Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 16

Ordering of sections
Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * Support It is clearly medical. All one needs to do is look at the sources available. Perfectly reasonable to follow WP:MEDMOS as it has been doing for some time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If one conducts a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, 90% of the hits are health related. Likewise if one searchs on the word e-cigarette in combination with the name of any major media outlet in regular Google. NPOV requires that we emphasize what reliable sources, and in particular, scholarly ones are emphasizing. Right now, that's the health controversy. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, Given the number and level of authority of the medical sourcing available that covers this subject, especially in comparison to what's available for the non medical topics (I saw how hard it was to come up with acceptable sourcing to even describe the construction, and what's in the article now is built on: medical journal articles), WP:MEDMOS is clearly the appropriate guideline for layout.  04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats incorrect, there are plenty of sources for construction. That other editors have only focused on the medical aspect is the reason. I have been expanding components and have only been delayed by other matters in the article that suck up my time. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your response provides excuses but doesn't counter my main points, does it?  01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you said it was hard to find good references for components. I said no, they can be found, and I will clarify the last part for you. That editors some other editors have focused in on one section, does not lessen the other sections. Components can me more important than medical claims to some people. I would be expanding the components section but constant editor disputes slows work on the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This RfC is sort of artificial because it does not separate the meaning e-cig (usage of) and e-cig (device). More sources exist on the usage of the e-cig because (for obvious reasons) there is more research done on the usage. However, this does not imply that the device itself is a priori medical (some analogy with a syringe). Why not split the article? Jophiel 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jophiel I did suggest that in the my original discussion I started on the classification. There was not enough input from other editors and one editor of the three (including myself) was against splitting. That was based on size of the article. But it wont be long, based on the growth pattern of the article where that argument will not have a lot of weight. These constant edit problems are doing harm to the article. It takes up everyones time that would be better used in improving it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This RfC will not lead anywhere. Decision for an article being "medical" depends on the content (not on the subject itself). Article size isn't large, agree, but there is a good reason for doing a spinout: an obvious and tedious content conflict. Jophiel 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Components is also important and discussed in almost every medical reliable source if not all of them. As long as Health effects is not broken out it will not solve the problems of editor conflicts as almost al of the conflicts deal with health effects. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a medical related article. A few editors think e-cigs are harmless vapor. That's incorrect. Yes, I know: e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which editors think that e-cigs are harmless vapor? Or is that simply a strawman? --Kim D. Petersen 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is not a brand of printer paper. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to check your printer paper, it may contain BPA Arzel (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good one. *grin* TMCk (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support In RS the health aspect is by far the most important aspect of the e-cig topic, and so must be prominently treated in this article; doing otherwise would destroy the fundamental NPOV we are required to maintain. As a secondary consideration, MEDMOS could usefuly inform the style/structure here. Alexbrn talk 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Essentially a medical-related product. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I can see the argument that this is a consumer, rather than a medical product, however as survey data suggests the use of e cigs is mainly to stop or reduce tobacco use (which is therefore a medical use), MEDMOS would apply here. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious Yobol - what you are saying is basically WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR applies to actual content in articles. My stance, which is that consumer products that are primarily used for medicinal purposes should be first looked at from a medical standpoint, isn't so much OR as it is a question of emphasis.  If that is WP:OR, most editorial decisions made here on Wikipedia are WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is a consumer product, but one that dispenses a highly addictive substance. If this were the first source of nicotine, it would never pass FDA approval as a schedule II, let alone be available without a prescription. Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm missing something here. Are you saying that Wikipedia can decide on its own what a product is or isn't? Has the FDA rejected approval? --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether this article is "primarily medical in nature" seems to be a philosophical or even semantic point that only distracts from the more meaningful question here, which is whether "Health effects" should be the first section. Given all that we know about the health dangers of smoking, and the widespread perception that e-cigs may be safer than conventional cigarettes, I submit that far more readers want to know about e-cigs' safety than their history.  Per Formerly 98 above, the editors of successful and reputable magazines and news sources evidently agree.  Therefore I support making "Health effects" the first section. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in spirit but not in letter.  The WP:WEIGHT of sources says that health issues are very important for e-cigs and there should be significant discussion of health issues.   MEDMOS provides a useful structure that the article should follow, but whether "Health effects" or "Construction" comes first is trivial. I actually think that MEDMOS should be changed to place a description of the device first and have noted so on the MEDMOS talk page, since medical devices vary so greatly (unlike drugs).   So on the narrow question of the ordering of sections, I would !vote for Construction to come first, so readers  know what is being discussed.   But I do hear and understand the argument that what matters most is how e-cigs affect you and so that should come first.Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Formerly 98, most reliable sources talk about the health effects of e-cigs rather than their recreational uses. Jinkinson   talk to me  13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The weight of the reliable sources is that electronic cigarettes, when discussed, are in 90% of reliable sources discussed mostly for their health effects. The reliable sources which discuss it in other contexts are usually on the lower-quality end of the spectrum of reliable sources. The weight of the available sources presents this concept as a medical concept. I agree with many who oppose who say that one might expect articles on products to be structured like other articles on products, but in the case of this article, so much more coverage exists on health effects than the actual product.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it interesting that whenever you pick up a secondary WP:MEDRS review, then the layout of those almost invariably describes the product/construction/usage before it goes on to address chemistry, health effects etc. Even our most (over)used negative review paper (Grana et al. ) does it this way. My conjecture is that they do so because it makes the paper flow better... ie. start with an understanding of what it is, and then gradually move towards reviewing the health material. --Kim D. Petersen 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead of our article should include the basic information about construction necessary to provide context for later sections. