Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 15

Removal of bullet points in a list and renaming the section
It appears Quack has been busy editing the "generation" section of the Power section. At first he got rid of the subsections that separated the generations. This made one paragraph. The problem though is it lumped together all the generations in one paragraph making it harder for the General reader to find information about a specific generation of device if thats all they want. I am in the midst of expanding the section and gathering citations for what I am going to put in. But taking out the subsections wasnt a big deal because it was a little small at the time.

I separated the paragraph a little more to make it easier for someone looking for information on a specific generation. At first using bold, but I removed it as its clearly a list, and added bullet points. I shortened the unnecessary long section name, and removed what some may consider promotional language. Quack removed them and language to show that what came after was basically a list. Again making it harder for someone interested in finding specific information.

This morning I added more language to show that the section contained a list ending in a colon, and added the bullets again. Quack then changed the name of the section again and removed the bullets from the list. The section name was inaccurate as all generations are still being made. I changed the name of the section to something simple but accurate. I have started this section so that Quack can give a good reason for these changes as he did not start a talk section on them even after changing the section twice. I would like to know why he is also changing the section to make it harder on the reader to find specific information. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just try changing any of Quack's wording and see how quickly he yelps "Why was this changed without explanation?" But he can change anything he likes. Serious WP:OWN issues here and if he doesn't stop I'm taking it to ANI.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes seem very worthwhile. They add an encyclopedic tone that is required. In general (WP:PROSE), lists are not desirable, and I don't see why more on the "generations" topic would be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe because this article needs more info on electronic cigarettes - check the title - and less on hypothetical risks and scaremongering?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing the words "First generation", "Second generation" and "Third generation", eventually resulting in one big section called "Progression" does not improve the article, it is simply more evidence of widespread WP:TENDENTIOUS editing that means the article is even more confusing and removed from the general reader. Sources such as [Public Health England] call them "First/Second Generation devices". But seemingly it doesn't matter what reliable sources say because apparently the words "First generation devices" are ["promotional"]. "First generation device" is a statement of fact used for the pure reason of distinguishing them from "Second generation" which are substantially different. If these words are promotional, then so are most other words in the article such as "electronic cigarette".Levelledout (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The subsections may be coming back soon. An even bigger issue is that there is no distinguishing of findings in the medical section between the generations. The majority if not all of the findings in the medical section are on first generation devices. Without the generational information, its all just Original Research in my opinion. AlbinoFerret  02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to have multiple subsections and bullet points are not the standard on Wikipedia. You added ref duplications and extra spaces. Why did you do that? There is no reason to add the same ref full citation twice. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell there was no reason to remove the words "First/Second/Third Generation" from the article in the first place and an explanation not been provided. The words themselves are a completely neutral statement of fact that simply categorizes different types of e-cigarette product.Levelledout (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the repetitive text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please address why you removed the subsections originally. AlbinoFerret  03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine well I have reinserted the sections in a non-repetitive way, I take it you will have no problem with that since that seems to be the only issue of concern to you. I would however add that a vast majority of Wikipedia sections and articles start, naturally, by discussing the subject. Such as "Electronic cigarette" - "an electronic cigarette is..."Levelledout (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was the goofy Visual Editor, I used it to move the section, thats where the long citation appears. I normally edit source to add citations. The spaces were there because I wasn't done with the section, I just took a little break. It is necessary to have the subsections in place for organization. A bigger section needs organization. AlbinoFerret  03:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the differences between device generations are immensely important. Most of the research done so far has been on crude Gen 1 cigalikes, which have a declining market share. However preliminary research indicates that Gen 2 devices are far more effective for smokers who want to switch, with Polosa's new study achieving 36% smoking cessation among unmotivated subjects. There are also safety implications. The heavy metal contamination found by old studies is produced by Gen 1 cartos which use nichrome wire (nickel) with soldered joints (lead and tin). Gen 2 and 3 atomizers use kanthal wire and don't have solder, so this contamination, which is already at very low levels, will be completely absent. If this article is supposed to be informative it should contain much more info about electronic cigarettes and much less of Quack's irrelevant bullshit about diesel exhaust and atmospheric pollution particles.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this discuss still about the use of bullet points? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's about the repeated removal of information that actually covers the subject of this article - Electronic cigarettes, remember? - by an editor who insists on filling it up with irrelevant trivia about secondhand smoke and vehicle exhaust particulates.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was never ment to be just about bullet points. I was more concerned with the ability to organize the information to make it easier to read and navigate to an area the reader might be interested in. Be it subsections, or bullets, it really doesnt matter to me. AlbinoFerret  02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:USEPROSE, prose is preferred over bullet points.  03:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that from above, but the need to organize and separate so information can be found still exists. AlbinoFerret  03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the sourcing supports organizing the content into 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation, just compose a series of well-written, impeccably-sourced prose paragraphs. Decoration is unnecessary, and isn't preferred.    03:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, and we will remove them from the next medical section that adds subsections, right? AlbinoFerret  03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We can discuss the organization of medical content in another section, this is not a tit-for-tat or zero-sum game. I just looked at Construction and the sourcing is terrible .  THAT is the #1 problem with that section right now, and there's way too little well-sourced content there to even consider breaking it up into subsections at this point.  Can you help with the sourcing?   03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know more work needs to be done on the whole components section. But the generations were not a subsection of components, but of the Progressions section, which has a lot more citations, to medical journals. Secondly, there is no consensus to remove the sub-subsections. Therefore they should revert to the first addition of the section as they were before they were removed. As for tit-for tat, no its not that, but you would be setting president which I will copy into any discussion in the future. AlbinoFerret  04:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All this constant chatter and delete this or that because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is just slowing work on the article. AlbinoFerret  04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For subsections, it all comes down to the sourcing and some judgment regarding how distinct the subtopics actually are. If the excellent-quality sourcing shows that the differences between the "generations" are so significant that each generation is its own topic with enough content to fill out multiple paragraphs of well-sourced content, then subsections make sense.  In fact the Health effects section is exactly that.  You should aspire to develop the Construction content to be as solid as what's in Health effects, you shouldn't be looking to remove subsections from Health effects as a finger in the eye to other editors.  Setting up for a "Zad said I couldn't have subsections here so you can't have subsections there" is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND, please don't do it.    04:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about looking to remove subsections from the health section? Not me. There is already well sourced information to fill the sub sub sections, with more to come. But I learn from what people say. If there is a small subsection opened I will look at it and raise the same arguments you did here and link to your statements. But getting back to consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The bold edit was Quack removing them because they had been in the article for at least a week prior to them being removed. AlbinoFerret
 * You have not given a logical reason why you added a long citation and changed the ref names that could give the appearance it was a different ref when it was the same ref. You added duplicate long citations before while changing the ref names. There should not be multiple subsections for the same topic for first generation to new-generation devices. Sourcing is an issue with the section. Please find better sources. The bold edit was a short time ago by adding the multiple sections in the first place. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The long reference makes little difference. It doesn’t show up in the readable text. What sourcing issue in the Progression section? Be specific. AlbinoFerret  04:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You changes the ref names while creating a separate long citation for the same reference that is already in the article. It did show up as a separate reference. I don't think you want me to tag or delete every unreliable source in the construction section. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Make your own arguments. Linking to something someone else wrote somewhere else isn't demonstration of your own understanding or working collaboratively for the benefit of the Encyclopedia, it's game-playing.  As I wrote, you need to use judgment, which depends on the sourcing available and related content.   04:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasnt just something someone else wrote, like an essay, but WP policy. The sub sub sections were added on November 6th Quack removed them on November 16th. 10 days later. AlbinoFerret  04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call the article "settled" since then, would you?  04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was in that area (components). AlbinoFerret  04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the quality of the sourcing in the Construction section, I will explain with point-by-point detail my concerns regarding that. The section uses anonymous bloggers company promotional material, these are generally unacceptable sources for the kinds of statements being made.    04:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So what do you want, a paper from Professor (of mechanical engineering) Glantz on e-cig generations? This is the problem with trying to force MED rules onto this article. Any e-cig user can tell you about the generations of device, but because the cabal insists on MEDRS we can't put any actual relevant information in the article. Meanwhile the opinion of air conditioning engineers has Godlike status. Will you people please grow up?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that using anonymous bloggers and company's promotional material is unacceptable, that is an entirely separate issue. Also, I agree that WP:MEDRS is neither appropriate nor necessary for describing construction, there is certainly no consensus to use it in this context and WP:V is perfectly adequate.Levelledout (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thats shifting the discussion and "tit for tat" AlbinoFerret

