Talk:Composition of electronic cigarette aerosol/Archive 2

" no side-stream smoke or any cigarette smoke is produced.[6] Only what is exhaled by e-cigarettes users enters the surrounding air."
Grana again. This of course is not absolutely true. Do the sources justify saying "little" rather than "no"? Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading Grana and others I remember that I cant quite put a name to now, its they emit no side stream smoke. They do not continue operation after the user activates them, unlike a conventional cigarette that continues to smoulder even when the smoker isnt drawing on it. AlbinoFerret  13:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically I'd say if a user activates an (non-automatic) e-cig early or late there could be some unused mist be formed in the devise. Is that what you (Johnbod) are referring to? In any case, that would be indeed little to none and hairsplitting, so maybe there is something else I'm missing here.--TMCk (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sort of - vapers very commonly let uninhaled vapour out of their mouths, or it comes out of the mouthpiece. The statement seems over-emphatic. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean like tomato sauce on tablecloth and napkin after having a plate of pasta or do they actually spit some out on purpose? And yes, that's a serious question.--TMCk (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, no, though if tomato sauce was accused of being carcinogenic you can bet the medical profession would produce acres of papers on the dangers of stains on table cloths. They don't know about hairsplitting. Johnbod (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the point. If that possible side stream would be a concern the existing "acres of papers" would've mentioned it.--TMCk (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And you know they don't? Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you know they do you wouldn't need to ask here in the first place.--TMCk (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be support for "negligible" in the sources, that should please everyone shouldn't it? CFCF   💌 📧 14:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide the sources that support this. AlbinoFerret  14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I remember something like this. (Let's) Find the source and clarify it, I'd say.--TMCk (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of Primary sources
So far the e-cig articles have used secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Are we now allowing primary sources to be used? AlbinoFerret 13:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer is yes, and its case by case. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29 before reverting, that should help out with what you are needing help in understanding.  Also bear in mind:


 * "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#.22Primary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22bad.22


 * "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher.
 * AlbinoFerret, your UNDO of my sourced and well cited edit was entirely premised upon these wrong assumptions, accordingly I will be replacing it. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS requires secondary sources. Do not use primary ones, if you feel that MEDRS allows primary sources, quote from it. Do not remove sourced material without consensus, by replacing, it shows you do not have it per WP:BRD AlbinoFerret  12:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of controversy here, I think it is best if we stick to the secondary sources—MEDRS also says that primary sources should never be used to "debunk" secondary sources, which is exactly what is being done here. CFCF   💌 📧 15:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is simply not true that WP:MEDRS mandates, and prescribes only Secondary sources, at all times, always for all things, all parts, of any article which is anything directly or ancillary associated with something tagged Medical. The purpose of MEDRS is to remove junk science based on nibbles of information, or to promote cures when only in vitro testing has been accomplished.


 * AlbinoFerret asks the question, gets the answer and the explanation with quotes and pointing to the explanation on Wikipedia. Then AlbinoFerret makes this assertion as if all items related to WP:MEDRS are relating to every section of a consumer product sold in the general marketplace. CFCF, nothing is being done to debunk a source.   If you read the current article it refers to that absence of information.  Time marched, and the speculative information without data, is replaced by sourced and well citing information.   This is quite normal for lack of knowledge to be replaced by knowledge.  AlbinoFerret continued commanding to bend to POV editorship is antithetical to NPOV ARTICLES.  Simply asserting its Primary, when it conclusions are Secondary, does not bake a cake.   Its not just a one size fits all.  "*"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".  Those instructions counter AlbinoFerret claims.  Pursuing canvasing, and forum shopping won't change the guides I have already cited.   Nor will it remove the merits.  I have cited where Primary is not defined as unusable, (regardless of whether it misdiagnosed as being primary when it it secondary).  Where is the hardline rule, stated unequivocally in the text?  Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right near the top of the WP:MEDRS page it says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information" The only way they can be brought in is with consensus, so far it appears you do not have that. AlbinoFerret  15:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct that MEDRS does not require that sources be secondary. However, secondary sources are preferred. To use a primary source, one needs to provide an argument. Others may or may not be convinced by that argument. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus. If you are unhappy with the local consensus here, you can open an RfC to get more opinions. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the confirmation Kingindian that Primary Sources are indeed usable, which is exactly what information I quote above. However I see nothing which suggests that the onus of inclusion of properly sourced material, must be made before its inclusion.  Clearly the assumption of stating "not-MEDRS" by virtue of an assertion of Primary, is not a valid premise for removal or reverting.  Reverts should be explained.   Additionally polling heads is not part of the editing process.  Lastly the declaration of Primary vs Secondary is muddled and confused in general in its application outside of the bounds of medicine.   MEDRS is intended to remove junk science, to stop snake-oil claims.  Electronic Cigarettes are not medicine, nor are they claimed to be by anyone, in all sources.  The item which I place into this article is secondary, and further its not a MEDRS claim.   Addressing the confusion within this article classification would likely be the simpliest.  When I created the E-Liquid page, and then subsequently agreed to a merging of pages, I did not expect E-Liquid would be characterized as Medicine as I see it being done in the TALK header.  This is not correct for all of the reason I just said.   To resolve this entire set of quandaries how would you suggest to proceed.   Take it to the Medicine noticeboard, and asking for it to be removed from Medicine?  Can I just do that myself within the TALK page?  Certainly if medical claims were being made, those should be reviewed seriously.  But even under that premise, most of the article will be outside of Medicine. At best parts of the page could be under MEDRS.  It's simply over spec-ed, its a consumer product sold to adults.   of the available options in WP, which process would you suggest to nail this down conclusively?   Thanks in Advance Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
 * MEDRS is a guideline, and can apply to any claim which has health implications. The whole article need not be dealing with the health implications. The issue here is the seriousness of the amount of nicotine in homes. As to your comment about reverts, there have been explanations given. You might not agree with them, that is ok. As to what to pdo next, you can try various things. Posting to the med notice board with a short neutral comment directing them to this discussion is fine. Or if you want, I can open an RfC for you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and a heads up to  Kingsindian, yes I would like an RFC to be opened here are what I think the issues are.  1.  Does MEDRS apply to all aspects of an article that has some medical implications, but not all.  For example Electronic Cigarettes do not make health claims.  2. Primary vs Secondary sources, when is something primary, and what constitutes a solid secondary.  3.  And the last one that puts it over the top for an RFC.  We know have competing (or rather different countries) having different conclusions on health and safety.  England just said they will grant approval as medical devices.  The USA has been rejected by the courts to do the same.  Some health departments like England are convinced that Electronic Cigarettes are significantly safer stating 95% safer than Cigarettes, while other equally valid Public Health departments want proof they have long term safety.  So you can have equally credible peer-review with dramatically different statement.  How do these get inserted.  4.  How is the removal of previously sourced content get removed with better science becomes available.   No small item. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with move of content from Safety of electronic cigarettes
It appears that the content moved here from Safety was from an older version. It includes copyvios and inaccurate paraphrases of sources that were previously fixed. Is there an easy way to repair the damage? P Walford (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much was done in the short time before I copied it into a sandbox to work and when it was placed here, but it couldnt have been more than 2 weeks. Not sure there is an easy way, let me think on that. AlbinoFerret  14:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't difficult after all. I made the changes. P Walford (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are still plenty of old Quack leftovers (recent example here) that need to be checked for the above mentioned problems incl. context, something that was impossible to do back then while they were at it. That is applicable to all ecig related articles.--TMCk (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of MEDRS sourced claim
Mystery Wolff has removed MEDRS sourced material. I disagree with the removal. I have replaced it. AlbinoFerret 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret please stop edit warring, and reverting others work. A warning with explanation of the WP processes has been placed on your TALK page.  MEDRS is a protocol or specification of process, it is not a stamp of approval.   My edit on January give a detailed explanation.  The information presented here is not within the citation.  It talking about cigarette tar.  If you want to dispute the content of the citation, do so here in TALK.   Do not simply revert with premise that mentioning MEDRS is sufficient to revert another editors work.  I took time to read the cite, if you are not going to, let another editor, do not just revert.  Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made the following Edit...referred to in the top section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid&type=revision&diff=697731620&oldid=697510065