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Strongly agree that topic is medical in nature and should follow WP:MEDMOS. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly medical, and leaving medical information out would leave a very short and ill-conceived article, biased article. Most of what is in here is and should be medical. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC is not about removing any information but the order of the sections already on the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Since it is a tobacco related product that hasn't been proven to cause no heath issues Avono♂ (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Summoned here by bot. Clearly health-related. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTAVOTE Would you care to say why you feel the level of health relatedness for this subject warrants the MedMOS ordering? Not trying to be contentious would just appreciate hearing the reasoning from outside editors. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose This is clearly not a medical article. If one wishes to write an article regarding the medical effects/benefits/risks of electronic cigarettes, then they should do that.  I will point out Cigar and Cigarette, which are also effectively delivery devices of Nicotine, both have History being the first section and Health effects being towards or at the end.  Arzel (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons that Arzel provides. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is clearly a consumer product and does not require a prescription. There are no other consumer products that contain nicotine in the medical category. This article should not be in it either. I think the phrasing of the question is a strawman and the results will be tainted by it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind naming a few examples of "consumer products that contain nicotine" so I can better understand what you mean by this phrase? For example, Nicoderm and Nicorette both contain nicotine and are sold without a prescription, and I think that many people associate those smoking cessation products with health/medicine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's primarily a gadget/devise with non-medical purpose. A health section is of course warranted but not in a leading manner. Comparison to layouts like, I.e. asbestos and cigarette should be the guide to place it in proper order.TMCk (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) BTW: If it would be "primarily medical in nature" You would be able to buy devises at your local drugstore. But so far they stick with nicotine patches. TMCk (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the UK pharmacy counters are where they are found; tobacco outlets very rarely carry them. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is simply incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And you live where? Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would that matter? Here's a couple of examples of tobacconists that sell e-cigs in the UK, not particularly difficult to find. --Kim D. Petersen 01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - you may also want to see this, where there is documentation that e-cigs are sold in all kinds of stores in the UK (the article is about selling to <18yo.'s). --Kim D. Petersen 02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely inaccurate to say that pharmacies are the main source of electronic cigarettes in the UK. E-cigarettes are available in the vast majority of newsagent (tobacco outlets) and supermarkets that sell tobacco. Just because a pharmacy opts to sell a product it doesn't make it a medicine. Most pharmacies I know of sell beauty products of no medicinal value and I known of one major pharmacy chain that sells Coca-Cola, which the last time I checked was not a medicine either.Levelledout (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article is about a class of consumer products and the medical agenda is a only a tangential subtopic. As such, it should be structured like other consumer product pages such as humidifier, vacuum cleaner, or iPad; that is, History first, then construction, types, usage, and last any controversy as to health effects. Mihaister (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This user was requested to particpate a few hours easier here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And "th[at] user" has also been active almost every day on this article. Sigh! What are you trying to imply Doc? --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Doc would rather not hear opinion that goes against his POV. thanks for your shiny example of consensus-building. Do you really think I wouldn't've commented on this irrespective of any notification? Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret apparently had some doubts. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really looked at who I left a message about the RFC you would see its every editor, except IP addresses who has edited the article for about the past week or so. I only messaged those that had not left a comment. I went back 3 pages of history and included those, based on previous posts, that I had a good feeling would support this biased RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Yobol, who stands with the "med-crowd" received the same message and he didn't edit here in the last couple of days. That shows "canvassing" within policy. Not so much what Doc did when you take a look at the 3RR notice board and trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin closing the report.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OpposeThe article is about a manufactured product and should be structured as such. The health issues may be of great importance but they are not the only aspect of this device.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose E-cigarettes are consumer products, they are not medicine, nor are they sold in pharmacies. Yes, when used with an e-liquid with nicotine, then they do have some physiological effect. But such effects in consumer products are not an indicator of them being medicine. If we take for instance Coffee, then a Coffee machine isn't a medical device, Coffee is not a pharmacological product, even if it can contain Caffeine which is a crystalline xanthine alkaloid and a stimulant drug. On the legal side, both the EU and the US have refused to consider these as medical products. --Kim D. Petersen 12:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Mind you: This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the health effects section, just that this at the heart isn't a medical article. --Kim D. Petersen 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Untrue re the EU - see above. In the UK they certainly are sold in pharmacies and at pharmacy counters; that is where you normally find them. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not really the case. Boots and a few other chemists sell "cigalikes", but where you normally find them is newsagents, tobacconists & specialist shops. The leading models, refillable tanks, are pretty much exclusively sold through specialist shops. The Royal College of Pharmacists state that they're not a medical product.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of supermarkets sells them then? The refillable tanks are mostly sold online, as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are confusing the EU with member countries. I refer you to the TPD (tobacco products directive) of 2014 article 20. And yes, there are a few countries that sell them in pharmacies but as CheesyAppleFlake notes: Even there it is not the norm. --Kim D. Petersen 14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Pharmacies (at least here in Denmark) also sell shampoo (regular not specifically medical), does that make Shampoo a medical product? --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kim the shampoo comment is funny. But in the a lot of US pharmacies sell cosmetics, wouldnt the same faulty reasoning make mascara and blush a medical product? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is titled "Electronic cigarette" and that's what it should be about. If people want a medical article they can create a separate one for health effects, but this one should primarily describe the devices themselves.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly if one searches medical journals, one will find medical-related sources with a medical related agenda. However, if you search outside of that arena into places such as the mainstream media you will find issues such as construction, harm-reduction, vaping sub-culture and regulation regularly and readily being discussed.