In classic Wikipedia e-cigarette page style the changes have [now been re-inserted] back into the article without WP:CONSENSUS.Levelledout (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, AF, review my responses here, my focus has been on the sourcing for the section, and whether the build-out of the content warrants subsections. I had tried to resolve the sourcing issues about a week ago and I was reverted.  The sourcing issue hasn't been resolved.  It needs to be addressed.    04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All this silly, and I mean silly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problems slows work, I finally get back to it, and more erupts. How about just letting it be as it was on the 15th, before Quack's edits and letting me get back to work on the article? AlbinoFerret  04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the sourcing issue above. However the fact still remains that there is no consensus for the original changes so they should still be removed and not reinserted until if/when there is a consensus.Levelledout (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AF if you can improve the sourcing as described and build out the content using that sourcing into significant, well-developed paragraphs, I will absolutely support subsections!  05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first generation is pretty done, the second, close, the third I was interrupted. I am not asking you to support in the future, but to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS. If not you are going to set a precedent that may create more problems in the future. That isnt a threat, but a reaslistic looking ahead, and knowing lots of people will read these words. It will give Quack carte blanche. AlbinoFerret  05:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Zad but whether you personally support it or not does not amount to consensus, hence my posts here stating that the article should remain in its original state until consensus is achieved. By the way what does "AF" mean?Levelledout (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do believe Zad got tired of typing out Albino Ferret. :) AlbinoFerret  09:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought this to DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette.23Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section AlbinoFerret  20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus historically?
There was a previous consensus for some text. AlbinoFerret was changing the wording back on 13 October 2014. I and User:Cloudjpk disagreed with the change to vapor. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 11. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont think its a good idea to be naming subsections of a RFC with the name "Consensus". It is untruthful. You have posted this dishonesty in a number of places in the RFC and it has got to stop. You have had your say on the matter. This RFC will not be withdrawn, it will be closed by an admin from the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure" when the person who started it (me) requests it. They, not an editor who is involved, will decide the consensus of the RFC. I have changed the subsection to a section. I have renamed it to the factual account of the matter.
 * The facts are:
 * There was a limited consensus. The limit of the consensus was only on one sentence. Link
 * The consensus was that the word used was in place of both "aerosol" and "vapor" diff#2
 * Consensus can change.
 * You broke the agreement by selectively replacing "vapor" and leaving "aerosol" alone in other selective areas that you normally dont edit. diff#3
 * You broke the agreement that formed the limited consensus. That changed the limited consensus to no consensus. AlbinoFerret  06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultrafine Particles, the name of the section is inaccurate
The Ultrafine particles subsection does not just talk about ultrafine particles. It also talks about Fine, and larger particles. Ultrafine particles are less than 100nm. A name change should be made. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's change it to "Speculation about particles".--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion before you added more sizes to the section. If you add things to change things, it is discussed again. AlbinoFerret  21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It does discuss ultrafine particles. Read what User:Formerly 98 wrote; "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while it does discuss Ultrafine particles, that isnt all it includes. There are now three sizes discussed in the section because of an edit you added after the previous discussion ended. I propose taking nothing from the section if its renamed in some way to reflect its talking about more than Ultrafine particles. We are not talking about Original Research if that happens, we are talking about factual accuracy in the sections name. This needs to be fixed. Please suggest a name that covers all three types of particles in the section. AlbinoFerret  21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine particles in the section = Fine particles can be chemically intricate and not uniform, and what a particle is made of, the exact harmful elements, and the importance of the size of the particle is mostly unknown. Because these things are uncertain, it is not clear whether the particles in e-cigarette mist have health effects similar to those produced by traditional cigarettes
 * Ultrafine particles in the section. = Though, the particle size composition and sum of particles emitted by e-cigarettes are like traditional cigarettes, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).[1]
 * Larger particles in the section = A 2014 ASHRAE publication stated the word "vaping" is not technically accurate when applied to e-cigarettes and concluded that users of these devices are rather "aerosolizing," which is a dense visible mist consisting of liquid sub-micron droplets.