 * What are the issues with this edit. I have looked at the cite, I have read it, I have given a detailed explanation of why the edit is proper.  No one owns these pages, least of which me, but this edit is done entirely properly.   Editors who have familiarity with the subject matter know this edit is not valid.  I have done the process of confirming that the citation ITSELF, does not support the edit.  What else need be done, beyond the detailed edit summary from the first edit?   Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with MW here in that the edit removed text supposedly not supported by the source. It is not an issue of MEDRS at all. I myself have not checked the source, and am not sure if AlbinoFerret did. Perhaps MW can add a failed verification tag there, while this thing is sorted out. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Direct quote from source: "Thus, indoor surfaces in environments where electronic cigarette use occurs could create a reservoir of nicotine that could be ingested, absorbed transdermally, or inhaled by children (especially young children) long after electronic cigarette use." The only reason I don't revert is b/c it's way to close paraphrased (and yet still leaves out ingestion and transdermal absorption possibility ). Also it should say "could" not "can".--TMCk (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kingsindian, I did check the source, its open access. TMCk is correct on the location, and perhaps it can be better worded, but the claim is backed up. Removing it multiple times is pure disruption. AlbinoFerret  22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to hear from MW why they thought the source didn't support the sentence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm happy to see this surely far-fetched bogie-claim go. It may be in one source, but the great majority of reviews don't mention it. WP:UNDUE? Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

- The line I removed was "For example, indoor surfaces can accumulate nicotine where e-cigarettes were used, which may be inhaled by children, particularly youngsters, long after they were used."

The information study which was reverted out along with this edit was: There was no significant difference in the amount of nicotine in homes of e-cigarette users and non-users. Nicotine is a common contaminant found on indoor surfaces. While prior studies revealed nicotine residues in tobacco smokers' homes, none have examined the nicotine residue in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users' homes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25869751

FROM THE CITE: Studies of thirdhand tobacco smoke have demonstrated that smoke components, including nicotine, are deposited and re-emitted from indoor surfaces over time even after tobacco sources have been extinguished, and can result in substantial nicotine exposure levels.77,78 Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces79 and is absorbed by non-users.80,81 Thus, indoor surfaces in environments where electronic cigarette use occurs could create a reservoir of nicotine that could be ingested, absorbed transdermally, or inhaled by children (especially young children) long after electronic cigarette use.

The information in this journal is being presented as Primary, without change. It is not a review. Primary of itself is not significant enough to preclude. However the study used as the basis of Nicotine is a first look. The followup study found that Nicotine was not a source of contamination in the homes of Electronic Cigarette users. They are both done by Goniewicz researcher. The article is not a review it is restating a preliminary study.