 * I think that it also must be recognised that bodies such as the EU have specifically declined to classify e-cigarettes as medical devices under most circumstances and that the vast majority of e-cigarettes are simply not medical devices, are often not used are such and are not allowed to make medical claims about their products in many jurisdictions. Therefore medical guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are inappropriate across the whole article. The medical community feels very strongly about e-cigarettes and this can be recognised in the health section, which rightly should be subject to medical policies and guidelines.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very vague oppose. MEDMOS gives a recommended list of sections, which may be good advice for this or any medical article.  But it's not going to write the article for you.  Any change made to follow that advice has to actually be a good change; you shouldn't make it "just because MEDMOS says so".  Philosophically, from the history, we could say that Gilbert's non-commercialized nicotine vaporizer from 1963 made it a consumer product, not a medical product, that could have replaced the tobacco.  (A moment of silence to contemplate the millions of lives that could have been saved, had a common sense way to reduce cancer deaths been pursued with resources.  The magnitude of the sacrifice our society has made on Moloch's capitalist altar!)  The Chinese product was introduced for "smoking cessation and replacement".  Smoking cessation is clearly a medical product - smoking replacement is obviously not a medical product.  The philosophical ambiguity since then remains unabated. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Electronin cigarette is a consumer device, not a medical one. Also, if you take a look at cigarette, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. And that article - if any - would have all the reason to acclaim itself as a medical one. I think it would be quite logical to benchmark cigarette in this case. Levelledout is also making a good point while explaining how EU has declined to classify electronic cigarettes as medical products. This is something we certainly should not ignore. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is an electronic cigarette. It is not an endoscope or a central venous catheter. -A1candidate (talk)
 * Oppose Electronic cigarettes are as much of a medical topic as regular cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, or potato chips. The fact that the majority of sources the article uses are medical publications is one of a series of serious WP:NPOV issues that need to be remedied; moving the "Health effects" section to the bottom of the article where it belongs would be a good start. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As many have stated above me, e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a pharmaceutical product or other drug. Health effects definitely have a place, but they are not the primary focus of the article.Doors22 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if WP:MEDMOS - and more particularly, WP:MEDORDER - gave clear section headings and an order for medical devices (which it doesn't), those headings and that order are a guideline only. Of greater significance to me, and the main reason for my !vote, is that I think it serves readers better to discuss what an e-cigarette is and how it's made before discussing its impact on health. That said, the construction section is very long and it would be better if it was split out to another article and just summarized in this article. By doing that and putting construction first, the health effects are still near the top and not buried way down the page. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ca2james Do you think it would be an alternative to split out the health content to an article "Health effects of the electronic cigarette"? Jophiel 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jophiel, I know that splitting out the health content is on the table and has been discussed at length. Personally, I think the details of the way these items are constructed, which is included in the Construction section, is a fairly specialized topic that bogs down the flow of the article. IMHO, putting the Construction section before the Health section gives the article the best flow but that flow is interrupted by all the details in the section. That's why I'd split off the Construction section before splitting off the Health section. At some point the Health section will need to be split out but I'm not convinced that it needs to go out first. Ca2james (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ca2james Yep, I had a look at the archived talk pages. Would it be feasible to ignore article size and doing both splits, i.e. having this article referring to the respective spezialized articles (legal, construction, health), and thus relieve the dispute tension? Jophiel 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jophiel, yes, I think so. Both sections are fairly long and are specialized and detailed enough to stand on their own. Shorter versions of both sections (but especially the Construction section) would improve the flow of this article as well. Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeping Health effects and forking off other parts will not solve editing disputes. Almost all the disputes are in the Health effects section, so keeping it defeats the purpose of the proposed split. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret It won't end the discussion on the health issues. But this discussion right now is in the section of an RfC raising the question if WP:MEDMOS for this article should be followed and a split could be an answer to it, i.e. applying MEDMOS to the split out article. Jophiel 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We may not violate WP:NPOV and split off a topic just because there are editing disputes regarding it.   14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not suggesting that parts of the article be split out because there are disputes concerning those sections. I'm suggesting that they be split out because I think that doing so would improve article readability and flow, and I would suggest the splits even if there were no disputes. Ca2james (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jophiel 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, as evidenced in the ongoing discussion, such a split would also risk a WP:POVFORK. Since health is the princpal aspect of this topic in which POV matters, it needs to treated front & centre in the main Electronic cigarette article and not pushed aside. Alexbrn talk 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * no, the REAL trouble is, health isn't the principal aspect of this consumer product and you and your buddies from project medicine are trying to hijack the article for who knows what reason.... but make no mistake you will not succeed 191.187.236.240 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose belatedly (sorry). It looks like a medical article at the moment but ideally should not be (I appreciate the point that non-medical reliable sources are harder to come by). Cigarette may not be a bad model, and there are no doubt others on categories of consumer goods. Just at a glance, Mobile digital media player has some strong points (though over-emphasising individual brands), for example. Barnabypage (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Here's an analogy. I would advise anyone to drink whisky in preference to methylated spirits or moonshine. I believe whisky is less damaging to health that alternatives which might contain methanol. Yet the article whisky is not formatted as a medical article. I realise that at present many readers will come to this article seeking medical information, and this should of course be provided, indeed it is likely to form most of the content. But "electronic cigarette" is no more a medical topic than is "whisky". Maproom (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not a medical article.  It's a consumer product article.  The fact that this particular consumer product has been the study of medical studies does not make it NOT a consumer product article.  -- Jayron  32  04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a consumer product - one that happens to be of medical interest for its ostensibly adverse health-effects. We follow the rules for an article on a consumer product, making sure that the notable controversy is adequately covered. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are over 400 consumer brands of 1st generation e-cigarette, with multiple products per brand. There are precisely ZERO medically licensed e-cigarettes. Whilst there are obvious health related issues that are still being studied, the devices themselves are the subject of this article and the fact that not a single medical option exists whilst several HUNDRED consumer options do should settle this matter quite simply. Both the US and the EU have rejected classifying them as medical device, with the US preferring to classify them as tobacco products and the EU specifically classifying them as consumer products. Why is this even up for discussion? (This is my first edit on wikipedia, please be gentle with me) Entropy72 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is about a consumer product. This consumer product certainly has related medical issues. Alcoholic Beverage isn't a primarily medical article and resolves the issue by separating the information into Short-term effects of alcohol, Long-term effects of alcohol and Alcohol and health. Cigarette similarly have three paragraphs on the health effects which direct to the main article Health effects of tobacco. Not Also that WP:MEDORDER doesn't even have an appropriate category for this sort of article. The closest is device, which would suggest the first section should be "Medical Uses" and the answer to that would be "there are no medical uses an e-cigarrette is a recreational nicotine delivery device". There definitely needs to be medical information in this article, it's where a lot of people will start looking for the conclusions the medical community has drawn about these devices, that does not make this a medical article. SPACKlick (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral
It's a matter of definition and terminology. The electronic cigarette is not a medical device a priori. It can be used as such (beneficial for health) but it can also be used just for leisure (possibly harmful). Recently EU decided (wisely) that electronic cigarettes and the liquid solutions are not medical unless their presentation or function is medical:


 * "Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated by this Directive, unless they are - due to their presentation or function - subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) or to Council Directive 93/42/EEC (*3)." ( 2 = Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67),  3 = Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1). )

So, there are three aspects: 1. The technical (about the device), 2. the medical usage (for smoking cessation), and 3. the non-medical usage (for leisure, possibly harmful). Most sources are, of course, on the health issues i.e. on the usage (2. and 3.), but this does not make the device a medical device a priori.

If you call this article "electronic cigarette" you should focus on the device and its technical aspects (1.). If you call this article "health effects of the electronic cigarette" the focus should be on 2. and 3. (i.e. on usage). Split the article. Jophiel 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Would someone take a minute and explain to me why this article cannot be split - disregarding article size and following WP:IAR. Applying the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." could mean here splitting and using all the energy consumed in unfruitful discussions for improvements and maintenance. Jophiel 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, and a very good suggestion, IMO. Mihaister (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC) re
 * Ill second its a very good question, and since most of the problems revolve around health claims, it should be the section split off to a new article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason the health content may not be largely moved off into a subarticle is because of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which requires that the emphasis in the article match the emphasis found in reliable sources. As has already been demonstrated, a survey of the available reliable sourcing shows that the reliable sources place heavy emphasis on discussion of health-related topics.  Therefore the health-related topics must feature prominently in the main article.    14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article could be summarized somewhat while still maintaining NPOV. Legal issues regarding them appear to be the major issue in reliable sources, yet this is relegated to a summary and side article.  Arzel (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like legal, at the time of the split, it wasa source of editing disputes. The same thing applies to Health effects. Its the source to almost all the editing disputes. Keeping it will only keep the problems. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are content issues, they need to be resolved using the WP:DR processes. If there are behavior problems with editors they need to be worked out at WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI or other venues that deal with editor behavior.  It is unacceptable to change article structure to avoid dealing with these issues.   15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. I don't understand why splitting off the health section would necessarily result in a de-emphasis on the health information in the article. A summary of health concerns could still feature prominently enough even if the details have been split into another article. Personally, I'd split the Construction section first, but I could see both being split off at the same time. With respect to dispute resolution, I don't understand why splitting off parts of the article is an unacceptable solution to dealing with the content issues here; part of the WP:DR process is discussion, which is what's happening here. Also, dealing with content issues and splitting need not preclude dealing with editor behavioural issues. Ca2james (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the disputes wont be avoided, but they will be on a talk page of an artile that deals only with health issues. The section can still be proment proment on this page, it will still contain the major points. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern that the split of the "health section" could be construed as WP:POVFORK, though I do not agree that's what's being proposed here. I'm inclined to view this proposal along the same lines as the "legal status" section split (as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=631892483&oldid=631892086 noted] above), which was forked as a content fork to a separate article without causing NPOV problems in the main. Wikipedia content guidelines consider this "acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Mihaister (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above splitting the article could be an (alternative) answer to question raised by the current RfC (which, I think, won't have a useful conclusion). Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking. Jophiel 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Zad68 Reading what is being written gives the impression to me that editors are aware of the rules. Why not give some space for pondering on how to apply them? Questions are raised not because editors don't understand the rules but because they do. May I give a quote to you (not just an abstract WP): "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." Jophiel 19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , let me make sure I'm understanding correctly: You are suggesting we invoke WP:IAR to avoid following WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia core content policy, mainly so that we can avoid having this particular article's Talk page host the main discussions about the medical topics, because you find them upsetting?   20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Zad68 I apologize to have caused a misunderstanding, I may have used clumsy wording. That's not what I am suggesting at all. Splitting this article should be based on WP:CFORK - why not doing an article spinout with (further) sub-articles giving greater detail (NOT based on POV). Doing so would make the RfC redundant since the spun out article on health issues would follow, of course, WP:MEDMOS. I was suggesting only that WP:IAR should be followed with regard to a split based on article size (since it is not that large yet). Jophiel 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would wholeheartedly support a split, leaving the major conclusions and overall consensus of the medical literature in a one or two paragraph section prominent in this article linked to a main article "Health effects of E-cigarettes" SPACKlick (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We are over split size at 65kb of readable prose. I am thinking that a split is a good idea, but it will be a major discussion with a very long and large RFC that will take some time. I anticipate that there will be a lot of resistance to splitting out the Health sections. Taking out the next largest section, Components would turn the article into what would better be called "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" as the medical information would easily overwhelm the remaining small sections. The Health effects section itself is 33kb in readable prose. All the remaining sections combined without Components is only 14kb. The Usage section is the next largest and it also has a lot of medical sources. One option is a double split. Taking Components and the Health section out as separate pages. I think that would be the best way to go and allow the whole E-cigarette topic to expand.  AlbinoFerret  00:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss
As this is the third time we are discussing this about time to have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This RFC is to narrow and does not get to the heart of the matter, if the article should be in the medical category at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first bit is a question of "is this article medical" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the request is only going to medical editors. It should be in the widest pool. Its like the mouse guarding the cheese. The article was placed in the medical catagory by a editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. It was not a medical article for over 4 years. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a math science and technology RfC. There is no medicine RfC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then this RFC will be tainted, its like asking only a group of Republicans who should be president. The wording is also is a straw man, no one has said it doesnt have medical resources, but should a consumer device that doesn't require a prescription, be in the medical category when no other consumer product with nicotine is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The health effects of cigarettes and cigars are well established and not controversial. Its 40 year old news that my 5 year old nephew knows.  That's why health isnt' in the first section of those articles. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an odd statement to make. WP is not here to promote a specific point of view.  Your argument seems to be that because they are new people need to be told of the health effects right away so that they know that they are bad for you.  Arzel (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm not for warning anyone about anything.  I'm for making sure the article gives different subjects the same weight and priority as is extant in non-Wikipedia sources as demanded by the WP:NPOV rules. I offered speculation on why the cigarette articles and cigar articles might not put health effects as the first section, but ultimately whether or not those articles are correctly formatted is immaterial to this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, neither of them is listed in project medicine yet all are effectively the same device. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you that MEDMOS is probably unncessary here. But I think that the health section should go at the beginning for now, because that is what people are discussing outside of Wikipedia.  If it turns out they are harmless and the health aspect becomes a non-story, I'd move it to the end. But for the next 2-4 years I think health issues will dominate the public discussion. JMHO Formerly 98 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, legal issues are what I hear being discussed. Regardless, I think you are taking the wrong approach here.  The actual device is nothing more than a tool.  What I am hearing from the support side is really related to the effects of the liquid being used.  In any case, the "Support" argument does not justify illogical article structure.  Arzel (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about what I "hear people talking about" . I said that I did 6 different e-cigarette Google searches focused on what are generally considered reliable sources and all were 90% dominated by health issues. Because the weight given to issues by reliable sources (and not by one's friends, co-workers, and family) are is the standard that WP:NPOV sets. WP:BALASPS  In any case it is clear that we will not agree.  Welcome to the argument discussion, you're now a member and an outside observer no longer. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We write for our readers, right? I'm a long-time editor but also a reader and as a smoker I looked up our article on those e-cigs. What do I get? Non info! First I get the usual "it's bad for you" advise (w/o scientific backup either way) and only if I scroll down I get a glimpse of what those devises might be and (even so only potentially) could do for me. To get real and unbiased info I have to do my own research with WP only being of help in providing opinion disguised as fact. That'll work for dumb people but dumb people don't check or listen to WP at all and smart people check the sources and come up with a different conclusion than provided. The result is to feed those who are already with or w/o knowledge against something [in this case e-cigs] what they want to hear. You see? You make no difference at all -- you [the ones who see only their POV] only embarrass yourself writing this non-educating stuff up. NPOV means... not what is happening here.TMCk (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of legal issues, US District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:09-cv-00771-RJL, 2010) ruled e-cigarettes were not medical devices . Mihaister (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court of law and our purposes and guidelines really have no reason to be in line with a given court ruling.  01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, but Wikipedia doesn't invent its own classifications, we have to follow reality. Otherwise we'd be doing WP:OR. Remember that is what our policies say. Wikipedia cannot on its own decide what a product is or isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What we need to do is follow the sourcing. In the case of the subject of this article, multiple authoritative bodies and top-tier medical journals have provided lots of high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and surveys of the sourcing show a heavy emphasis on medical sources, as others have pointed out here on this Talk page.  A court of law has its own context and purposes, but again, we are not a court, we are an encyclopedia.    02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how willful ignorance of court ruling having the power of law meets encyclopedic standards. Please explain. Mihaister (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Be happy to reply when you address my point.  03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let see if I get this straight. The verifiable fact is that FDA (or any other entity in the US for that matter) cannot define vaping products as medical devices, because that would be illegal. However, Zad thinks that fact is of no encyclopedic consequence, because some "high-quality" medical literature can be found about these devices, which somehow makes them medical devices. Surely I'm missing something, cause that doesn't quite make sense for me. So, I'll ask again, please explain. Mihaister (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So because medical sources describe the medical aspects of e-cigs => medical. Erh? Something here went circular. --Kim D. Petersen 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not what I said either.  03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seem like that is exactly what you were trying to say. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement, but I come to the same conclusion,  Arzel (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply because there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources out there, it does not really follow that WP:MEDMOS should be applied. As I'm sure you are aware WP:MEDMOS is a style guideline for medical articles that has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS sources. If the article isn't primarily medically related, then it isn't appropriate to apply WP:MEDMOS. This is the question we should be looking at, based on the subject and structure of the article.Levelledout (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are WP:MEDRS sources used in health sections of a lot of consumer products. The health sections are not at the top of the page, they dont follow MEDMOS. A prime example is Cigarette. It even provides a lot of nicotine and even worse chemicals. Is it a medical device? How about a Tobacco pipe? Its a device for concentrating the nicotine from a source for inhalation by the user. is it a medical device? Should it have a Health section at the top and follow MEDMOS? I can buy both at Walgreens, a drugstore. But I see neither is treated as a medical device on WP, but for some reason e-cigarette is? The lack of consistency is confusing. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making the same point Doc James, Formerly 98, Alexbrn, Jinkinson, Blue Rasberry are making. Formerly 98 makes this same point particularly well. 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not a medical device, but I still think the medical concerns should be in the beginning of the article because that's the subtopic that CBS News, the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, the Times of London, and the majority of academic papers published in Google Scholar have focused on, whether taking a "pro" or "con" position. I don't know that its in a guideline anywhere, but it seems odd to me that so many here are upset that Wikipedia should cover this topic in the same way as the rest of the world. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That is an odd logical falacy. Of course the history and contruction of the tool is not going to be described over and over and over.  By you logic, almost zero articles on WP would have any remote semblence of logical thought or presentation.  They would be a mish-mash of information presented in order of their prevelance without any regard for how anyone would read about a subject.  Arzel (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , formerly is making an argument about how much WP:WEIGHT to give health concerns.   How do you determine WEIGHT?  (real question) thanks. Jytdog (talk)
 * Please check yourself. I have made no determinations of weight with regards to what should or should not be covered.  Formerly is making an argument that since Health Effects are the most covered aspect then that section should be first.  Taken to the logical conclusion this approach, throughout WP articles, would result in absurd articles that have no logical structure.  I was simply pointing out the logical falacy that Formerly was using to try and justify why Health Effects should be first.  Arzel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry what do you mean "check yourself"? also would you please answer how you determine WP:WEIGHT (regardless of what you think Formerly was talking about).  thanks!  Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are changing the core principle that Formerly was making and then linking the new line of discussion to me as a question. I don't want to get into a tangential discussion about how much weight should be given to the health section.  My argument has been the flow of the article not the content.  As for Formerly, there is no question as to what he was saying.  He made a specific statement, that since the majority of discussion about e-cigs is regarding health, that health should come first.  That is a logical falacy which if applied to almost any topic would result in illogical article stucture.  He even weakens his case by agreeing that e-cigs are not medical devices which makes the classification as a MEDMOS article less justified. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not productive. stopping. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so random break
COMMENTS and a question - the RfC is unfortunately framed, for two reasons.
 * 1 "medical" vs "health":  On the face of it, there are only a few countries' medical regulatory bodies that classify e-cigs as medical devices.  There are some - so for those !voting "oppose" above, saying flatly that "e-cigs are not medical devices", this is not true so flatly stated.   But those "oppose" votes have a wikilawyery, narrow point, in that in most jurisdictions, e-cigs  are not regulated as medical devices.  I say that the RfC is unfortunately framed because MEDRS and MEDMOS are primarily concerned with Wikipedia content about health.   And a) most regulatory bodies that have said anything, have said something about health; and b) most coverage in the media and in the biomedical literature (and there has been a lot of both) have discussed health issues.  (As a side note, per WP:WEIGHT, health issues should get a significant amount of coverage in this article.)  The discussion on this page has become stupidly polarized and in a context like this, writing usefully nuanced content becomes impossible.  I ask everybody to take a deep breath and try to walk away from the knee-jerk reactions that folks are giving. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC))


 * 2 Use of guidelines: by framing it as "should MEDMOS apply", the question of why it matters is lost, and nobody is discussing that. MEDMOS is a very useful guideline for structuring articles with a strong health focus (I know MEDMOS says "medical" but please don't wikilawyer the point)  I very much recognize the importance and utility of following guidelines but we don't apply them mindlessly, and if local consensus develops to not use them or depart from them, that is fine, but the consensus should be based on reasons why it matters.  So I'll ask -  Why does it matter to folks which section comes first? Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * my answer to my own question, by the way, is that it doesn't matter. The article would be fine either way.  I am interested to learn why other editors think it matters.Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, there's an underlying NPOV issue here. One wished-for change among some editors here, as I understand it, is that this article should be de-medicalized (or de-healthified) to focus on non-health aspects of e-cigs: construction, social changes, flavourings, user experience, uptake statistics, etc. This would go hand-in-hand with shunting the health information off to a separate "Health effects of e-cigs" article. I fear this could make Wikipedia engage in e-cig advocacy, by unduly de-emphasizing the not-so-helpful-for-advocacy health information. Whether that fear is founded or not, I think it's important for NPOV that this article mirrors the RS coverage of e-cigs, which is largely health-based. Whether the precise details of MEDMOS are followed is a mere secondary detail. Unfortunately, the RfC failed to make a distinction between the importance of the first part of the question ("is this article primarily medical in nature") and the second part (so "use MEDMOS?") Alexbrn talk 10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is:  "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm.  Weight questions are notoriously difficult.  But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say.   That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most people understood the issues here. I am new to this page and I did.  We have had a neutrally worded RfC, let us stick with it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Jytdog has made some excellent points, and has nicely cut through the bullshit on both sides, as he so often does. The discussion has been way too polarized, there is too much focus on "winning", and we've spent too much time arguing about symbolic issues.
 * As a "pro-medical" partisan, I think I can summarize my concerns as follows: 1) I think the main issue covered in the news and science articles has been health, and so I think that should be a big part of this article, and 2) I'm a little concerned that the size and detail of the design section makes the article read like an article in a vaping enthusiast magazine or even a vendor website.
 * On the other hand, I think Jytdog may be correct that the order of the sections does not matter, so long as the length of the article is not so long overall that most readers never scroll down far enough to see "Medical". I could see that section go 2nd as part of a larger compromise.