 * Three diffrent sizes, yet the section name only says one. AlbinoFerret  22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondly, why did you revert the move of the sentence based on "shows an e-cigarette user exhaling a dense visible aerosol into the surrounding air." back to Ultrafine section, create Original Research by linking statements sections apart apart, and put a claim that is specifically about Second Hand into the first hand section with this edit? AlbinoFerret  22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The section makes it clear it is mostly ultrafine particles and I added text that is a description of the aerosol. The text shows it is sub-micron and all the text is sourced. The current section name is simple. We should not make it longer. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend something easy and short, Particles. That way you can add as many sizes as MEDRS mention. You could use "Ultrafine, Fine, and Submicron particles" or those in any order but each future addition of size will make the name longer. You have not addressed the revert. AlbinoFerret  22:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "Particles" is inaccurate and I did explain it was a description of the aerosol. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be ok if the section was only about Ultrafine particles, but you are talking about 3 kinds. Ultrafine particles is an incomplete and inaccurate way to describe Aerosol. If the one word description isnt good for you then just list all of them. Address the revert mentioned two replies above where you created Original Research, or fix it. AlbinoFerret  00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the majority are utrafine it is an accurate way to describe the section. I summarised "E-cigarettes do not produce a vapor (gas), but rather a dense visible aerosol of liquid sub-micron droplets..." This added a description about the aerosol. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion before. The reason these claims are in this section is because they are first hand examples of vapor. You cant take claims in the source that are about second hand vapor, and add them to this section. Thats why I moved them, and I wrote in the notes exactly why I moved it. Remove it please.
 * Ultrafine Particles may initially make up the vapor at first, but it looks like all the sources are saying that the state and size of the particles change. Therefore Ultrafine Particles is an inaccurate description of vapor. Find another name for the section that covers most if not all that is in it. Arguing why it was named what it was named in the past is not a good reason to keep the name on the section as what it covers changed. Just as the Safety section is short and covers everything about safety. The name of the section isnt Chemical Safety as that would exclude kids swallowing stuff. AlbinoFerret  13:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made all the changes discussed in this section, no good reason existed to keep factual errors and inaccuracies in the article. AlbinoFerret  14:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wording for both sections. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing that, but the section name still needs changed. Cloudjpk changed it back, it should not stay as it is, so pick a name that covers what the section includes, and change it. AlbinoFerret  02:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is awkward to have a long section name and the section name does describe what is in the section. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then find one that is short and change it. Unless you know a policy that allows inaccuracies it should not stay inaccurate. Im pretty sure I can find one that says to fix inaccuracies or that articles should be accurate. AlbinoFerret  02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "..., with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm).[1]" The text and section name are accurate. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The name of the sector isnt Vapour or Aerosol, its Ultrafine Particles. If it was Vapor you could claim that, but your talking about three different particles. It is inaccurate. Would a uninvolved third party change your mind? AlbinoFerret 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing will change his mind, and if you try to get an administrative resolution his sugar daddy will interrupt the process by giving Quack another barnstar. As long as the MED coven are hovering over this article it's only going to get more negative.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way this gets better is using the tools Wikipedia gives us. Even offering things that are either ignored or refused is useful. WP:IDHT AlbinoFerret  01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems a little silly but several times above QG referred to the section as describing the aerosol or composition of the aerosol. So why not make the section title composition of the aerosol? SPACKlick (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with SPACKlick. Moreover, it's time for editors of this article to demonstrate some WP:COMPETENCE and critically review the discussion of "particles" put forward by certain sources. Much of the "particles" nonsense currently littering the article is based on misdirection and conjecture that ignores the nature and composition of so-called "particles" and rather conflates e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke based on particle size alone. By that measure, one would find the risk of taking a hot shower above that of smoking . The discussions presented in the following commentaries should be helpful for anyone wishing to understand the difference between solid particles and liquid droplets, as well as the fact respirable particles only pose a health risk if they actually contain toxic stuff, not simply by virtue of being small:, , . Mihaister (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "composition" was inaccurate and was removed. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultrafine Particles is a reasonable and accurate title: the majority of the particles are in the ultrafine range. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Claims sourced to the wrong journal articles switched back
After trying to verify two claims, one of which QuackGuru moved I found that the claims had the references backwards. So I swapped them. With this edit QuackGuru switched the refrences back even citing a line from the source "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers". The problem is it doesnt exist in Kanae Bekki 2014. It can be found in Cervellin 2013 AlbinoFerret  00:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See Kanae Bekki 2014 review: "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers,..." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, I may have been mistaken, sorry about that. AlbinoFerret  00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Example of Bloat
I have copied this over to the Safety of Electronic cigarettes talk page because the section this discussion is about is currently on that page. Please continue comments there.