So if you look at the source cite. It is taking preliminary research, without the benefit of later research. That later research is something that has been presented in front of the FDA, and I will be using that to overcome the Primary charge that was used to revert it. The later research is talking about 3rd hand, whereas this is conflating Cigarettes Smoke with nicotine. The studies refered to in the cite are talking about Thirdhand SMOKE. It is being used and conflate in the ARTICLE to represent E-Cigarettes The sentence in the cite which is OR, without cites, is suggesting that Third hand can be inhaled. This is totally controverted by the definition of Third Hand. Which is surface and not inhalation. Other sentences in the article, talk about licking with the tongue to get Third Hand exposure. Even then its still talking about exposure to SMOKE third hand. ++++ To the actual sentence used in the Article removed. It is OR because it takes a different section of a general article and states "For example..." The cite does not use that example. The more recent study says that nicotine on surfaces is the same as ecig and non-users. "Long after they are used" regarding Electronic Cigarettes, is nowhere in the articles. Nor is there research to show this. Application and conflation of cigarette smoke and vapor is what I cited when I did my edit. The article is not a review, it is paper on policy. It is no better or worse than the primary sources its built upon. It is listed as opining on a debate. It is making policy statements on laws, it is not a scientific review. When it says THUS, it has directly combined two different areas or research. Some of the lines are Tobacco Cigarettes others are for E-Cigs.

These are there SOME of the reasons. Ultimately getting the FDA review of the more recent study as presented for Electronic Cigarettes will eliminate any MEDRS lagging complaints on the best data published and reviewed.

When it talks of absorption of 2nd hand smoke, it should not be construed as Thirdhand exposure. They are conflated.

The problem is speculative cites on the health aspects of Third Hand are highly premature to be using the sentence that I removed. A hint is always when the source says "COULD" and "MAY" We can have a disagreement on this....but being called a liar on this item, was unfair, and this long explanation to defend that charge should not be construed as OR or as you call it a Fairy Tale. When you look at the rest of the quotes in this entire paragraph the basis to remove this specific sentence can be supported with UNDUE WEIGHT, but itself. And that is why I asked this to go to talk, instead of simply reverting it. Again the review research says There was no significant difference in the amount of nicotine in homes of e-cigarette users and non-users (p>0.05)CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine is a common contaminant found on indoor surfaces.

Which is were continued editorship of the article will cite properly regarding MEDRS and be included. Mystery Wolff (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with MW here, the source used is primary and doesn't appear to reflect consensus among later papers. SPACKlick (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My own viewpoint is the following. I have literally zero knowledge of e cigs, but I've read the source. The source which was removed was talking about dangers from nicotine deposits.
 * nicotine deposits from cigarette smoke have been studied and found harmful.
 * e cigs also create some nicotine deposits
 * hence one should be mindful of the risks.
 * it explicitly notes that there aren't good studies which directly look at e cig related nicotine levels, and the situation is uncertain.

And then:


 * Now there is a pilot study which shows that nicotine residues from e cig are much less than cigarettes and indeed indistinguishable from non-smokers.

Am I correct in the understanding of the situation?

I think one should definitely not remove the risks, just on the basis of the precautionary principle. One can write that the risk exists, and there aren't good studies, but a pilot study showed so and so. One must be careful of not engaging in any SYNTH. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kingindian those are good questions, and they also relate to the topic above on Primary. I am going to  to see if he can look at this, as he has edited the electronic cigarettes.  I think these questions go at the some of the cores of the historical problem on these pages.   That is evolving documentation from reliable sources and how to update it as better information comes in, specifially to the removal of early in-vitro studies and premature sources.  MEDRS is an evolution as the science continues and Electronic Cigarettes have many studies on them being published to solve the "uncertain" nature of the new product.
 * So starting with the text as written:

E-cigarette use by a parent might lead to inadvertent health risks to offspring.[12] E-cigarettes pose many safety concerns to children.[12] For example, indoor surfaces can accumulate nicotine where e-cigarettes were used, which may be inhaled by children, particularly youngsters, long after they were used.[12] A policy statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology has reported that "Third-hand exposure occurs when nicotine and other chemicals from second-hand aerosol deposit on surfaces, exposing people through touch, ingestion, and inhalation".[15] Public health England, looking at the available research said the amount of nicotine deposited was low and that an infant would have to lick 30 square meters to be exposed to 1mg of nicotine.[23] The statement noted there are no published studies of third hand exposure from e-cigarettes, however initial data suggests that nicotine from e-cigarettes may stick to surfaces and would be hard to remove.[15]