 * I'd be also be willing to see the negativity of the health section toned down as part of a compromise.  The main thing we know about these things is that they are almost certainly healthier than cigarettes, and almost certainly less healthy than not vaping, though the size of that difference may not be large compared to being obese or eating a lot of hamburgers. We can probably turn down the level of obsessiveness about trace amounts of metal microparticles and the like. We all breath that kind of stuff daily just walking down the street.
 * I'd like to hear a reasonably concise summary of what the key concerns of the anti-"over-medicalization" faction are, and where there is room for negotiation, compromise, and turning down the confrontationalism. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This will probably be in the TLDR domain, but here we go:
 * First let me state what i'm in agreement with in your comment: Yes, a medical section must exist, at least until such time as the article get unwieldy and should be split, and i also agree that health aspects, with the same caveats as before, must be a significant section. I also (although i can't determine if you think so) that the health section should be based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS.
 * On the other hand, i do not agree that WP:WEIGHT is a useful measure in applying/limiting the amount of content there should be in individual non-similar sections, that is why we have WP:SPLIT. WP is not paper. Weight is a determination for us to measure contrasts between views within a scope. (ie. i can't see weight as being an argument for limiting any section of the article, let the sections take up the amount of space that we have individual aspects to write about).
 * I can't agree that E-cigarettes are medical products despite your insistence on them being so, they are several things: a leisure product, a tobacco replacement, a hobby, a cessation tool. Only one of these would fall into the medical category (sessation). And not to put too fine a point on it, but e-cigarettes have several meanings: The battery(mod), atomizer, and usage - and only usage could ever fall into the medical category, and only some usages thereof would be. So no - putting them down as medical in nature is simply false. (TLDR section done)
 * Finally to your primary question: The main reason as i see it to restructure the article is because it will flow better for our readers, and while i acknowledge that much of the media seems more interested in the medical stuff, an e-cigarette is more than just a health issue. Thus using MEDMOS for the whole article (as opposed to the health section(s)) is the wrong take, imho. I can't really see the NPOV issue with either way of having the structure though, that seems more to be perception rather than reality, i have other POV problems as mentioned earlier but structure is not one. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go with a compromise. I think we all agree that it is not the purpose of this article, or WP in general, to warn people of the dangers of ECs any more than it is to promote the products.  I supported the structure change because I think it is more appropriate for a manufactured object.


 * Regarding the pro/con medical opinion I think we must avoid saying what we do not know. Editors here cannot assess the relative merits of peer reviewed journals or other quality publications.  I suggest that we state the generally agreed health position on the subject but word more contentions claims in a way that shows that there is some dispute over them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kim, with regard to your comments on WP:WEIGHT in your 2nd paragraph - that section says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Can you please explain how what you wrote in your 2nd paragraph squares with that?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, that might have come out confusing :) What i'm trying to say is that the article as it stands, really is a collection of different topics, and if e-cigarettes keep continuing their expansion then each will probably have a seperate article, ending up with this as a summary article, since they aren't really about the same thing. Within each of these topical areas, weight certainly plays a role. But between these different topical areas, i don't think that weight is supposed to be considered this way, weight is basically an aspect of NPOV and it doesn't scew the neutrality of the article to have more health stuff, or more battery stuff etc. I'm a bit down with a cold, so i'm probably rambling :) Hope you can see my point despite that. --Kim D. Petersen 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry you are sick, kim. in my experience WEIGHT applies to the overall structure of the article, as well as perspectives described within any given section. i do hear you that the article is sprawling, and WP:SPLITs are likely! Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The test of whether MEDMOS should be used is whether using it is beneficial to the article. For example, when I read this discussion I discovered there were the recommendations for headers, so I tried applying some at Acute flaccid myelitis, an article I'd just started and hadn't really figured out an organization for.  And what do you know, they actually seemed to work!  Except for a few which I didn't really come up with an edit I liked, so so far I haven't done those.  That's the way it is with guidelines: you try their advice, and if they help they help.  But we still have to write articles ourselves, and when the flow of an article obviously fails -- as with the current jump to health effects here -- it's time to try something else.  In part it fails because they're not really medical; in part it fails because, despite being new, electronic cigarettes are very much a historical phenomenon, being controlled much more by community knowledge of tobacco's health problems, economics, regulation, and liability than by medical science of the product itself.  There's an exception in MEDMOS for having the history first; I say we use it.


 * I would like to see us start with the Gilbert idea and a deep explanation (if we can find it) of why it failed. Some tie-ins I'd like to see explored, if sources can be found, would be with the idea that tobacco company regulation of nicotine content was used as a basis for liability (per Brown & Williamson's more modest effort to increase nicotine/tobacco ratio with genetically engineered tobacco) and the risk of regulation of nicotine inhalers as a medical device.  Of course there might be simpler economic or technical reasons, I don't know.  Then -- what changed in China recently to make this a viable idea?  There are some obvious socioeconomic reasons, and of course the degree of tobacco use in China that might play into that, but a little explanation there might help.  You have to background, of course, with some discussion of when tobacco health effects were known and how they affected the market, as well as other nicotine delivery methods.


 * Once the history is laid out, I think then you should move on to cover the varieties of the device that now exist, how they work in more detail (how do they produce "smoke" exactly?).


