Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 12

RfC: Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed
Do we need a POV tag and if so where should it be placed? We have three options:


 * 1) No POV tag
 * 2) POV tag at the top
 * 3) POV-section tag for the health section

14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Positions

 * Support 1 or 3. Do not support 2. Clearly defined issues with the lead are not supported. Just because one editor does not like a review article by Grana published in one of the most reputable journals in the world, Circulation does not mean we need to tag the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 since general POV problems in an article, by its very nature is reflected in the lede. I dislike Jmh's strawman above about me not "like[ing] a review article by Grana" since that is not correct. Grana is a significant secondary review article on the topic, but it is not the end-all-be-all article on e-cigarettes, and therefore relying too heavily on the Grana review is WP:UNDUE. He also ignores that there are other POV problems with the article, primarily created by a single editor (not Doc James), which is the major reason for the problems. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  3 1 (misread the list) Coming in from the outside of this discussion (mostly), I'm quite quite surprised by the intensity with which every minor point on this article becomes a battleground. Are people really spending hours arguing about the use of the word "vapor" vs mist or aerosol?  Reading the article in its current state, and comparing it to the cited references, it seems to me to be closer to NPOV than the great majority of articles on Wikipedia.  Particularly since most of the argument is about issues for which there is little data, and for which much greater clarity will be forthcoming over the next 1-2 years.  Formerly 98 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I've been avoiding this article for the most part due to the intense disputes that occur over even the slightest wording differences. That we are citing a high quality source like Circulation is a good thing, not a reason to tag the article as has been suggested. I also find NPOV tagging to be used as a "tag of shame" or an "I don't agree with the POV of the article but I can't get consensus to go my way" tag, rather than as the intended use of getting outside contributions. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support 2. Do not support 1, but I may consider 3, if a compelling argument is made. What hangs me up between 2 and 3 is that the lede also shows the POV problem; however, the sections of the article not directly related to health do not appear to be too far from NPOV. Perhaps two "section" tags are needed - one for the lede, and another for the health section - as a 4th Option. Onto the POV problem, I find Jmh's presentation oversimplifies (and adds to) the pervasive slant of the article. The article currently reads like an annotated conspectus of the Grana study. There is continued, unjustified resistance towards a MEDRS secondary-source critique of the Grana study (see [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this]). In contrast, health claims and other hypothetical or imaginary scenarios aligned with the overall POV are supported by what are clearly and decidedly primary sources that do not meet MEDRS standards ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=630653667#Electronic_cigarettes]). In addition, Grana statements are made in Wikipedia's own voice while other significant secondary reviews referenced in the article (those that do not support the POV) are given far less than their due weight and being discussed using distancing constructs such as "A 2014 review found it is safe to presume..." Mihaister (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 I see POV tags as being unhelpful and an admission of defeat for WP. Better remove the tag and discuss what the alleged POV is.  If no agreement can be reached than have an RfC on that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 perfered, 3 possibly. Grana, is published in Circulation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Very little if any of the refrences in the Wikipedia e-cigarettes article are on cardiovascular medical topics. Therefore it should impact the ammount used in the article and should be in proportion to articles of a similar topic published by Circulation. Grana is overused. With the few review articles published, one should not overrank the others if it expresses views the others disagree with regardless where it is published. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nictoine is a major cause of heart attacks and strokes and causes about a third of all cardiovascular deaths (in the US). Therefore, any device that delivers nicotine is legitimately "a cardiovascular topic".  I agree that it's not exclusively a cardiovascular topic—it should be a manufacturing topic and a legal topic, just to name two obvious ones—but it is a cardiovascular topic.    WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious, are you talking about nicotine here or about tobacco? Because if it is nicotine that you are talking about, then it seems to be incorrect:
 * "Up to 5 years of nicotine gum use in the Lung Health Study was unrelated to cardiovascular diseases or other serious side effects [Murray et al. 1996]. A meta-analysis of 35 clinical trials found no evidence of cardiovascular or other life-threatening adverse effects caused by nicotine intake [Greenland et al. 1998]. Even in patients with established cardiovascular disease, nicotine use in the form of NRTs does not increase cardiovascular risk [Woolf et  al. 2012; Benowitz and Gourlay, 1997]. It is anticipated that any product delivering nicotine without involving combustion, such as the EC, would confer a significantly lower risk compared with conventional cigarettes and to other nicotine containing combustible products."

- Farsalinos&Polosa(2014)


 * --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * all of that is patently and demonstrably false. It also shows a clear intent to derail the discussion with false and misleading interpretations of the literature. Hmmm sounds familiar . The claims made above refer to smoking statistics, not nicotine by itself, or any other non-combustible tobacco product. In fact, the weight of evidence on NRT shows that nicotine (when divorced from tobacco smoke) is a fairly safe chemical with little or no potential for dependence. Mihaister (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 Of course there should be a tag, there are long-standing POV issues with the article that have been clearly set out by those holding them. A more accurate name for the article would be "Negative Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes"; in other words the article is POV and preoccupied with health effects. An example of this is that the "Health Effects" section is at the top of the article, before even the "Construction" has been described. Another example of the bias is the zillion references to Grana, a study posted in a cardiovascular journal that is simply not the single-most important piece of e-cigarette research ever but is however particularly cynical. Yet another example is the Smoking Cessation section which pays almost no regard to the fact that electronic cigarettes are recreational devices, not medical devices, often used for harm-reduction, not cessation.


 * With regard to tag placement, the issues affect the lead so keep it at the top, no point in putting multiple tags throughout the article.Levelledout (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1 No tag, the purpose of the tag per the tag's own documentation is already fulfilled so the tag is unnecessary.  01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1 No tag is necessary. There are a lot of editors editing this article. We should remove the "tag of shame". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
So let us go through the two top problems which haven't been addressed (and in fact just been getting worse) since the tag went up: --Kim D. Petersen 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much reliance on a single review Grana, which at the moment is cited 43 times(!) as opposed to the 2nd most which is cited 7 12 times. Grana is strangely also the most negative review that we currently have, and most cites are for negative information. That gives us a large measure of WP:UNDUE.
 * We are using CDC's "Notes from the Field" to cite medical data, despite that CDC themselves describe these "Notes from the Field" as " may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information." in clear violation of WP:MEDRS.


 * At risk of getting sucked into the endless debates here, I'd say the ratio of cites to the two reviews in this Wikipedia article is quite reasonable. Circulation is a first tier journal, and Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety is a second or third tier journal that I run across once or twice a year. TADS is rarely cited by papers in other journals (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100199817&tip=sid&clean=0).  Circulationis a much more influential journal, whose average paper is cited 13 times. http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=22581&tip=sid&clean=0 Formerly 98 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in Addiction is cited 12 times. (i took the wrong review). And that is a first tier journal for this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem just inst the number of refrences. I have found the ones added mostly have a negitive slant added to them either not accuratly saying what Grana says, placing them in such an order on the page to create something that isnt said, or repeting the same thing over and over. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course Grana should be cited, just as every other significant secondary WP:MEDRS review should be. The problem is not Grana itself, but the overuse of a single review, to the extent that our article looks more like a copy of Grana (with some sprinklings of other sources thrown in), instead of an encyclopedic writeup that " fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Overly relying on one source is not WP:NPOV --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. The Scopus Scientific Influence Ranking, based on citations per article, is 2.2 for Addiction and 8.2 for Circulation.  For a benchmark, the NEJM, which is the most widely cited medical journal is 13.5.  So Circulation gets cited about 60% as often as the most cited medical journal, for Addiction its 13%.  Circulation is by far the more respected and influential of the two. see WP:USEBYOTHERS Formerly 98 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes. In contrast, the journal Addiction, for example, ranks #1 for the topic of Substance Abuse (ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2013 ). The weight given to a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight. Moreover, attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in the field as well as the weight of evidence gauged by these RS. Currently, there are few secondary sources for e-cigarette topics and most of these do not agree with the extreme views put forward by Grana: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Chapman (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011). The weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than the reputation of one journal in a different field. Mihaister (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mihaister, The topic the article is written on impacts the prominance of the citation. Circulation would be the prominant journal on cardiovascular medical topics. But Ecigarettes is not a cardiovascular topic. Also one article in a journal, no matter where, does not make the overwhelming refrences against its possistion less.
 * AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (replace deleted tag)
 * I also agree with Mihaister and Kim D. Petersen, the fact that Circulation is well respected in the field of cardiovascular health does not excuse the extreme amount of weight that the Grana article currently has here.