 * The bold is the sentence I removed.
 * Your first bullet is wrong, the cite is talking about cigarette smoke and its residues of tar and many chemicals, which also include Nicotine. The cite has the same problem, it takes two topic areas and as it calls out itself synthesizes research to from recommendations on public policy.
 * The cite is not a REVIEW. Perhaps Doc James can comment on that part.  Every formal review I have seen has a strict outline on its methods, which I have seen in PubMED.  This one does not.
 * The removal of that sentence was not a removal of the risks and the other sentences. The sentences as they stand are already controverting each other.  Look at the one that talks about licking 30 square meters to be exposed to 1mg of nicotine.
 * Third hand is a definition of surface items, not inhalation.  But suggesting that nicotine without Tar is going to be inhaled from surfaces it very novel.  There already is a 2nd Hand Vapor section also.
 * The source is making a new conclusion in the part that is picked out. Yes I am evaluating the source as weak and not appropriate to use because of that.  I believe it was an error to put it in.  That was my edit.
 * The followup study to the invitro study reverted out. If I am able to bring that study in, most of these sentences fall apart, because the science has progressed.   I do know the FDA reviewed the 2nd study and it was presented at their own workshop.  My next task will be bringing that in.
 * And here we stand. Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the above position, that the science has moved on, so one should remove the sentence. The main point here is that one should not second-guess sources without good reason. The source is talking about preventive issues and the risk of exposure from nicotine deposits exist. Unless, there are good studies for this contradicting this point (a single pilot study does not qualify in my opinion) one should not remove the sentence about risks. One can mention the subsequent work, sure. It needs to be carefully phrased, as I said above. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should keep it, the risk had been addressed by a few sources and more views are better. AlbinoFerret  14:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , the removal is not simply premised on the science has moved on. The cite is talking about 3rd hand exposure, but it uses 3rd hand exposure from Smoke to base its claims.  This is not a review it is article which describes itself as synthesis.  The source of that synthesis is a study which was invitro, and would not normally be allowed under MEDRS because of that by itself.   The followup study by the same researcher was reviewed and presented at the FDA.  It directly contradicts the prior study.   It found that 3rd hand nicotine did not have levels anywhere near close as Smoking.  Which again is the basis of the cite in questions information, that is Smoking.
 * I am saying that the source used for the cite is not sufficient, its sourced from invitro data. That the current status does not support it.   That AlbinoFerrert removed that other source information, and I am in process of bringing it back.  I believe a presentation before at the FDA at a conference on E-Cigarettes is enough of a review to count as a review.  In spades.
 * It is also a question of weight and contradictions of there rest of the content as written. See the first two sentences, which say the same thing.  4th sentence is a policy statement but it also is a medical claim that seems unsupported.  I need to check that.  Next sentence contradicts sentences 1 2 3 and 4.   The last sentence is refutes that better science exists, which there is.
 * Basically the sentence is making claims which are not cited well enough from the source. Which is why it was removed.
 * This is why it was removed. Other editors agree with the removal.  At this point I will work this process and get the evidence of the FDA review, to bring in the follow-up study done outside of invitro testing that the FDA is relying upon and disseminating to the public.
 * This edit is also the basis of AlbinoFerret's AE, If we were to stop here, 3 of the 5 editors are in favor of the change. I believe bringing in the other study makes this moot, it will be obvious to remove the invitro testing information, per MEDRS, unless the other editors want to move in the change  now.  Mystery Wolff (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref and re-add
This has been removed as unsourced, but I think it is true, and should be said. We should find refs and re-add. Johnbod (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Particles
I've reverted this set of changes, in this dif. yes there is one line in the PHE source that says this, but the other sources used there directly contradict this. The PHE is actually outside the mainstream on this (and I am guessing this was just an error of editorial oversight). Toxicity of anything is determined by what it is, of course, as well as dose, route of exposure, and particle size. Due to its authority it would be OK to say "PHE says Y" but it cannot be used to obliterate the mainstream view. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just the PHE, the Farsalinos-Polosa review says the same and so does a letter to the WHO signed by 50 experts as well as two other authorities on occupational safety I had referenced to (that the liquid aerosol is generally not characterized by its particle size in relation to safety). Of course, the respirable fraction is significant in calculating risk, but aerosols generally have some respirable fraction (generally assumed 1/3 - I think).

For backround, please see an excellent blog-post by Clive Bates http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2523

(Note: I will not have access for the next day or so, but hope to clarify further)