The Environmental impact section, Relates to one source saying there is a gap in our knowledge. This doesn't need to be in the article, it's practically crystal ball. As yet we don't know the effects of e-cigarettes on the environment we also don't know their impact on souffles and space dust. A source saying "We don't know anything" doesn't mean the article needs a new section. Someone with a different position from me on e-cigs should turn up with some shears and trim this into a reasonable article. If I did it I'm sure some MED folks would claim bias towards e-cigs. SPACKlick (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is way to much speculation and we dont need embellishments and small sections on speculative information. The article is already swimming in speculative information with the same speculation being repeated. How many times do you need to repeat something in different locations? Environmental impact sounds like its talking about hazardous waste. AlbinoFerret  13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There was another claim from that same literary review, it was placed in Toxicology when it was clear from the source that it was talking about environmental impact of how its made. Its really not a health effect topic. I wasnt sure where to put it, so I put it in that environmental area until its discussed. This appears to be a fringe area, with very little weight. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident that at some point it will be an area with enough information to deserve a section. E-cigs involve the manufacture of additional lithium batteries, disposable wicks and coils, production of the juice etc. However there's really been very little study of it so far. SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More than likely there will be down the road. This literary review didnt come to any conclusions other than the more study is needed. Someone might do it down the road, but it could be years. Its just way to premature, speculative, and has little weight at this point. AlbinoFerret  14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Today, QuackGuru, thinking that it was only a problem because of only a few sentence filled up the section with claims from that one study and made it viable. The problem isnt that it only has a few sentences, the problem is weight WP:WEIGHT and pure speculation WP:CBALL with no other studies talking about it. The reason other speculation is allowed is because there is more than one review on the topic, so it has weight of some degree.