 * With regards to CDC data, clearly, its a primary source, it should be removed.Levelledout (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One point everyone may have missed. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal .... or that reports material in a different field" Grana is a report on material in a different field than the journal it is written in. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert on this subject but I would just make the comment that on a first reading this article does not seem to me to present an obviously biased view. There are a few overexcited comments about dangerous chemicals but generally the article give the impression that the article gives a balanced view of things. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed before the rfc was closed, and there is no clear consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The status and impact factor of the journal Circulation is with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, they are not a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes" This would be a great argument if this was just an article about the addictive properties of e-cigarettes.  In fact, the health issues covered by the article are much broader than this, and range into areas that are completely outside Addiction's scope of coverage. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which equally applies to Circulation. But this is really moot, since it is not the publication venue (journals) themselves that determines WP:WEIGHT, and i'm surprised that you'd even mention that. The publication venue is the determining factor for reliability - but not for merit and weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point that the articles scope is in fact more favorable to the argument of weight applied to the topic of articles in Circulation. The additional topics in Grana and the wikipedia article are also outside the usual topics in Circulation playing more into its lessened weight. Publishing articles outside of the usual topics of a journal plays into weight because it is not reviewed by those best suited to review the claims it makes. Your also wrong in that the NPOV problem the article has is that the article reads and is structured to give prominence to health effects. Ecigarettes, while a consumer product has been overtaken by a medical agenda. The overloading of the page with health effects quotes when so little is known, and sources conflict each other is one proof of that. Grana should be used, but the amount of use should be alot less. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UT
 * Yes I agree with AlbinoFerret that the journal used for publishing research does affect the research's reliability. The Wikipedia article's subject is entirely irrelevant. The point is that the subject of the research should match the speciality of the journal as closely as possible. The idea is that poor research is far more likely to slip past peer reviewers if it is posted in a journal that does not specialise in the type of research that has been conducted. Whether or not this affects the weight is questionable, but it does affect whether the source should be included at all.