--Zvi Zig 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvi Zig (talk • contribs)
 * for petes sake please sign your talk posts! i just had an ec with the bot.  for pete's sake. am too frustrated to rewrite my reply.  and do not cite blogs. That fact that you even bring that garbage here raises alarm bells about advocacy.  Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He did sign his post, just in an unusual way. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing to a blog as laying out in clear terms the point being made, it's not being advocated for inclusion, just in place of Zvi basically rehashing it in a discussion on this page. Droplet size is of less, if not practically no, relevance in aerosolised inhalants as opposed to solid/smoke based inhalants. SPACKlick (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not signed if the bot comes in behind him and does it. a blog that has no value in the article, has no value here.  Finally, please do read the sources that Zvi himself cited: this and this which both it very clear that "mass-based OELs which exist for the larger form of the material known as ‘‘bulk’’ materials (i.e., larger particle sizes of a material of a given chemical composition) may not be appropriate for these same materials at the nanoscale."  The one line in the PHE report is wildly out of step with the field, and if you look at what the PHE report cited for that one line, it is really pitiful.  I am not saying not to cite the PHE (it is what it is) but we have to acknowledge that it is out of line with the mainstream thinking on nanoparticle toxicity.  Please do read that stuff and let me know.  If we cannot solve this, we can use one or more of the DR mechanisms.  I also want to note here, that as often happens in discussions of toxicity of e-cigs, there are two conversations.  One is about toxicity relative to smoking cigarettes, and the other is plain old toxicity.   Both of the sources that Zvi cited in his reply above emphasize the comparision with cigarettes.  No one will ever argue that e-cigs are not much less toxic than cigarettes.  That is not th epoint here.  Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources don't highlight the difference in toxicity between cigs and e-cigs, they highlight the necessity of different approaches to the toxicity of liquid aerosols found in e-cigs and solid particulate smoke such as cigarettes. The two sources you additionally cite themselves separate liquid nanoparticles out from other nanoparticles for OEL. The phase state matters as the PHE and other sources show. SPACKlick (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , please see tables 3 and 2 in the two links above on occupational safety respectively.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 12:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's the actual quote, "For nanoscale liquid particles (such as fats, hydrocarbons, siloxanes), the applicable maximum workplace limit (MAK) or workplace limit (AGW) values should be employed owing to the absence of effects of solid particles"
 * The same point is made in Table 3 here.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is another issue, which is that we also should use common sense when we include material.... propylene glycol and glycerine are the most common (liquid) particles in the aerosol - and both of these act quite differently than solid particulates when entering the body. The danger with tiny and nano particulates are that they go deep into the lung tissue and thus are not easily cleaned out. But with PG and VG this is not the case - even if it penetrates the blood-air barrier both will be metabolized by the body. This is why PG is sometimes used as the carrier media in injections. --Kim D. Petersen 23:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC) while this may be considered WP:OR, i'm not suggesting that we include this - just that we think one extra time about what material that we include... especially since most of these factlets are taken from papers that aren't specific about particulates. --Kim D. Petersen 23:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken my time replying here because I wanted to be certain before I did.  Zvi you are making some argument about "Liquid" particles vs. solid ones.  Here is what the  Farsalinos-Polosa review actually says:  "An issue that needs further clarification relates to the findings of microparticles emitted from ECs. In most studies, these findings are presented in a way implying that the risk is similar to environmental or smoking microparticles. In reality, it is not just the size but the composition of the microparticles that matters. Environmental microparticles are mainly carbon, metal, acid and organic microparticles, many of which result from combustion and are commonly called particulate matter. Particulate matter exposure is definitely associated with lung and cardiovascular disease [Peters, 2005; Seaton et al. 1995]. In the case of ECs, microparticles are expected to consist mostly of propylene glycol, glycerol, water and nicotine droplets. Metal and silica nanoparticles may also be present [Williams et al. 2013], but, in general, emissions from ECs are incomparable to environmental particulate matter or cigarette smoke microparticles."    That review is very clear that composition and size matter; it is also clear that while yes there are liquid "particles" of "propylene glycol, glycerol, water, and nicotine droplets" there are also solid particles.   So both the "composition not size" thing and the "its only liquid" thing are not supported by the sources.  And please don't cite the letter to the WHO - neither the "50 scientist" original letter, nor the Glanz letter", nor the "50 scientist" response are sources we would use in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? When you say that "while yes there are liquid "particles" of "propylene glycol, glycerol, water, and nicotine droplets" there are also solid particles" - then you are ignoring the amount of solid particles that can be present. Because this is not an unknown, and that amount is a very very small fraction of the particulates - in fact comparable to medical aerosol dispersers. From this it is rather clear that the simplistic comparison is not supported by the sources, despite some individual sources doing so. --Kim D. Petersen 12:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually agree with both and . It is impossible that particle size which affects lung deposition makes no difference whatsoever, but that is only after the aerosol is considered toxic. If we look at the source the PHE reort brings, is only supports the assertion that from particle size alone does not tell us the health effect. I should have been more clear with regards to this.
 * While the WHO and Grana reports are referring mainly to liquid particulate matter, Farsalinos et al subsequently reviewed the levels of metal exposure in relation to USP and occupational limits: "ECs emit particles in nanometer range; however, metals have not been characterized in terms of their size in EC aerosol. Although there are no regulatory limits specifically defined for the particle size of metal emissions, we assume that size has been considered when defining the safety limits since it is well known that nanoparticles are abundant in occupational settings [50–52]"
 * They conclude: Based on currently available data, overall exposure to metals from EC use is not expected to be of significant health concern for smokers switching to EC use, but is an unnecessary source of exposure for never-smokers.
 * I propose a version of the deleted statement saying that size alone cannot deem a liquid particle toxic.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The letters to the WHO are not sources we use in WP for content about health. We should not use them in the article so please don't cite them here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned that letter in my latest comment, pls re-read. 'Talk' discussions should be more liberal in source qualifications to give perspective. I originally used the letter in reference to your assertion, " The PHE is actually outside the mainstream on this (and I am guessing this was just an error of editorial oversight)".Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for mistaking what you meant by "WHO reports". However talk page discussions are only for discussing content of the article, and if sources can't be used in the article they are of no value here. (this is described in WP:TPG)  Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Differentiating prefilled cigarette-esque devices, cartridge-replacable, and self-fill devices.
As I read this, the sentences regard units with cartridges and units which use e-liquid to be filled by the user intermixed. It's fairly confusing. They're clearly different in many ways, whether it's ingredients, perceived intended use, customizability of strength, etc. The intro should differentiate these different type of units, as well as studies using one may not be totally applicable to another.

Another differentiation is that devices with sub-ohm atomizers are becoming more popular, which produce WAY thicker/larger hits than ever before, and nicotine concentrations higher than obtainable by any reasonable tobacco smoking method. This can merit its own discussion entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.141 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

AEMSA USP Certification
This article requires easier visibility of AEMSA and USP Certification of e-liquid. : http://www.aemsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/AEMSA-Standards-v2.3.1.pdf Twillisjr (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150129015546/http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf to http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2013/january/ecigarettes-not-proven-quitting-aid-says-bma

