up we will get a clearer picture some decades from now, and you will get your WP:MEDRS, just as we did with cigarettes.

Until then, secondhand vaping, secondhand smokers, children and fetuses should have the right to say NO.

--MarkYabloko (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So far the general trend within the science has been: Must be dangerous => Might be dangerous => suspecious => we don't know enough => we can't rule out danger => danger is very low.

As for your personal opinions - they are irrelevant on Wikipedia - we write according to what the literature says, and not from personal views. --Kim D. Petersen 14:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming more and more soapbox like, and unless there are direct suggestions for improvements based upon reliable sources, then this discussion should be closed. --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New "full range" image uploaded

I've uploaded an image found and linked at MED talk by CFCF. Having all generations in one image will be useful for a wide range of pages.--TMCk (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That image has too many devices that look similar as each other. The image is not a good option if the purpose is to illustrate concise information. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its a bit compact, but otherwise a great picture. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you describing this image that you were so keen to force into the article and then was stuck there for over half a year and after it was removed recently you sneeked it in there again before reconsidering and replacing it with a single devise?--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kim. Compacted it is but otherwise almost perfect.--TMCk (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Add to Quack: Not to mention this image you had in mind as replacement.--TMCk (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good image. Some second gen, but mostly third. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 cigalikes, too. Aren't they 1st generation?--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the black cigalike on the edge, it blended in. So there are first gen also. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. Bright, high-color, logos displayed, mirrored on the surface. If you want WP to advertise product, it's a fine choice. If you want to provide information such as types, similarities and differences, generations, and so on, it's a poor choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Cloudjpk: I presume I've missed something. Did you seriously mean to tell us that File:E Cigarettes, Ego, Vaporizers and Box Mods (17679064871).jpg looks like an advertisement to you, or was this some kind of humour or sarcasm?—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Replace with better when possible The items featured in this picture are hard to distinguish or identify. I would prefer a single e-cigarette depicted clearly, which is the usual way of illustrating product articles. There is no explanation of the significance of showing these designs or how they might differ from each other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An image with the 3 (4 or 5?) different main types would be better indeed but if wp were to be that picky there were (almost) no images (and no text).--TMCk (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

TracyMcClark I restored the older images which show individual products. I think these are more traditional as product images than the group photo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous.--TMCk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

fyi Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Entry For "Electronic Cigarette" is a Hideous, Unreadable Mess

A critique of this article. Enjoy (or not)! http://blog.thedripclub.com/the-wikipedia-entry-for-electronic-cigarette-is-a-hideous-mess - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not from a very neutral source, but many of these points have been made here for years. In fact the "bath salts" bit is not as crazy as it seems - it turns out it is an American street name for substituted cathinones, but it was lazy of the authors of the study not to clarify their sentence. Adjusted by this edit. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree this page does have serious problems, mostly related to sourced content from very old content for a rapidly evolving technology product. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for GA?

Has there been any thought about taking this article through Good article nomination. It seems fairly comprehensive content- and sourcing-wise. The prose could use some improvement but I don't think that is as a huge issue for GA status as it is for FA. Sizeofint (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert 19.11.15

@Johnbod: Smoking cessation: the article is stuffed with contradictory sentences one after the other - why pick on this one -- Might as well start somewhere. Are you happy for me to fix this stuff or would you prefer that I tagged all the contradictory sentences for you to fix?—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)