 * One thing I will say is that reading the WP:WEIGHT section, the enormous weight that Grana currently has here seems to go against most of that policy seeing as WP:WEIGHT is actually about:
 * "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * It is also about explaining the majority view, any opposing views and any minority views. I do not believe that one review can become the majority view simply because it was published in a popular cardiovascular journal. The opinions of editors regarding the journal are in any case irrelevant in determining weight. It's just one source.Levelledout (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done a lot of editing to the article this evening including changes of the order of the article to address a situation Levelledout pointed out above that I thought was strange and adding to the NPOV issue. They may make the question this section addresses moot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at this, I think it's fully appropriate to use the street vernacular "vaporized", but also to explain the difference between the misty aerosol and true vapor. I should note that this terminology was used for many decades in reference to schemes for heating marijuana without burning it which produced a more genuine vapor.  (Speaking of marijuana, we should detail the adaptation of the devices to work with cannabis oil, which is one of the first and most interesting things I read about them)  We need a clearer explanation of how a cigarette-like smoke is produced by the devices.  The explanation should cover the marketing aspects -- as the advertisements make quite clear, one of the biggest draws of the mist is that people can look so "cool" standing around puffing their addictive smoke in all directions without the limitations that have been placed on tobacco.  We should also see if we can answer the question of how far the aerosol particles actually go (rather than just the amount of cotinine in coworkers' blood). Wnt (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as i know, e-cigs aren't/can't be converted to vaporize cannabis oil (too thick methinks). I think you are talking about dry herb vaporizers not e-cigs... similar concept but not quite the same. As for the advertisement/marketing angle, haven't seen that on this side of the pond, can you refer to some 2ndry sources for this? --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The type specimen for the ad is . Secondary sources... it's not my field and I'm not necessarily hitting them.  Searching around I find sources like    that are neither very good nor really make the argument that I think is obvious from watching a commercial like that, that the "black and white movie appeal" of the strategic exhalation is something valuable in itself.  Regarding marijuana, there are articles like    .  I am getting an impression from these and some informal sources that the cannabis may be vaporized at a higher temperature than the nicotine solution, even when it is in wax, and therefore there is a preference for metal e-cigs, but how sure can I be of that after just a few minutes of searching?  Would be worth pursuing, though. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic wording
A 2014 review, "while not listing them" stated there are concerns about pregnant women exposure to e-cigarette mist through direct use or via exhaled mist. The part "while not listing them" is unencyclopedic wording, unnecessary, and the source did say this. Every time a source does not list the specifics we don't need to say what the source did not say. I think at least women readers will know when a women is pregnant there is a concern for the fetus being exposed to the chemicals such as nicotine from the e-cigarette. The part "while not listing them" is POV editorialising and possibly OR. See Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be careful using any unsourced information even if it presented in a review... Do remember that such sources contain both a summary of the science as well as the personal views of the researchers, this is particularly visible in the policy recommendations, and is another reason that one should never rely entirely on one review paper. Finally as for your "I think at least women readers will know...."... There is a general scare in the lay-population of anything that is "chemical" and using that as a reasoning is pure WP:NPOV. I've been wondering where that pregnant thing comes from, but no references are given to it (afaik) - so if it is a real and valid concern then we should have some background for it. --Kim D. Petersen 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added more information from another source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
ASHRAE isnt a MEDRS source in any way shape or form. The info in it is in the article already sourced to MEDRS sources in at least one other area if not more. I removed the revert of its removal. If anyone wants to discuss it. Here is the spot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is there to discuss? Not only is the Offerman paper an un-reviewed editorial in a non-MEDRS, non-PubMed source, it even lacks basic copy editing. Sigh... At this rate we'll soon be faced with citations to anti-smoker blogs held up as "notable MEDRS organizations" for sources... Mihaister (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA: I note, a WP:SPA , has engaged in edit warring his addition of this source. ,  Mihaister (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the ASHRAE source, convenience link here, appears to be published in ASHRAE Journal, which appears to be peer reviewed and is clearly a secondary source, specifically a review article (a literature review in format). It, however, is dubious with regards to being MEDRS compliant; I think publications like this would be fine in a non-health related section if it were discussing only emissions. However, using it in a health section and discussing the health effects probably crosses the line into health related material, and am fine leaving it out of that particular section as it is not MEDLINE indexed and health discussion is outside the scope of this journal. If someone were to create a separate section about aerosols which did not describe health related material, this would probably be an excellent source for that. Yobol (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As an aside, you really have to admire the chutzpah of Mihaister calling out someone else for being a SPA.
 * The thing is, all the claims are already in the article by MEDRS sources. Its not really needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It adds environmental health expertise Cloudjpk (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesnt its engineers. This isnt AIHA which has some medical reference, though low. Engineers are not medical in any way AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's Environmental_health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No its not, they are not doctors or health experts but engineers. The argument may have worked for AIHA, it doesnt work for ASHRAE. They work on heaters and air conditioners.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Citations have already been provided on this Environmental Health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have placed a link to a section posted on a page that says they work with standards groups. They are not a prominent health body as described on WP:MEDRS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the content on the page. ASHRAE has recognized expertise in environmental helath and is active in applying the best science to protecting health and safety. ASHRAE standards based on this protect the health of literally millions of people. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What you need is not a statement on the ASHRAE site, but on a site of a prominent medical body like the CDC or WHO recognizing them. Anyone can put things on their own site saying anything they want. That they help design standards in buildings does not indicate they have medical expertise which is what is necessary to make health claims. They dont have the credentials for that, they are engineers.Perhaps if they were talking about airflow, or filtration and fan systems or heating and air conditioning you could use them in a non medical claim or section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All the standards ASHRAE has produced deal with airflow, heating, and air conditioning. They have no expertise in Health matters. The claim is about Health risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is simply not the case that ASHRAE has no expertise in health matters. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health, and are used for exactly that by [health departments]. It has developed expertise, and it is accepted as a source of expertise, in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The link you gave says ssites them and their standards for ventilation and heating and cooling buildings. That is not medical expertise. The only way they can be a WP:MEDRS source is if they have medical expertise. and are recognized by prominent groups as having medical expertise. You can not have a medical claim in the Health effects section without a WP:MEDRS source with medical expertise. Having expertice in general, airflow, or about heating and cooling does not give you the right to make claims like this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall claiming that they were doctors. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and why they are different. Please understand if he does not know; that's not his field. Medicine is not environmental health. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health. Their standards development process is based on science, medicine, toxicology, and health and safety research. They are recognized for their expertise in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats the whole point, they need to be medical refrences to make health claims. Thats why you cant use the ASHRAE citation for the claim. They are not recognised by anyone except as experts in airflow, aand heating and refrigeration. But a medical refrence is needed, you are running out of time to find one. 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. Medicine is not environmental health. The source provides expertise in environmental health and indoor air quality risk evaluation specifically. This is not a purely medical question. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and see :) Cloudjpk (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ASHRAE is a recognized expert in air quality whose [standards] are accredited by ANSI, widely adopted, and become the basis of law, code, and policy. It has related expertise in Environmental Health. Its standards and expertise in indoor air quality are referenced by industry and government [OSHA, [CDC]. ASHRAE Journal is a high quality [peer-reviewed journal]. It is relevant to questions of indoor air quality and recommended policy responses. It is cited here with regard to those questions only. I would be fine with placing it in a separate section on aerosols only. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we grant you that everything you state above is true... then there are some serious problems still. The article is based upon their interpretation of a single primary source (Goniewicz et al (2013)), which is referenced in all of the newer WP:MEDRS secondary review articles, including Burstyn(2014) which covers the same topic area, and which comes to the contrary conclusion as your article. And that means that per WP:MEDREV your reference simply doesn't qualify as sufficiently good material. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As a note: Even Goniewicz doesn't reach that conclusion, although Grana does, and Grana is cited for this already in the article - this is not a pile-on. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It provides peer-reviewed environmental health analysis and expertise; Grana does not. It complements Burstyn(2014) nicely by using NSRLs and CRELs where Burstyn uses TLVs, which is also why WP:MEDREV doesn't apply: the same question wasn't examined. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wasting time arguing when you should be loooking for a WP:MEDRS source. The claim wont last long without it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. I explained why the expertise is relevant and the source high quality. Removing it is not supported by consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Removal is supported by consensus if you dont have a WP:MEDRS source. Saying it isnt will not change the facts. You are wasting time you would be better served finding said source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have requested temporary page protection because of Cloudjpk's actions' AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I have tagged it as needing a WP:MEDRS one should be found or the claim will be removed. Persistent revert/replacing against consensus will result in a edit warring notification on the Admin edit war/3rr board AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I take exception to so marking it. Environmental health expertise is cited appropriately. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Take exception all you want, but you are going against consensus. Everyone here, even Yobol says it isnt MEDRS. Find a citation that is WP:MEDRS, or it will be removed tomorrow, if you replace it I will file a notice on the Administers war edit/3rr board for your actions for going against consensus and consistently replacing it (an edit war). AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus for excluding it. I see multiple editors who believe it should included. Please note that whether it's MEDRS not the same question. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Every editor here has said it doesnt belong in the health section, Aresol is a subsection of Health effects. So what you are saying is untrue. Even if it wasnt in a health section, by making health claims a MEDRS is needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are editors who have not said that. However I said I would be fine with placing it in a separate section for Aerosols, and I'm still fine with that; is that something we can work with? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless where its placed in the article, if it makes health claims, which it does, it needs a WP:MEDRS source. There is no one that supports its use without a WP:MEDRS source. You are going against consensous, I am giving you time to find a WP:MEDRS source, if you cant find one it will be removed. If its replaced without a WP:MEDRS source, you will be reported for edit warring. Site one in this section that does. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me the consensus for excluding it. Or help develop a consensus for placement. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Read this section, no one says they are a MEDRS. No one but you. Not even Yobol who usually stands with the medical editors and pretty much agrees that things like risks should be included. That is consensus. There is no way to make the information you want to include, health risk claims, included without a WP:MEDRS source. You need to find one, and fast. The placing of the tag isnt an indefinite allowing of the claims to stay, but it is giving you a chance to find a source. Do yourself a favor and find one, or remove it yourself, because it wont be long. Per WP:NOCITE if you dont find a source in a reasonable time, and a day is reasonable, it can and will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please read I wrote. I didn't say the source was MEDRS. I agreed with other editors that it is a reliable source for the content in question. There is no consensus to exclude it. If you do so, you are the one acting without consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles, by your own admission its not WP:MEDRS I could remove it right now. You still have time to find one but you are wasting everyones time going round in circles. No, you can say I dont have consensus, but you cant point to one other editor in this section who agrees with you. You saying something isnt proof. Find one or remove it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I can point to editors who agree that this source should be cited. So can you. It's right here on the Talk page; couldn't be plainer. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think you realize how accommodating I am being giving you the time to find one. I am trying to work with you by giving you the chance to find one, if you cant I will have to remove it per WP:NOCITE. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to work with you and others, and have already offered a way to move forward: what section would this be apppropriate in? If you wish to achieve consensus, there's a way to do it. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This section cant be used in any section because its making a medical claim of risks without a WP:MEDRS source. There is consensus that medical claims cant be used in an article without one, and a secondary source. Your arguing and asking and not doing the easiest thing, which is finding the WP:MEDRS source. If you cant find one its likely it doesnt even pass WP:WEIGHT. Your not working with anyone, working with the other editors would entail you finding said source, or removing claim. I have went over and over this and you still dont get it. So find a WP:MEDRS source, or it gets removed per WP:NOCITE. This isnt using anything as a weapon, but following WP guidelines and policy. WP:RS of wich WP:MEDRS relies is one of the 5 pillars, there is no way around it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your view; other editors see it differently. If you would like to work towards consensus, offers have been made. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Name one, at this present time, in this section other than yourself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to name other editors who agree this source should be cited. Tell you what though, how about you do that? They're right on this page.