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Improper lead writing
The opening sentence "The aerosol of electronic cigarettes is generated when the e-liquid reaches a temperature of roughly 100–250 °C within a chamber" is not how we write here. No one not already steeped in the topic has any idea what "e-liquid" is supposed to mean. This is an informal slang term, and shouldn't be in the title either. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the common term for the liquid in this case. To solve the issue it would probably be sensible to move the third paragraph of the lede to the beginning, making the lede define e-liquid, then discuss the emitted vapour, then discuss the exhaled vapour. SPACKlick (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the common term among electronic cigarette addicts and vendors. It's slang gibberish to everyone else in the world.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved, and before I get accused of !vote counting, the rationale is this: those supporting the move were concise, but they made valid points, and agreed with the well explained nominating rationale. The argument that this is needed in the title for those opposing is balanced by those supporting showing that there already exists a redirect to help people find the page. Additionally, while there was an appeal to COMMONNAME by those opposing the move, sourcing was not presented for this, and the arguments in favour of moving considered the e- redundant, which is a policy based reason for a move for the sack of concision per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. There being policy based reasons claims on both sides, the discussion as a whole reached a consensus that the claims in favour of a move were stronger. Because of that, I am closing this RM as moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid → Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid – "E-liquid" is slang, and it's also redundant (the e- is a highly compressed abbreviation of "electronic cigarette" itself). E-liquid already redirects here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this move as e-liquid is the common term for these products. SPACKlick (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (continuing as I accidentally submitted before completing my comment) e-liquid is far more appropriate under all steps of article title policy than electronic cigarette liquid. It is the most recognisable name. Anyone remotely familiar with the product will have seen it. E-liquid is the most natural term people will be looking for, for the same reason as above. The title merely saying "and liquid" is significantly less precise. SPACKlick (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the nomination? You seem to be making an argument for moving this to E-liquid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I read, hence my reference to it. I simply disagree with it in totality. This page is about e-liquids and e-cigarette aerosol. The title should be those two things. Whether it's e-liquid and electronic cigarette aerosol or electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid it should contain a conjunction of the two items. It should use the common, recogniseable names of both forms of this material. Your repeated claims that it is slang, gibberish, jargon etc. are just that, merely claims. It is a common term in use across many contexts relating to electronic cigarettes. And the standard for title choice per policy is the most recogniseable term to those familiar with the subject area. Which e-liquid is and "electronic cigarette liquid" most certainly is not. Just as token evidence, compare the google results for "electronic cigarette liquid" C. 250,000 to those for "e-liquid" C. 10,000,000.SPACKlick (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Tony   (talk)  01:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – the article talks about terms "e-liquid, e-fluid, or e-juice", but this e doesn't need to be in the title since electronic is. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * support, that little "e" is redundant and slangy Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose E-liquid is a product category in and of itself, with something like more than 1000 different brands and flavours, and thus it is neither slang nor is it redundant to use the proper term for this particular product type. And while it may in the past have been a short term for "electronic cigarette liquid" it is not considered a shortcut term anymore. --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a category in and of itself on Wikipedia: Category:E-liquid. Repeat: E-liquid already redirects here. No one will be confused. This discussion is about whether we need to use redundant terminology in this extended title. PS: It's been said before that this article could be split into one on e-liquid as a product and electronic cigarette aerosol as a health topic. Unless and until there's consensus to do that, we have a combined article the descriptive title of which is subject to WP:CONCISE policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Real World(tm). You know the world outside of Wikipedia, e-liquid is a product category that has more than >7750 flavours (according to an _old_ WHO report). It is not a question of being concise - its a question of being accurate. I am rather irrelevant to whether e-liquid (+ WP category) links here or not, it still doesn't make the part "and liquid" accurate. For your argumentation to have been correct, e-liquid should either be A) slang (it is not) B) a shortening of electronic cigarette liquid (it may once have been, but it isn't anymore). --Kim D. Petersen 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're simply repeating yourself without addressing the response you've already been given. WP doesn't care how many flavors of something there are. It has nothing to do with whether we should pointlessly retain a redundancy in this article's title, when the word you prefer already redirects here.  If you want to reclassify it as jargon instead of slang, the same problem remains.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You claim that it is a redundancy, based on the fallacious assumption that e-liquid is slang (which it demonstrably isn't), or an abbreviation (which it once was). But where is the evidence for it?... assertion is not evidence. What basis, outside of assertion, do you have for making this claim?  E-liquid is the trading name of this product, and titles should refer to the common name used, and that is e-liquid, being concise does not free you from the requirement to be accurate, or keep to common and recognizable names. So can you expand on your statement? --Kim D. Petersen 02:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just said you're free to classify it as jargon, and the result will be same. So, yes, just repeating yourself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when can a trade name/product type produced by hundreds of independent firms be called "jargon"? That this is a real trade name/product type is the issue that you are avoiding, and i really don't understand why. By a conservative estimate it is a product type that has sales in the billion dollar range, and its market name is "just" jargon or slang??? --Kim D. Petersen 09:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split?
The discussion above has me considering a split. We merged these topics when there was less content, but the topics seem increasingly distinct: Regulatory matters should probably mostly be centralized at the main Electronic cigarette article. Have WP:SUMMARY-style information at E-liquid on regulation that focuses on it rather than or in addition to the devices. And summary-style info on how research about effects of the aerosol tie into regulation, at Electronic cigarette aerosol.<br ?01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Electronic cigarette aerosol – an article on the properties and generation of the aerosol, and on the medicine/science about its effects to date.
 * E-liquid – an article on the product category, how it is marketed, manufactured, what the leading brands are, etc.

Needs Updates
There are many new regulations on the liquid that is now sold. The FDA has finalized the restrictions that they were working on wen it seems this article was written. It also appears that some of the "facts" are not quite accurate for the vaping that is seen today. These should also be looked at. As an avid user of various types of vaping devices, I would love to see this page get modified to fully show the true facts behind vaping.

Cverran (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)cverran

Promotional content
I just passed by the article for a first time and found it to be somewhat promotional and lacking in NPOV in feel.


 * I deleted this image (as it was just a guy blowing some vapor, seems unrelated to article subject) and left the other images remaining with closeup images of probably non-notable ecig liquid brands. I think probably WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL should apply here with more strict enforcement. This is probably an industry with many small bootstrapped companies that would all love to have their product photo promoted on this high traffic article. So I propose to just delete them entirely unless they meet a very strict bar for notability.


 * I noticed the intro section on health risks seemed to be lacking NPOV on the health risks. It appears that down in the article the health risks are clear, but up in the intro the health risks are somewhat obscured. I am not sure if these ecigs are really risky or not, and my opinion really wouldn't matter here if I did know something about it. But in general, I think we should make the intro shorter and more neutral and leave the discussion on health risks for the sections below.