 * The current version of the environmental impact section cites this source:
 * The source is presumed to be useful because it was published by experts in the field. I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bluerasberry. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PS Says it's wrong to base an entire article on primary sources. An awful lot of this article is direct from primary sources. We have no idea of the impact of this paper, or if the comment that the current status of environmental effects is largely unknown will amount to anything. This article needs to focus more on meta-analyses and collective reviews and get away from posting every statement from every interest group and every piece of speculation in every published paper is my point. One scientific paper speculating that there may be an environmental impact especially when couching that speculation in the distinct lack of evidence in either direction is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article, let alone a section. SPACKlick (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WEIGHT
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."


 * One journal article is a tiny minority, it shouldnt be included at all. Perhaps a one line that says something like "A review by Cheng raised concerns about environmental impact from e-cigaretts" But a but a whole section places it in a position of prominence and gives way to much coverage for a single article on the subject. Find 4 or 5 and maybe it can be expanded. This isnt silencing a reliable source, this is giving it the appropriate weight when compared to all the other points of view with larger number of reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT specifically addresses this.
 * "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view."
 * There isnt even a opposite viewpoint to make a controversy that needs to be addressed. Adding all that from one source is just premature. We have had this same discussion on McNeil, it didnt have the weight, neither does this one. AlbinoFerret  02:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

To address this concern I have tried to summarize and move some material to subpages. Nothing was deleted or added in these edits. Additionally a bot will fix the refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving those sections to their own pages Doc. The article was 65kb of prose before the move and its currently 43kb. I was thinking that a split was going to be the next major discussion. Your moving the sections saved a lot of posts. But it doesnt solve the issue of one section being based on one journal article that was very speculative, with very little weight. AlbinoFerret  01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not paraphrasing, again
QuackGuru added yet another almost exact copy of a like from a journal article here.