 * I'm also happy to discuss which section is most appropriate. This is the third time I've offered that as a way to build consensus. You have yet to respond. Do you want to build consensus? Cloudjpk (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WNT, Yobol, Kim, Mihaister, and myself all disagree with you that ASHRE can be used to make medical claims. There is no one left. I have told you how you can work with everyone else to build consensus multiple times, by finding a WP:MEDRS reference for the medical claim you are making. There is no other way short of removing all medical claims in the sentence and that will leave basically nothing. These ongoing circular arguments will make great diffs later if you dont find a WP:MEDRS source and then replace the section when it is removed per WP:NOCITE because its disruptive to consensus building. 12:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WNT, Yobol, and I agree this source carries weight and should be cited. There is ongoing discussion on where it should be placed in the article. If you would like to build consensus, you are welcome to join that discussion. If you would rather engage in WP:MEDRS wars, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both Yobol and Wnt say that the source could be used to make claims that are not medical in a non medical section. But you are making claims that are medical so no matter what section you place it in it needs a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a personal dislike for ASHRAE because I blame them for pushing ridiculous, self-serving air quality standards that leave modern buildings sounding like one giant fan room, and make a mockery of claims of improved energy efficiency. Nonetheless, this source is valuable and should be kept.  You can say that it is not a reliable MEDRS source, and in a sense that may be true - I would prefer to pass through to the original primary studies the author cites.  Nonetheless, the organization is (rightly or wrongly) trusted and certainly should be cited by Wikipedia for routine engineering measurements like the level of formaldehyde in the air, and for introducing scientific concepts like the distinction between a vapor and an aerosol (this was discussed on this page a few topics up, and this is a good source for it).  If you must invoke the loathsome MEDRS, I would at least see it confined to the narrow space of actual health claims, as opposed to how the e-cigarette works (which it also explains) and so forth. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS sources are only really needed in the health sections, Aresol is in the health section and full of health claims. Each claims in the ASHREA statement are all in the article sourced to MEDRS sources. This is a problem of duplication using a non MEDRS source to make health claims. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that goes back to the RfC above - I don't think we should have the basic description of the consumer device, which was not designed by doctors, under a medical section at all. It should be an early, separate section that simply explains what it is and how it works. Wnt (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my comment, in the article as it is now, MEDRS sources are not required in say the Components section if they dont make a health claim. 23:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Placement of Offerman(2014)
Offerman(2014) has been recognized as a source worth citing in the article. However, there has been some disagreement as to exactly where to place it. I am open to suggestions. I'm starting this section for clarity and with a view to building consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting the discussion. There is no agreement that Offermann's editorial should be cited anywhere. That article is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the same data presented by Goniewicz et al. (2013), which is already discussed in the article. There is no evidence that the Offermann article has even been peer-reviewed; and all of the statements that could possibly be made based on it are already covered in the article using far more reliable sources. The rest of the claims are already covered by the AIHA internal paper, which is already in the article. There is no reason to insist on the Offermann paper unless you're pursuing some vested interest or specific POV. As an aside, note how Offermann manufactured a bunch of risk criteria for his calculations, for compounds that do not have established CRELs. This is an indication that no peer-review has been performed or that it's been woefully inept, as such practice of inventing risk thresholds for GRAS chemicals (such as propylene glycol) is not only inconsistent with risk assessment guidelines, it is academic misconduct. Mihaister (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please get your facts straight. Offerman(2014) is not an editorial. There are multiple editors who agree that it carries weight and should be cited. The publication is peer reviewed. And please take your bashing elsewhere; I have created this section for discussion of placement of the source. I am working toward consensus. If you would like to be part of that, you are welcome. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Offerman has been recognised as a possible source for non medical claims. But that is not how you are using it inside a medical section. Offernam is part of a journal for ASHRAE or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. They are not a medical group. All editors in the section above except you say its not a WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not, ASHRAE is a society of engineers who expertice is airflow, refrigeration, heating, and air conditioning not health care. Find another source or the claims and the link will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, now we're getting somewhere! What would be examples of a non medical section? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * History would be one, but since your using it for medical claims it doesnt matter what section you place it in, it would still need a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppose we were using it for research and analysis on environmental health and safety, not necessarily medicine? What section(s) would work for that? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a medical research regardless of the setting, and a any mention of risk or implying that there is a danger is a health impact claim would need a WP:MEDRS source. The only use of ASHRAE is air flow, refrigeration, heating and air conditioning if you can find some way to use that in an article. Offerman holds a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. If you couldfind a paper by ASHRAE on the vertilation needed in a room full of people vaping they might be used, but this article is way beyond that, and doent have any of that information. 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; the question is about environmental health not medicine. Both are good for your health; the two are not the same thing. And the question in view is which section(s) of this article would be appropriate for information on environmental health. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this organization is somewhat comparable to the people who write Material Safety Data Sheets (which are almost always pure guesswork where human toxicity is concerned, for obvious reasons). The MSDS may call a chemical an "irritant" or "poison", which is somewhat a medical claim, but it should still be citable if it represents how safety regulators treat it.  We just should be clear that X considers it so, not that it is scientifically proven so. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even maximum exposures are medical, and engineers dont have the expertise to decide what a minimum or maximum exposure is because that is a health question because it has a health impact. ASHRAE is not recognized as medical by anyone. The only ASHRAE standards recognized by anyone are airflow and heating and cooling.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this. It wasn't true the first time you said it, either. Ample references have been provided. Nothing is stopping you from reading them. If you would like to help get to consensus, that would be helpful. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats what really stops ASHRAE from being used, while they are in some way scientific, they are only recognized as experts because of standards they have set that are recognized. Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals. They are about airflow, or heating, refrigeration or air conditioning. This limits what they can be used for to the expertise they are recognized for. So, no, they cant really be used for exposures to chemicals because exposures are decided by medical study. The way the claim in the article is written, its pure medical. In the U.S., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees MSDS and it is a major medical organization just like other countries they are part of the Health department, full of doctors and medical study, MSDS is a WP:MEDRS source because it is recognized as such by other major medical organizations and governments. But you couldnt use a MSDS journal (if one exists) to write a citation on how an airplane flies. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal .... or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not medical and not recognized by anyone as medical, ASHRAE is a society of engineers whos expertise is airflow, refrigeration, heating, and air conditioning not health care. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals oh wait
 * not health care "Among the references most often cited by a majority of existing standards, both national and international -- even though it is not legally binding -- are the norms published by ASHRAE...the acceptable quality of indoor air required for its occupants in order to prevent adverse health effects" Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, 1998. Stellman, Jeanne M (Editor). Emphasis mine. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You definitely have too rosy a view of MSDSes. It's hard for me to argue with you on ASHRAE because as it happens I do personally think they promulgate an absurdly strict standard on indoor carbon dioxide and particulates in order to sell more HVAC equipment (compared to the typical wigwam with a fire inside and a hole in the roof).  Still, while I may not like their standards they're still data, and data is good.  MEDRS can turn into a petty exclusion of non-medical viewpoints, and even when I feel those viewpoints are wrong (as in the carbon dioxide example) an encyclopedia should still document them. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree! And I'm open to where in the article this one should be placed. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point,. This is not only an issue of MEDRS, which Offermann clearly is not, but even if it were, there is a much bigger issue of WP:WEIGHT. There are actual review articles available on this very topic (as defined by PubMed publication type) and they are thoroughly discussed in the article; there's no reason to lower the sourcing standards to include this dubious and controversial publication. To put Offermann's piece on equal footing with the reviews currently cited by the article is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, in particular WP:GEVAL and would push the article even further from WP:NPOV. Wikipedia gives more weight to reviews published in high-quality sources than non-reviews published in lesser-quality sources. In this particular case, the Offermann source is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the Goniewicz data, which is already discussed by multiple reviews already cited in the article, including Grana and Burstyn. You are pushing the Offermann article to give WP:UNDUE weight to a low-quality source aiming to contradict or modify conclusions from high-quality reviews. This is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Mihaister (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A re-analysis does not seem like a primary source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is used in the future Mihaister, McNeil should come in. In fact I am thinking use of AIHA may have already opened the door. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per the previous discussion, the 'version of record' has been published: it's time to introduce the arguments from that review. Mihaister (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not a review and it was rejected. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dream on, Quack. The consensus was to add "attributed statements" once the VoR gets published, and it now has been. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol
What is the opinion of the editors, is the provided evidence of what comes out of an ecigarette technically an aerosol? This isnt asking if the word should be used throught the page because we should write to the general reader in terms they understand, but for how claims are catagorized. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe the term "aerosol" is both technically accurate and verifiable. However, I don't think it's the term used routinely in common language. Just like "fog" is also technically an "aerosol" and you don't hear the weather man forecast "morning aerosol" but rather morning fog, so too the more common term "vapor" should be used throughout the article. Mihaister (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So when the article describes what is found in the vapor in a first hand exposure it is aerosol in a first hand exposure? I thought thats what it was, but had to make sure. We should also differentiate between first hand exposure and second hand exposure when the source article notes a difference because what is true for first hand exposure does not always hold true for second hand exposure. Also, unless the reference specifically mentions its second hand or uses terms and descriptions to describe second hand exposure, it should be taken as first hand exposure, correct? I also agree that no one talks like that. aerosol may be the technical term or scientific jargon, but we are writing to the General Reader who uses common words, not jargon, WP:MEDMOS tells us not to use jargon. I am just thinking things through for a way to make the article flow better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this before. The lede says mist. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording not consistent with source
Sourced wording was replaced with OR.