Just my thoughts. PS, I also deleted some tags discussed in the next section up, that seemed to be unnecessary and lacked discussion on this talk page. ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the content that failed verification can be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the image, or at least may have failed to understand your reason for deleting it. The image in question illustrates exactly the process described in the article, of a person inhaling/exhaling the aerosol /"vapour". I cannot see how this can be considered "irrelevant" - it depicts exactly what the article describes. I also fail to see what you mean by "promotional" - the image bears no logos or branding or anything that advocates the practice of vaping. It's simply a neutral, real-life depiction of a person using the product described in the article. I'm curious how you think the article could otherwise illustrate the use of e-liquid.Cnbrb (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Initially I thought the image was good. I agree with the removal of the image showing the exhaled vapor for a different reason. It is a very poor quality image. It is most relevant to have such an image in the article. I would use a better quality image. The image of a person holding e-liquids is promotional. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly be more specific about what is "poor quality"? I assume you're not critiquing the photographic technique. Perhaps you could describe what image would best illustrate the action of consuming e-cigarette aerosol and liquid? Then perhaps we could go about sourcing something that gets close. Cnbrb (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I was confused. I thought this article was about the product, rather than the use of the product and I assumed that there would be a vaping article as well as a ecig liquid article. I see there is not, but there is a vaping section on the Electronic cigarette article and also the same photo is used there as well. Do we need it in both articles? I think we should also do away with the branded liquids in the photos unless the brand is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. This is not a place for promoting small brands and we have notability guidelines to follow in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it stands to reason that an article about a product is going to make some mention of how it is used. Some overlap with the Electronic cigarette article is unavoidable and it's not the end of the world if they do overlap, both textually and in image usage (personally I would favour merging the two articles but I'm not going down that route).


 * As for the branded bottles, I don't think the spirit of WP:PROMOTION is to ban images of all branded products. The generic Cola article carries images of branded bottles of Pepsi and Coke without any problem. You could try to source photos of unbranded e-liquid bottles if you think it's important, or peel the label off a bottle and take a picture yourself. Cnbrb (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You said, Could you possibly be more specific about what is "poor quality"? Most of the face is missing from the image. As for the branded bottles, I can see a hand in one of the images. That image is garbage. The other image of e-liquid bottles (not liquid bottles in general) is good quality if one would think an image of bottles slanting to the right is good quality. According to the title, all the content about e-liquid is off-topic and there should be content about liquid in general. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The image is not "garbage". That is a completely exaggerated and over-emotive response. You may consider it
 * Jtbobwaysf, you said "I guess I was confused." That's because this article covers multiple topics in a very incoherent way. Even the first sentence is confusing. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, I agree with you that this article is incoherent, and this glamour shot of the guy exhaling and close ups of non-notable vaping product brands looks promotional. Also agree your comment this should be about liquids, not the practice of vaping. If the editors are pro vaping, they should create an article about the activity of vaping, just as we have Smoking, or even add a section on the smoking article. This is an article that has multiple health warnings, and for sure we should err on the side of caution. I think we can give a little time here, but after we should start stripping content based on WP:NOTPROMOTION. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see the guy's face who is exhaling the vapor. The image is focusing on the vapor. That means the image is junk. It is irrelevant whether it is a notable or non-notable vaping brand. I disagree that this article should be about liquid or e-liquid or exposure to vapor. Even the title of this article is weird. When I am good and ready I will make a proposal to fix the mess. There is an article for vaping. I created it. It is called cloud-chasing. I am working on fixing the mess on this topic area. Things take time. Maybe in about 2 to 3 years I will be ready to fix the mess. If an editor started stripping the article they could cause more problems. They may return and cause even problems. Socks were here. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - "garbage", "junk" - very over-emotive and exaggerated terms to describe an image that you personally dislike. That's not an argument. The image is cropped to focus on the practice of vaping, not on the personality of the person doing it - it's a standard technique in photographic composition. We don't need to see his face. Nobody has actually provided a rational explanation here why this image is unsuitable or constructive suggestions for an alernative - all I am reading is emotive responses. There is no evidence to suggest this image is promotional, neither does including suggest that an editor is pro-vaping in any way - it is a neutral depiction of an activity described in the article. Now that it's been removed, the article is somewhat diminished, as the reader must go elsewhere to see the content illustrated, or simply imagine it. I would be prepared to help to find an alternative, but collaboration doesn't seem top of the list here.
 * And yes, the text of the article is a mess, the title is unsatisfactory, the heading structure confusing. I was going to help to make improvements, but judging by the confrontational attitude of some editors after one small good faith edit, I can see it's pointless. Sadly, I suspect that this article will never amount to anything. Cnbrb (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is a process. in time the article will improve. not every editor agrees, it sorta makes it fun since there is a discussion (some useful, some not). I would suggest moving the vaping content to a dedicated article or a section on smoking. Or create a vaping article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What happened here was done after long discussion after long discussion. The discussion first started on the Electronic cigarette talk page. You suggested to move the vaping content to a dedicated article or a section on smoking. There is no vaping content is general in this article. It is mostly about safety and the contents in the e-liquid. Those are different topics. You appear not to know where most of this content was originally and don't appear to know what was this article originally. None of the content on this article was originally on a dedicated article. They were part of other articles. Originally there was no e-liquid dedicated article. They came up with an idea to add content from other articles. What else they did I can't say right now. Moving content to a dedicated article would create more problems. That's not where the content was originally. I don't need much help to improve this or other related articles anymore. Editors have been busy creating diagrams and uploading new images. A lot of editing has already been done. The finish line is in sight but there is still work to be done. I have already read over 5,000 articles, including over a 1,000 PDF files. There is a tag at the top of this article. Don't you think I have already addressed the issue? It won't make much difference to me what anyone does with this article. I will make a simple proposal and things will start rolling. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A new essay says:

"Even WP:MEDRS has a blatant error in this regard, which some editors have been trying to fix for several years in the face of stonewalling: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include ... position statements from national or international expert bodies". Position statements are press releases (though often citing their own sources for background facts, as do high-end op-eds), and, but the term was removed to sweep under the rug the fact that MEDRS is saying, e.g., the British Medical Association or FDA organizational stance on e-cigarettes is "ideal" secondary sourcing when it is actually primary material."