The line can be found in Bekki 2014.
 * "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product"

The line added by QuackGuru
 * Some countries do not allow e-cigarettes to be used as a cessation aid for smokers but still regulate it as a medical device

This is a copyright issue. I edited the sentence to rephrase it. This has got to stop because it puts WP at risk. AlbinoFerret 00:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is problematic anyway because I am sure there are no countries that do not allow e-cigarettes to be used as a cessation tool. What they don't allow is for them to be recommended, marketed, etc. for that purpose. (I would have rephrased it yesterday but didn't have time to check through the sourcing, which as noted is a little confusing.) Maybe if the passage is being redone anyway this slightly misleading assertion could be rephrased. Barnabypage (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had edited it yesterday, its current form is "E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some countries, but are not permitted to be used as an aid to help smokers quit". But I question if this should be moved to the Legal status page. AlbinoFerret  14:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like regulation that health to me. SPACKlick (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had moved it after the diff to Legal status section, but I dont want to bloat it up. AlbinoFerret  02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing of claims
The source says "According to this data, e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries, and their marketing has been temporarily limited or even suspended until safety profile and efficacy will be finally established in clinical trials." See the section Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "a few" not that they were few., the definition of several is "more than one or two but not many" that’s a few. The deffination of "few" is "not many but more than one". This is another language comprehension problem. As for discounting the responses to the RFC, I think we should discount all the support responses because the media says its a consumer product. Do you see whats wrong with subjective discounting of opinions? It isnt allowed. AlbinoFerret  23:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided verification that it was several according to V. The source did not say it was "a few"? The term "a few" is misleading. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Its a synonym Link AlbinoFerret  00:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "a few" can be confused with "few". It is confusing. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition of few is "not many", its the same thing.  AlbinoFerret  00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did you switch it back calling it WP:OR?
 * "Few" is hardly the same thing as "a few". E.g. compare "there are few problems with that" with "There are a few problems with that". The fact that you thought it was the same, however, illustrates how it can be confusing, and argues for use of a clearer term. "Some" is accurate but not very precise. "Several" works better. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They are all synonyms. AlbinoFerret  01:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please; "guy" and "man" are synonyms. Does "the three wise men" mean the same thing as the "three wise guys"? Some synonyms work great; others not so great. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way all this continuous, generally futile, bickering over whether it should be this word or that word is not doing Wikipedia or anybody else any favours.Levelledout (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it didnt come out in my posts, but I have the same thoughts. Im wondering why it needed to be changed. Currently it uses a weasel word. AlbinoFerret  14:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support use of what the source uses If there is a dispute for once instance of one word choice then use what the source says. I support the use of "several" as what the cited source says over the use of "few" because this is the word the author thought was best.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Today I rewrote the two claims for readability, making the section look like a paragraph instead of a bunch of claims tossed in a bad and copied as they are pulled out. I also changed several to some as Cloudjpk suggested. So that it is the same. I did add "likewise, referring to the fact that they are regulated as medical devices like the previous previous sentence. QuackGuru changed it all back diff, this one step forward and one step back has got to stop. Perhaps likewise could have been taken out, but to basically revert for no good reason is stupid when it makes the article harder to read. What was the reason for placing a tag and then immediately changing things? This has happened more than once.  AlbinoFerret  21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your making poor edits that do not match the citations given. Please don't replace sourced text with OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesnt have to match the exact words, order of words, or have the same flow, just the same point. This appears to be an ongoing problem with paraphrasing on your part. AlbinoFerret  21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not sugggest changing "several to some". I said: "Some" is accurate but not very precise. "Several" works better. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They all mean the same thing. AlbinoFerret  22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)