"A 2014 review concluded that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that would justify health concerns.[10]" The wording was changed and now the sentence is misleading and OR. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide that link, also please provide the text of the claim from the cited material. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not provide verification for the current text. There was no problem with the previous wording. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide the correct diff. I found the line in the citation. "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern." It looks like a good paraphrase and not OR. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You still could not verify the text because the source did not assert that. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Read my previous responce above yours. It has the exact wording copied from the source, it most certianly said what is in the article. But its a paraphrase, we cant use the exact wording because of copyright issues as a few have explained to you a few times.AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The current wording is still misleading and the assertion is still OR. The wording was shortened to assert a claim out of context. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a conclusion in the section of the source. Its not misleading, its a statement that says there is no evidence that that exposure to metals in aerosol warrents a health concern. This seems to be a common finding with all the contaminents. They are at so low a level that they dont cause concern. Please go into depth explaining why you think its not applied correctly. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You still can't provide verification for the current text taken out of context and you have not shown what was the problem with the previous wording. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't out of context, and what was wrong with the previous wording is that it missed out the tiny detail of the metal particles not warranting any health concern.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you can't verify the claim then it is OR and misleading text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But he did verify it, with a quote from the source. And in fact it's the wording you insist on that's misleading, because it implies health concerns when the source itself says there aren't any.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What a surprise! Quack hard of hearing... again. Let me reiterrate, in case you accidentally missed it - direct quote from source: "'Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern.'" -- Mihaister (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you provide the entire sentence from the source you will know it is misleading. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That quote starts with an upper case letter and ends with a period. Yep, looks like an entire sentence to me.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Full quote from the conclusions, demonstrating there's no WP:OR here, as claimed: "- Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements. -The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true zeros." --Mihaister (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think more context is needed, especially the part about unrealistic assumptions.22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern." Inferred is not a conclusion. It was assumed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you have a problem with english, here is the entry from Websters Dictionary
 * infer
 * :to form (an opinion) from evidence : to reach (a conclusion) based on known facts
 * So it is a conclusion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was "inferred" which means "to hint; imply; suggest." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, infer is the root word, the ending just adds the tense. I don't know what dictionary you are using, but Merriam-Webster is the gold standard, I copied its top definition into my last comment. You are going to the 3rd or 4th definition, one not normally used. But if we go to Dictonary.com for the definition we find the definition of inferred listed. #5 to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning. So its a conclusion based on reasoning as all reviews do to form conclusions from various other journal articles. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source says "inferred" not infer. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we seriously having this discussion? You know what, Quack, rephrase the statement with whatever "distancing" language you want, as long as you immediately follow it with the following summary from the same source: "Clear bias in previous reviews cherry picks the highest measurements of the chemicals detected across multiple primary sources, thus overestimating the exposures and exaggerating their health implications. " Mihaister (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the words following the quote should be included Mihaister, I LINKED to a direct definition that gives the exact meaning to inferred, not infer. But leave it to Quack to cherry pick something out of the post to complain about. The direct definition, without any guesswork for the exact word inferred is "to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning." is it is a conclusion. In case you cant find it, its #5. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence initially started with "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred"... The source was not that sure otherwise they would of asserted it rather than it say "can be inferred" It can be is not a definite conclusion. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is English your native language? AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The part "it can" be inferred is missing from the sentence. That is why it is misleading. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have gone over paraphrasing and that your need for exact wording isnt possible because of copyright before. The sentence in the article is a good paraphrase of what the source says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said I need exact wording. Don't put words in my mouth. It "can be inferred" does not mean it "is inferred". Thus it is misleading. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That wording means thats the conclusion they came to. If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in." So if I tweak the text to make it closer to the source your are going to add text that is undue weight to counteract my improvement. That is not collaboration. That is a point violation and disruptive.
 * The source said it can be inferred not it *is* inferred. You can fix the OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, Quack, I can't believe you're causing trouble about this. If you read "It can be seen..." what would you take from that? Or "It can be assumed..." It's exactly the same here. When they say "It can be inferred..." that means they inferred it. This is just desperate. Please stop it.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quack, the only one being disruptive is you. If you insist on putting "inferred" in more context will have to come in describing the thought processes of the author of the source. Right now its a simple sentence that says what is in the original source, but paraphrased as we are supposed to do. If you want to twist things to your own point of view I will have to make it more clear by adding from the text. You will be creating a Streisand effect. By adding more context it will draw attention to it, I am pretty sure that defeats your desired result. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The part "it can be" is missing. It makes no sense to say it "can be concluded" because the source said it can be inferred. It "can be inferred" is different from it "is concluded". Thus the text is misleading to claim it is concluded, especially when there is limited research. Without the context it is misleading. You can't WP:ASSERT it as fact when the source did not assert it as a fact. Do you understand the word *can* does not mean it *is* (concluded)? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tobacco Harm Reduction
I see a lot of biased edits happened today, removing harm reduction claims and placing them elsewhere, and moving Harm Reduction. If Harm reduction is moved under safety, so should cessation because its done to remove all risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved down the discussion of harm reduction as the emphasis in secondary sources is in discussion of smoking cessation and safety profiles. Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources and receives less emphasis, so it should be further down in the list in a discussion of health effects.  It also makes more sense to discuss harm reduction after introducing the smoking cessation and safety issues, as this gives context to the harm reduction position, that they would not understand without introduction to these topics first. Yobol (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also note that accusations of "biased edits" do not further a discussion of how to appropriately improve the article, as it fosters a WP:BATTLEground mentality. I would suggest you lay off the accusations. Yobol (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? I did a spot check of your claim that "Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources" was correct. Lets see: Saitta et al(2014), Hajek et al(2014), Palazzolo(2014), O'Connor(2012), Farsalinos&Polosa(2014) all have "harm reduction" in their keywords. Polosa et al(2013) and Cahn&Siegel(2011) directly are about harm-reduction and have it in the title. And that was just the reviews from the top part of the left column of our references.
 * Could you rephrase that in a way that is accurate please - since reality doesn't match your claim. Could you also explain why it should be the only thing discussed in the source? --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While harm reduction may not be as much on the radar in the US. It is very much part of both the scientific and the political debate in Europe. And quite a lot of our sources are European, and they mostly do take a focus on harm reduction, as opposed to many of the US ones. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The bias is removing clear claims of harm reduction from the section. Also making it a subsection. It deserves a section on its own under Health Effects, and not under Aerosol, which is second hand exposure. If a clam is about harm reduction, it should be in that section. Even if it has other parts, the harm reduction part should remain there are other parts placed in the section that fit, not be completely removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since safety should come first, I moved Cessation under it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to start removing any duplication of any chemical or source soon if the Harm Reduction has referenced claims removed again.AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Yobol is involved in an edit war AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are too. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I now see your point about the last paragraph now in harm reduction, you are right, that belongs there. I misread the material there. Yobol (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I never reverted to a previous version of the page. I have removed duplicates from other areas. I am glad you see it is talking about harm reduction. There wasnt a section like it before so some claims of harm reduction are spread all over the page. Some of them I didnt remove from other sections because they deal with multiple things.AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You restored the previous version and then deleted sourced text. If the text was in the wrong section it could of been moved to another section. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That section never existed in that location in the past so it cant be "restored". But the problem Yobol had was that the claims were duplicates, he later said they belonged in the Harm Reduction section. So since they belong in that section I removed the duplication from other areas. Up untill reciently there was no Harm reduction section and harm reduction claims were scattered accross other sections. The same has happened with Aerosol, and soon the duplicates from sections will have to be delt with. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Previous revert. Another revert. I added that text before. You restored the previous wording and then deleted the previous text that was changed. And now you made at least 3 reverts. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A revert is to a copy of the page as it existed in the past, please provide a link to a previous copy of the page with the sections exactly as the edits I did, including the order of the sections. AlbinoFerret (talk)
 * They were partial reverts. You deleted sourced text that came to a different conclusion. Are you going to restore the text without the assert violation I previously removed. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have had 2 partial reverts at diffrent times over the day, and a revert of myself isnt counted as a revert. The assert violation text was from 2013 and said that some things were uncertian, but in 2014 we have reviews that have dealt with that topic. As such is old "concerns" that have proven to be nothing. That type of claim is supposed to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Different sources make different conclusions. That is your opinion it is nothing. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They didnt make a conclusion, they said it was unclear. Thats not a conclusion, thats saying they were not sure. Well other studdies have later cleared it up in 2014. If they had concluded somethng it would have been left. Someone saying they are not sure about something isnt a claim. Statements like that should not be left when later evidence is presented. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The statements were part of the conclusion. When later evidence is very clear then it will be updated. Now it is still unclear. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The conslusion that they were not sure? Well when they are sure, post the claim. Until then other reviews and statements from MEDRS sources, which are sure have been made, making the previous unsure statement obsolete. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They are sure it is unclear. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "A 2014 review found electronic systems appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period." No, the source was not a review. Who restored the OR? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop throwing accusations around. Just because you disagree with something that does not make it OR.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Original Research, use of present tense
In the article I added a statement to the begining of Harm Reduction. The source of the line is.
 * "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. "