The commented out message says: "If you have an issue with the above, go write your own counter-essay; do not try to censor this one to suit your viewpoint."

Who supports deleting statements from the British Medical Association or FDA? Who supported creating the strange title for this article and the incoherent merged content from multiple articles? Before trying to address the perceived issues with this article it would be helpful if those who supported the merged content from multiple articles to explain what they were trying to accomplish. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Article intro
As per WP:BEGIN, this article should mention the article subject in bold in the opening words. Until today, this was lacking. I have tried to add this but an editor has removed them.

Secondly, the article was recently merged in from the former E-liquid article by consensus, which is fine. It makes perfect sense therefore to include a short statement in this intro to the effect of "also known as e-liquid", as this is a colloquial term. I have added this, but an editor removed this, stating incorrectly that the cited reference did not support this. In fact, it is quite plainly stated in the citation text "E-cigarettes contain liquids (referred to as e-liquids)". Not content with a change, I now see a rather exaggerated insertion of multiple (and incorrect) "failed verification" tags littering the introduction. All rather unnecessary, when a disagreement over wording could be ironed out in talk. So I propose that the intro should read: Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid (sometimes referred to as E-liquid) is the mixture used in vapor products such as electronic cigarettes.

Suggestions for improvement are, or course, welcome. Cnbrb (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not provide verification for the content. The source did not verify "sometimes" and "the mixture used in vapor products".
 * Current wording: "Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid (sometimes referred to as E-liquid) is the mixture used in vapor products such as electronic cigarettes.[1]"
 * See ""E-cigarettes contain liquids (referred to as e-liquids)..." does not verify the content. The sentence in the article is making a much boarder claim than the source. The electronic cigarette aerosol is not a mixture used in vapor products. Electronic cigarette aerosol is what comes out of these products.
 * The previous text was sourced using another source. See "E-liquid is the mixture used in vapor products such as electronic cigarettes.[1]" I think the previously sourced text using the previous source can replace the failed verification text and new source added. QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your concerns to the talk page. I did actually provide verification for the content, but I think you may have misunderstood slightly. The reference which you claim has failed refers only to the first few words - it is common to place an inline reference at the end of a sentence, but the reference could be moved further into the sentence next to the specific words to be clearer. I would not object if the word "sometimes" was removed, if you find it so dreadfully misleading. I only added it because you objected to the use of "commonly", although without a qualifier it reads oddly to me.


 * Having tried to understand your explanation, it seems your concern is about ambiguity. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to you to separate the phrase "e-liquid" from the description of the aerosol. Perhaps along the lines of:

Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid is the mixture used in vapor products such as electronic cigarettes. The liquid is referred to as E-liquid.
 * The main aim here is to offer a clear opening statement that explains to the reader from the start what "e-liquid" is, as it features prominently in the article but lacks any initial introduction. 23:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review the meaning of the word "aerosol." Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A good point - the term "vapour" is in common usage, although the article states that this is technically inaccurate as the heating action turns the liquid into an aerosol. It would be worth bringing an explanation of the two common terms "e-liquid" and "vapour/vape" into the opening lines to clarify to the reader that these terms are covered by the article, but need additional and distinct clarification. Cnbrb (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See "Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid (sometimes referred to as E-liquid) is the mixture used in vapor products such as electronic cigarettes.[1]"
 * The source did not state "sometimes" and the source does not verify "used in vapor products" in general. I previously explained that the e-cigarette aerosol is not the mixture in the e-liquid. E-cigarette aerosol is the e-cigarette emissions. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Verifiability, the content that failed verification was removed. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 16:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Inhalant
Should this be included in Category:Inhalants? Please include your reasoning. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * E-cigarettes are not classified as inhalants like nicotine medical inhalants. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 07:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge to focus specifically on electronic cigarette aerosol
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose the content about e-liquid be merged with the Construction of electronic cigarettes and the content about safety be merged with the Safety of electronic cigarettes. This is a confusing article when multiples topics are discussed on the same page. The article can be specifically about electronic cigarette aerosol rather than also about e-liquid and safety. It would be easier to read for the reader when the article has more focus. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments on proposed merge/split to focus specifically on electronic cigarette aerosol

 * Support proposed merge of e-liquid and safety content. Focusing on one topic rather than also about e-liquid and safety will make it easier to read. The current article is confusing to follow. The content on the composition of electronic cigarette aerosol can stay on this page. I can work on a draft for the electronic cigarette aerosol for this page and for the merge of e-liquid and safety content to other pages. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why has this been done as a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, and not by using and  tags as described at WP:MERGEPROP? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article can be about the composition of electronic cigarette aerosol without a merge and content about e-liquid and safety content can be moved to other pages. Since it is more than one topic than can be merged I think it would be complicated to do a merge proposal that way. It is not a simple merge since parts of the article will remain behind and other parts of the article can be merged to other articles. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 11:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, what about the WP:PROSPLIT procedure? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can reformat it but the RfC can still precede. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 18:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if this moves... Summoned by bot, taking a look. Putting a note here is sufficient to let me know. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sure not unreasonable Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  LGTM Dryfee (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  I have earlier tried to edit this page and been confused, as these two topics are quite different. The liquid seems to be quite tied to promotional issues (brands of liquid, photos, etc) and the aerosol is more of a generic topic as well as health and safety matter. I think a good idea. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support there's far too many articles in this subject area. Consolidation is a good idea.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.