Has is past tense, meaning it is discussing things in the past. We have had a few editors change the tense of the claim to say it "is". This is WP:OR. Unless they have a source that states it is in the present, they should leave it be. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The normal English meaning of "has long been" means "was in the past and continues through to this day." "Is" is correct.  If the authors wanted to indicate that it was no longer the case, they would have used "had been," the past perfect.    16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, AlbinoFerret incorrectly categorized the tense as "past tense", when it is actually the present perfect continuous tense, which can indicate continuation to the present. I have corrected their error and used the tense of the source, which indicates both a past controversy and continuation to the present. Yobol (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No Zad, what your describing is a perfect tense, and its possible its perfect tense, but unlikely as the prefect tense isnt used in english that much. But "is" is present tense. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

AIHA white paper
Material sourced to this dubious publication, which I removed, has been reverted into the article. First of all, this is not peer reviewed, or PubMed indexed; also not a reliable MEDRS. The sheer number of spelling and grammar errors in that text should give any unbiased editor pause. Mihaister (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Per MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."


 * The American Industrial Hygiene Association is an expert body recognized as an authority on occupational exposures by
 * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 * The EPA
 * OSHA
 * The Department of Energy, and
 * The U.S. Navy

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, not this argument again. Are you honestly equating the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Sciences or WHO (as "prominence" is exemplified at Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))? Mihaister (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the comment again please. This citation is MEDRS compliant if it is an official statement of a nationally recognized expert body.  I have demonstrated that.  I said nothing about the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Science, nor do I need to to show that this is a MEDRS compliant citation. Please don't put words in my mouth to set up straw man arguments. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The link posted by Mihaister clearly compares a reputable major scientific and medical body to those with similar stature to NIH, US National Academy, NIH et cetera. The AIHA is a run of the mll non-profit/trade association and not a nationally recognized expert body.  This edit should be removed. Doors22 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Formerly98. If other high quality sources find the AIHA guidelines useful, I think a one sentence addition is warranted. Yobol (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Doors22 is a WP:SPA account that is upset with edits, made by myself and supported by two other editors, to the Finasteride article. Doors, please review WP:HOUND, you don't want to go down this road. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then that is an issue for WP:ANI - not one writing about here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I find this one incredibly amusing. Had this been information from ASH UK, a british health organization working closely with the UK gov. on tobacco issues, then it would have soundly been removed, as has such information in the past. Standards are great to have, so double standards must be doubly good. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be more useful to move this discussion forward to discuss the specific source presented rather than a hypothetical source no one has mentioned. It appears the AIHA guidelines is viewed as reliable by multiple government agencies, so I'm at a lost as to why we should not view them as reliable as well. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's wonderful Kim. There's nothing in life that gives me more pleasure than biased editing, selective application of sourcing standards, and deliberately producing NNPOV articles.  And like so many others, I judge the success of my diabolical efforts to mislead and distort by the extent to which the articles I edit diverge from your own excruciating neutral and unbiased viewpoint. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm aside (which was amusing): I was talking about the fact that consensus so far on this article has been: Only WP:MEDRS secondary sources, preferrably reviews. In the odd case out, important organizations such as the FDA, WHO and CDC could be cited, but primarily for position statements or official reports. But this appears now to have changed. Or has it? I will with amusement watch when a harm reduction statement from an organization is proposed :) --Kim D. Petersen 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As a good example of why i'm commenting on double standards read this discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Use of non-peer reviewed white papers in a WP:PRIMARY aspect is not helping the situation. When you strongly argue MEDMOS and then include sources which do not comply, yet work towards your POV it becomes difficult to reach a compromise.  I suggest you self revert.  Arzel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Position statements by recognized organizations (as appears to be the case here, where AIHA guidelines are used by multiple different governmental agencies) can be used per MEDRS. Note that this paper is not a primary source as you appear to be suggesting, but a secondary source. (Primary sources would, for example, be the paper that first analyzed the content of the e-cigarette aerosol; this white paper is referencing those type of studies, so is a secondary source). Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For this use, while I would not rank the AIHA white paper on the same level of authority as the WHO or the NAS, the links Formerly 98 provided do show the AIHA enjoys a high level of respect and its recommendations are influential in the forming of policy. Agree with Yobol that the one-sentence use is appropriate here. As a compromise, I would also be OK with attributing the statement directly to the AIHA: instead of Industrial hygiene and indoor air quality reviews have found... use The AIHA states that..., as long as the use of the Offermann source is refactored appropriately. 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree direct intext attribution to the AIHA would be more appropriate in this case. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the attribution of AIHA as disucssed here and as now in the article. Refactoring Offermann does not mean removing it. Please stop doing so, unless and until there is consensus for its removal. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding this, but it goes in, there is no consensus for McNeil going in, it stays out. How does that work? AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification failed
Verification failed for this edit.

First change was this:
 * but a significant number will use both tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use"

The "report" states: "However, for a sizeable number of smokers ENDS use will result in the reduction of cigarette use rather than in quitting." - sizable != significant.

Second change:
 * A 2014 WHO report concluded that the aerosol emissions are likely to increase the risk of disease to nearby bystanders, especially from those e-cigarettes which produce toxicant levels close to those emitted by certain cigarettes.

There is no such "conclusion" in the report. In fact it states:
 * "It is unknown if the increased exposure to toxicants and particles in exhaled aerosol will lead to an increased risk of disease and death among bystanders as does the exposure to tobacco smoke."

And unknown doesn't translate into "likely".

Not to mention that the above editor in his edit states that this is the "WHO position", which is incompatible with the source material, which isn't a position statement. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Conversely
 * The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use".
 * The report says:
 * " This will lead to dual use of ENDS and cigarettes. Given the likely greater importance of duration of smoking (number of years smoking) over intensity (number of cigarettes smoked per day) in generating negative health consequences, dual use will have much smaller beneficial effects on overall survival compared with quitting smoking completely.
 * That means that this isn't verifiable either. Significant is the editors own apparent invention. --Kim D. Petersen 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now directly quoted the WHO report to assuage any concerns of failed verification. I note that that Point 28 subbpoint (d) stated, " In fact, exhaled aerosol is likely to increase above background levels the risk of disease to by standers, especially in the case of some ENDS that produce toxicant levels in the range of that produced by some cigarettes" which is where point #2 was added. As I think it will be fruitless to try to add any such material to this article in the current toxic and adversarial environment, I left out any mention of it. Yobol (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , could you please explain why you reverted this version, which appears to be a clearly more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I prefer paraphrasing to quotes, in this case quoting the report directly seems perfectly suitable in this situation, and I think the edit should be restored.  19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I prefer paraphrasing as well, the numerous objections to the paraphrasing leads to the only real solution being direct quotation. Yobol (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean by "in this case"...  19:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem with paraphrasing - it is a problem with the paraphrasing by increasing severity of statements. "sizable" becomes "significant", "unknown" becomes "likely", "smaller beneficial" becomes "significantly less" - all of which are for some strange reason in the same directionality... and all of which encompass a single POV. And as for the statement that point 28 d that appears to state something contradictory to an earlier sentence in the same report, that should make you stop up and not use it, instead of picking the one that you like. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the paraphrases I used were well justified, but clearly you do not, so I have used direct quotes as a compromise. As noted above, I will not be attempting to restore that aerosol material (I had only seen the part in 28 (d), not the earlier portion).  Is there any objection to this version, or can we implement it now? Yobol (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote passed V and it is a good compromise. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is quoted out of context and the excessive use of quotation marks makes it difficult to read. -A1candidate (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it "out of context"? Do you support the previous paraphrasing if you do not support the quotations? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not quoted out of context. A1candidate, if you thought it was quoted out of context then you could of fixed it. What do you think is quoted in context then? No more excuses, please. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are still objections. For one that you are using the "report" as if a position statement instead of the Grey literature that it is, and secondly that you are using it to contrast real bonefida reviews in the medical literature, this is especially troublesome considering that the report has been criticized in the peer-reviewed literature as following:
 * "'CONCLUSION The language of the report, the selective use and misrepresentation of evidence is problematic in a major policy-relevant document. Policymakers and the public require scientists to present evidence objectively, and when they offer unsubstantiated opinions, scientists should make it clear that this is what they are doing.'"
 * This report should be used sparingly, and not be used for cherry-picking information that is already covered in the reviews that we have. --Kim D. Petersen 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a "report", it says so on the WHO page and on the front page of the report. You are also reverting to a version that already uses the report, just a poorer summary of it.  As the proposed version is a better summary of the source, what objections to this particular diff do you have, besides WP:IDONTLIKETHESOURCE? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strangely it doesn't seem as if there is a general consensus that this report is as useful as you want it to be. How about acknowledging that lack of consensus and keeping the usage within bounds? --Kim D. Petersen 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree there is no consensus to use that report. 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to start a discussion about how much to use the WHO source, but that is not the point of this thread, which is a discussion of "Failed verification" and which version is a more accurate summary of the source. I feel this version is a more accurate summary, do you not agree? Yobol (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is a natural outlier of the earlier failed verification. The WHO source is discussed in the above thread, in WP:DR and on the RS(medical) board, as well as being part of the reason that there is a POV tag on the article.... so it is a valid question to ask: Whether or not we should expand the usage of this source, considering that. v--Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask, is not my proposed version a more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy considering the things mentioned above. Find another source, and if you cannot, then that is further demonstration of the problem. --Kim D. Petersen 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you are refusing to answer which version is the more accurate summary? Or do you not have an opinion on the matter? Yobol (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think i've made clear several times that the source is overused, and has dodgy pedigree. And that gives a problem with WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kim. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not shown the issue with using quotes. The original objection was the text failed verification. The WHO source is not of low pedigree. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless. 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

a pox on all your houses
I reverted back to what appeared to me, to be the last stable version before today's nonsense. Please resolve issues here, not in the article. If you guys keep this up, this article is going to end up with really stupid editing restrictions on it (like 0RR - no changes allowable unless they are vetted here first). I understand that (but not why) there is a lot of passion around this topic but please don't edit war. That goes for everybody who made an edit today. If this went to the edit warring board the lot of you would get blocked. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point i have to say that a 0RR could only be an improvement unfortunately. That would require consensus or at the very least a semblence of such. As for the edit-warring or what you call "today's nonsense", that could've been entirely avoided if there had been more usage of the talk-page, and waiting for further input. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you are part of "all" Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, so are you. --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you went to the talk page first Kim. The time stamps have the talk page section made about 5 minutes after your first edit today. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, the 5 minutes was the time it took me to formulate what i should write. 'm not fast, which is why i often get edit-conflicts :) --Kim D. Petersen 02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its better to think things through than to use boilerplate excuses........ AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of OR and duplication was restored. Please be especially careful not to restore OR. The WHO source is one of the most reliable sources. QuackGuru ( talk ) 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it one of the most reliable sources? It's highly controversial and several of the scientists whose work it reviews have accused the WHO of misrepresenting them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering all of the discussions above, it seems disingenious to make such a claim. But i take this from it: QG considers it one of the most reliable sources - but other editors disagree with him. That would be an accurate description of reality. --Kim D. Petersen 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

globalize tag
, per your tagging for "globalize" and somewhat sarcastic edit note, you are aware that the article emphasizes what the world health organization says about e-cigarettes, yes? are you aware of medical authorities in non-English speaking countries that have made statements, and more importantly, sources in english on them? Please bring them. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the FDA, CDC, American Industrial Hygiene Association etc. World health organizations? Impressive. --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The WHO isnt the word of God. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Section titled "Position of medical organizations" does not mention WHO, only US/UK authorities. And the section under "Safety" only deals with US/UK. -A1candidate (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide sources the tags are ridiculous. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's about providing balance, not sources. -A1candidate (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Without sources you have not demonstrated there is any issue. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And we all now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous. AlbinoFerret (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * True, English-language sources are not always so easy to come by, but there is plenty of regulatory/public health activity beyond the U.S. and UK. France and India very recently, to give two major examples. The tag seems quite justified and isn't a criticism of what is in the article, just an observation on what else should be. Barnabypage (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So add the positions. Most organizations actually do not have clear positions and just go by that of WHO. We cannot add what does not exist. So yes inappropriate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's about maintaining a balance between US/UK authorities and non-anglophone institutions (including WHO). Is this really that hard to understand? -A1candidate (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is used. The US government is the largest research organization in the world. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WHO is not used in "Position of medical organizations" and only mentioned once under "Safety". -A1candidate (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Non-English sources: There seems to be a misunderstanding. Sources do not have to be in English per wp:NONENG.TMCk (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Polosa et al (2013)
Currently, the only summary of Polosa et al (2013), a peer reviewed open access literature review with about 22 citations from volume 10 of the impact factor 1.6 Harm Reduction Journal by several Italian and American medical school full professor authors, is as follows: "A 2013 randomized controlled trial found no difference in smoking cessation rates between e-cigarettes with nicotine, e-cigarettes without nicotine and traditional NRT patches."

However, the abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "it is likely that smokers who switch to E-cigs will achieve large health gains." And the review concludes that, "smokers are finding these products helpful.... Most importantly, even if this [tobacco harm reduction] product proves to be effective for only 25% of the smoking population, it could save millions of lives world-wide over the next ten years."

Which of those excerpts are appropriate to include in the article? I propose including the excerpts shown as direct quotations in the introduction per the instructions to summarize major controversies in WP:LEAD, as well as in the body's "Smoking cessation" section. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not a collection of quotes from different sources. Thus oppose the idea as presented. We already more or less say this "evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine; I propose including "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains. Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, they could save millions of lives over the next decade." EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt vaping is safer than smoking. The current debate is over where, in the region 95-100% safer, it lies. So the article isn't representing the current literature very well.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding as well. Has the faction in favor of showering the readership with wishy-washy uncertainty presented any evidence to the contrary at all? EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they're just constantly hollering that the WHO and aircon installers are The Truth and can't be challenged. This article is an unreadable mess.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes as soon as you anyone convinces WHO, NICE or this comes out in a major journal with the sort of certainty express above we will include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you replying to Doc James? Could you please indent so that i can tell? --Kim D. Petersen 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The implication that http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/ isn't a "major journal" is absurd because the median medical journal impact factor is much less than 1.6 per . Not a shred of evidence has been presented that the WHO conference proceedings were ever independently reviewed before publication. The idea that we must convince WHO or NICE of the plain language of MEDRS sources is not based in policy or guidelines. EllenCT (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doc James. The defining problem with e-cigarettes is that there have been so little study about their effects. To suggest we can now quantify their effects ("millions of lives") is absurd. This is a problem of WP:WEIGHT; one source says we can quantify, every other source doesn't even try to quantify because they know better, but the one source that makes the absurd statement is valued; this is madness.  I paraphrase from an earlier comment - the suggestion that we more highly value a source just because it comes to a "definitive" conclusion is completely wrong-headed in my opinion. Some things in science have little evidence with which to make a definitive conclusion (which IMO is exactly the case with e-cigarettes); coming to a definitive conclusion when there is not enough evidence to make such a conclusion suggests the source is a poor one, not a better one. While I agree the article is an "unreadable mess" this is largely due to people shoehorning in definitive statements from their favorite source, rather than documenting with appropriate weight what the sources say, i.e. "There is disagreement in the medical literature as to effect x, with some reviews stating y, and some stating z." Instead we have competing definitive statements each in text attributed to a specific source. Madness. Yobol (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's absolutely not true. There have been hundreds of studies of their effects, mostly coming to the conclusion that there's little or nothing to worry about. The problem is they're all being rejected in favor of Grana and the WHO, who represent a minority and extreme position.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Madness is giving greater prominence to reviews which do not reach definitive conclusions because of their limited scope, when wider reviews which do reach clear prescriptive conclusions are are abundant and unquestionably as authoratative. EllenCT (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, madness is taking one line out of one review and trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to it. If there is disagreement in the medical literature and positions, we give them, but only with due prominence. If only one source out of 40 says we can quantify something, we don't give undue weight to that one source. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If reviews A and B say "there is insufficient evidence that widgets are blue" and review C, of a substantially larger number of sources, says "widgets are blue", giving greater prominence to the conclusive evidence is absolutely not undue weight, as long as the positions of all three reviews are included in the article. EllenCT (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the ref for 100s of studies? This ref says "efficacy of these products as a cessation aid is sparse, confined to 2 randomized controlled trials and 1 large cross-sectional study, anecdotal reports, and Internet-based surveys"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag
Since QuackGuru seems to be confused about why this tag has been placed on the article, despite several RfC's ongoing (albeit imho on wrong questions), and since the older discussion has been archived, let me expand my rationale for putting the tag there. First let me note that i believe that this is a systemic problem in the article, which is why i didn't place a template:POV-section tag or a template:POV-lead tag - but instead went for the Template:POV one.

and there are more .. but these are the obvious ones.
 * We have an imbalance of how views present in WP:MEDRS secondary sources are presented => WP:BALANCE
 * We put too much emphasis on the views of a single review (or 3 researchers if you want (Grana review)) => WP:WEIGHT
 * A lot of cherry-picking for quotes within papers is taking place - both "sides" have this problem. Instead of looking at the conclusions/summaries of the papers => WP:BALASPS
 * The structure of the article is put up so that it emphasizes medical aspects instead of going for a layout that (for instance) would match the ones that review articles use (they always start with a description of what it is, and how it came about before describing what may/may not be the problem with it) => WP:STRUCTURE

Finally: The tag is not there to be "tag of shame" (as QG puts it), but instead as the tag is supposed to be a "message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems" exactly as described on WP:NPOV. And i would entice editors not to remove the tag, unless the conditions set forth on Template:POV are met. --Kim D. Petersen 21:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any many of us disagree with you per the RfC. The majority of the high quality literatures state that there is simply not a lot of evidence. The same amount of evidence there is shows that they are probably safer than regular cigarettes. And this is what the article says. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a natural thing that people disagree about POV issues - otherwise POV issues would probably never surface, but as the RfC you point to also shows: This isn't a minority view! As for your "the majority of high quality literature" thing, well that is both correct and incorrect. They all agree that more research is needed, and that there are uncertainties, but the "majority of high quality literature" also agree that e-cigarettes are significantly less of a health-risk than cigarettes (typically cited as 2-3 orders of magnitude), and that there is very little risk in second hand exposure. Now there are outliers within the literature, one of these being the Grana review - which we put rather a lot of undue weight upon. And please do not argue with the "This journal is better than that journal", because what is important is researchers and the views of researchers. The Grana review is the professional view of 3 researchers - it is not the view of the journal. --Kim D. Petersen 21:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is published by an exceedingly well respected journal. And yes that matters. It is interesting that some are attempting to attack the best available sources and are putting forwards sources with impact factors or zero instead.
 * So yes I guess their is a POV and it is that of the best available literature / sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An exceedingly well respected but not very relevant journal. Meanwhile a review published in Addiction is being rejected by your lapdog because he doesn't like its conclusions.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is a deliberate misunderstanding, but this is not about disliking some sources, but a WP:WEIGHT one. Journals are important in finding out whether the articles can be trusted, but the venue of publication once we've decided that it is trustworthy, is not an argument for WP:WEIGHT. I have troubles understanding that you'd even contemplate to say that impact factor of the journal should be the deciding factor of how often a particular paper should be cited. --Kim D. Petersen 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We do and should give greater weight to better sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was really a "talk around" rather than an answer. I can agree with what you say (and do), while still have the same trouble understanding your argument. --Kim D. Petersen 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kim. I agree completely with the points you raised. Also, I'd like to add that the failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics adds to the NPOV problem, as detailed above [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=632461336&oldid=632459931], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=632467871&oldid=632466997]. Mihaister (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've raised a question on this at WT:MEDRS --Kim D. Petersen 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope i presented the problem/conundrum as neutral as possible, and that people here don't just pile on, and continue a content dispute at that board. :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a serious problem with the lede the tag should not stay at the top of the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please follow the link to WP:NPOV and read that, as well read what i wrote about tags? This is not an Template:NPOV-section problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you think there are no issues with the lede. The tag and the Rfc has already attracted other editors. The requirements for the tag were fulfilled. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that the lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD by being a summary of the body of the article? And i would refer you to the 3 bulleted items on Template:POV for when to remove the tag. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede is a bit short but it does follow lede. There has been problems with editors adding or restoring original research though. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I have had to remove a lot of negative OR lately. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Hajek et al (2014)
Currently, the article includes twelve summary citations of Hajek et al (2014), a peer reviewed literature review with 7 citations from volume 109 of the impact factor 4.9 journal Addiction by Swiss and American medical school full professors along with authors from the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products at Virginia Commonwealth University's Department of Psychology.

The abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "Long-term health effects of [electronic cigarette] use are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders [than cigarettes]." However, that statement is not included or summarized in the article. The review concludes that, "health-care professionals should support smokers unable or unwilling to stop tobacco use who wish to switch to EC to reduce harm from smoking [and] should emphasize the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine altogether."

Therefore I propose that, "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes," be included in the introduction and the "Harm reduction" section of the article, and that the "Harm reduction" section should also include the statement that, "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine." EllenCT (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is we should be comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources, not just taking them piecemeal. Piecemeal additions from sources is what caused the mess in the article in the first place, and I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I invite other editors to join me in giving the appropriate amount of credibility to the opinions of anyone who announces that they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not a helpful response Ellen. The fact that someone expresses disagreement with your approach is not tantamount to announcing that "they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree".  A more accurate description would be they have announced that "they strongly disagree with my proposal".  These are not the same thing, and equating them is part of what makes editing this article so difficult. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you characterize "I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route"? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That your approach to editing and building this article will make this article more unreadable and develop worsening WP:WEIGHT issues. Nothing I wrote has even the remotest thing to do with "have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree". Yobol (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree violates the WP:V and WP:NPOV pillar policies. You clearly wrote what I quoted above, and it clearly implies you are not open to any further suggestions to include summaries of such excerpts. What other possible interpretation is there? EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree" - Um, excuse me? I did not say that. This is the second time you have misrepresented what I have wrote, in this one thread. I am taking my leave now, as life's too short to deal with someone who appears to either lack the competence to understand what I am writing or does understand and misrepresents it anyways. Yobol (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone else has a theory about what else you possibly could have meant by "piecemeal additions" than excluding just the parts of reviews, which are already partly summarized in the article, that you don't agree with, I'd love to hear it. But you would rather bow out than answer my question? And then make a personal attack accusing me of misrepresenting what you wrote without explaining what you claim to have meant? Good riddance. EllenCT (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, the main problem with the article is not the "comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources" as suggested above but the failure to accurately portray the large controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics (health effects, safety, addiction, harm reduction, vapor composition, and risk). Most of the sources mention this heated debate explicitly and the others portray the controversy by presenting conflicting evidence from both sides. I think the "health" section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial and based on thin evidence (from both sides). It should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when. Mihaister (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the MEDRS sources I've looked at, I have not yet seen any detailed description of a controversy greater than usual for any new health-related development. What source do you think best describes the controversy? I wasn't even aware that there was any controversy before the RFC bot pointed me here. EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a source that is useful here, but it provides some insights into what is happening: Professor Peter Hajek - Experts on Camera --Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * THAT VIDEO IS EXTRAORDINARILY INFORMATIVE AND I AM SHOUTING IN RED HERE IN HOPES IT WILL ENCOURAGE ALL EDITORS TO LOOK AT IT. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take your pick, they all say something about the debate or controversy in this arena. For example, the Hajek 2014 review (since it's the topic of this subsection): "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition." Or the Polosa et al. 2013 review from above: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate." There are also many other articles that don't necessarily cover medical topics, but rather focus on the social or economic aspects of this, some which are entirely dedicated to portraying the controversy: e.g. Stimson et al. 2014, Gilmore and Hartwell 2014, Glyn 2014, Cavico et al., etc. A few minutes on Google Scholar and you can find many more. In addition to creating the "Controversy" section mentioned above, I also propose we add the following templates to this talk page:    . Mihaister (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add image
I propose we include this image. Can I restore the proposal? Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. That photograph is of outdated rubbish. Also, somewhere as prominent as the caption of a photo can we please not use the ridiculous "mist"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quack has a problem with the word "vapor" a view only supported by him and Cloujpk in the talk pages. A very minority view. Vapor is the most common term used. He relies on two journal articles, though we are not supposed to be writing like a journal. Mist was suggested as a compromise in the lede, its use elsewhere was not agreed to. This photo is outdated, like most of the article, relying on first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article shouldn't be based on what Quack wants. He's just one editor with a very bad reputation for causing problems, and even if he has a powerful protector we shouldn't let him throw his weight about.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is a poor representation of current vaping equipment, cig-a-likes are (at least in Europe) very rarely used, mainly because of their poor functionality. I'm not against a picture there (or even this one), should just be a better more up-to-date one. --Kim D. Petersen 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do current e-cigarettes puff like that? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with a photo of the stuff that comes out of an e-cig Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as we use only one photo. If a better photo is available in the future we can replace this one. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Kim that the picture is old and outdated. Cigalikes are a poor product and really don't provide a good representation of todays devices. They are first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good to have a picture of a cigalike, a picture of a tank system, etc. The lack of homogeneity in the market is one of its important features. On the non-cigalike devices, some sense of scale in the picture would be useful. Barnabypage (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The photos of the devices in general are useful, but the one of vapor? Not so much. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely this photo is useful. The way in which the device mimics cigarette smoke is clearly a distinctive feature, and seeing the mist helps to underscore why people wonder about the health effects of the second-hand "smoke".  Also, the stuff is not vapor - look up vapor, this isn't it.  Vapor would be clear.  It worries me that there are people saying a) that we should inaccurately call the substance "vapor", and b) wanting to hide a photo that illustrates it isn't vapor.  It gives the appearance of some kind of spin.  That said, I have no objection to using better/more updated photos, though frankly, I see little visible difference from what is being advertised now, except maybe color? Wnt (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Vapor is not always clear. As for your "worries" about people wanting to call it vapor that's what EVERYBODY calls it except, thanks to Quack's POV-pushing, Wikipedia. And if you don't see a difference between the crappy cigalike in that photo and what people are actually using you need to see your optometrist urgently.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if there's any POV here it's only chemistry class - classes taken long before e-cigarettes were on the market. Vapor is a specific chemical term.  It is accurate for a THC vaporizer for marijuana (if combustion is truly avoided) when a volatile material is simply heated, but not for a suspension of droplets cunningly created from a liquid solution.  While we should not exclude mention of the popular term, when it comes to routine statements in encyclopedic voice we should be accurate. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you use a PG-only liquid the vapor is next to invisible. There's a British liquid, Clearstream I think, where it is invisible. Vegetable glycerin is added specifically to create a visible plume because users like it. They are producing vapor. Most academic papers say "vapor". Every manufacturer, user and media report says "vapor". Objecting to the use of "vapor" is crazy. As for POV, this article is an unreadable mess of hypothetical health effects that might appear sometime when it's supposed to be about the devices themselves. It is not a medical device and the article just shouldn't be in this state.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wnt, I dont think anyone is debating the textbook definition of "vapor" or what its called in some journals. But there are a lot of Wikipedia guidelines, WP:MEDMOS to name one, that tell us to write to the General Reader who doesnt use the textbook or journal definition of most things. In fact those Wikipedia pages tell us not to use jargon except when there is no other alternative. An example "An electric gasoline hybrid vehicle" may describe a Prius but most people call it a "car". A lot of repair manuals from Copier manufacturers call what they make "Network laser printer with attached scanning option" but no one says that. Since this article is about a consumer product, we should use consumer terms when describing it and things about it. Mist is confusing, and aerosol to the general reader is a can of hair or bug spray. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I finally added something I suggested way above, about the blu acquisition by Lorillard and the Steven Dorff ad campaign.  I think that this text justifies a Fair Use screenshot of Dorff exhaling - I snapshotted a frame right after he says "we're all adults here".  That said, I think even if that is acceptable to people here, the old shot is still useful to have also because there's no artifice in it, and it is a different brand. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its probably the least offensive ad if all your using is a screen shot of it and not the video. Quack added a tag asking if the link to the video was a reliable source. Since its on Youtube, and Blu used its corporate account to post the video the source should be reliable for showing the video exists. It doesnt seem the cigalike companies can advertise without someone finding a fault with the advertisement. Im not sure they should do video advertisements. In the hearing of the of the commerce committee on e-cigarette advertising a Blu representative said they make and advertise things for adults. Naming one of the flavors as whiskey, pointing it out as an adult flavor. It was then pointed out to him that even that flavor would attract youth. AlbinoFerret  04:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)