 * Then you should cover the health effects, which you've started to introduce in the history - evaluate how they've reduced tobacco mortality; also how they retain nicotine addiction. Hmmm, I ought to search to see if they're used in Parkinson's and whether they have any unique role due to the controllable dosing ... I think I'm about done with this anyway :) Wnt (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh... I should have looked first before saying that! Despite a burst of recent talking head activity, apparently people suspected and tested nicotine for parkinsonism two decades ago.  As briefly reviewed in  there still is no real progress in actually protecting patients with nicotine, despite some signs of neuroprotective effects and some wacky (who knows maybe true) ideas like .  One reason: as described in, Parkinson's disease simply makes it easier to quit smoking! Wnt (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

, per my comment above, may I suggest that you withdraw the RfC and start two new ones, along the following lines I would be happy to launch the new ones, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Per the policy WP:WEIGHT, how much weight should content on health have in this article?  Please !vote and provide reasons based on the policy.
 * 2) Should the "Construction" section or the "Health effects" section come first? Please provide reasons based on policies and guidelines and if you are providing a !vote based only on your preference, please state that and provide the best reason you can.
 * I disagree. Starting a new rfc when the premise is faulty from the beginning is wrong. The Electronic cigarette article is not in a medical category. The talk page has been adopted by a group to keep an eye on it and show interest in it. But the article itself is not subject to any medical guideline other than a health section on any page is subject to WP:MEDRS. Secondly weight goes to the size of information and weather a source is included, it never discusses placement of sections, and should not override the style of articles on similar subjects.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. The dispute here is the strict application of MEDMOS on the section ordering, once we either decide on one or the other, things can continue down either track, and figure out how to handle it. As for your 2nd bullet: Policies don't decide what order an article should be in, nor is it general for MOS' to specify that sections should be ordered in a specific way. MEDMOS (and probably other specialized ones do, but they are usually also targetted towards a particular article type)... not something that i've generally come across. Lets cross the bridge of further RfC's once we reach the point where they are needed again, much could be resolved if only the talk-page was used more. --Kim D. Petersen 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kim and AlbinoFerret, I disagree somewhat with you. WP:UNDUE states "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".  I don't have a official definition for what is meant by "prominence of placement', but to me the most obvious aspects would be "higher or lower in the list of subtopics" and "having or not having its own heading".  I think both would be involved. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of things that you cite from WP:DUE. Where i don't agree is that on such a diverse topic as this, where we have several diverse areas of interest such as Mods (which is a HUGE topic), Atomizers (again HUGE topic), Batteries (probably the most controversial aspect at the moment, because of interchange of chargers causing LiIon failures sometimes with hospitalization), and Health (which is also a HUGE topic), that this is what UNDUE is about. I think each section should be allowed to grow to the point where the article can WP:SPLIT and the sub-topic summarized. I have nothing against a large health section, and i can also see your point about prominence, even if i disagree with it (i basically think that readers will read the lead, and then jump to the sections that they are interested in).. but currently the article as an entity flows wrong, i don't know how it should reflow, perhaps with history first or construction? But as it is at the moment it (imho) fails.
 * From my view (and experience on other articles), i would say that DUE is mostly about similar aspects, and the prominence of placement is mostly within sections/paragraphs/sentences. --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Back at you: I'm not sure more is necessarily better. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive textbook. My gut feeling is that the medical section drones on endlessly trying to gaze into the crystal ball and figure out what will be readily apparent 5 years from now, and that the design section is dangerously approaching the appearance of something put out by the Electronic Cigarettes Manufacturing Association. I'm sure you will disagree, just my humble opinion.
 * I also think that we are to some extend blending the very different concepts of placement, quantity of text, and tone. I suspect that some of the anti-medicalization faction would be less upset with the medical section being on top if it were less negative in tone.  I would object less to the design section being on top if it were not so lengthy.  Both position and volume of text make implied statements about what is important.  Given that the health aspects are still unclear and that this aspect has been the subject of so much attention in the media and journals, this worries me a bit.  Its always the non-verbal communication that controls what the audience walks away with.  Formerly 98 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit the nail on the head for one of my problems with the health section. An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries. What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics. But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus. There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article. Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

please discuss content, not contributors; please focus on what sources say, and please frame arguments with regard to what policies and guidelines say, all per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not name anyone but addresses concerns of mine about the reasoning on guidelines. Ill try and rephrase some of it in the future, but the erroneous viewpoints are part of the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. AlbinoFerret was indeed addressing article content and how it looks to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also have to agree that AlbinoFerret was raising a valid point that relates to article content. I do think that it is import to maintain WP:AGF. I don't think that it should be off the agenda so to speak to discuss exactly why it is of such enormous importance to some editors that
 * The health/medical section must appear first
 * The rest of the sections must be structured according to WP:MEDMOS even though the sections on the WP:MEDMOS page bear very little relevance to the article's subject and its current sections.
 * Any attempt to split the article from the health section must be vehemently opposed.
 * WP:MEDRS must be applied even when it isn't needed (such as to describe construction)
 * All of that stuff affects the article's content profoundly. If we are going to find a way forward, I don't think it is inappropriate to ask why the feeling is so strong about blanket applications of these policies and guidelines across the whole article. Levelledout (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Leveledout, as frustrated as you may be feeling I think its probably better to focus on 1) what we agree on, and 2) exploring differences in a detailed way to see where hidden points of agreement and willingness to compromise might be found.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done a strikethrough on my comments, I admit that I had not read this discussion in its entirety before posting. After doing so I realise that my previous comments probably don't add much to the debate at this particular stage.Levelledout (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful remarks AlbinoFerret. I agree that the article should not be targeted to a medical audience, and disagree with what I think you said or implied, that the article should instead be targeted to users.  I think the article should be targeted to the average person, who is neither a medical professional, an anti-tobacco activist, nor a vaper.  In this regard, I think the suggestion above from Wnt (I think) that the article should have more history, somewhat less detailed medical speculation, and somewhat less detail on the finer aspects of design might be a good direction to go in. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is something that sounds to me like progress towards consensus. I agree that the article should be targeted at the average person, as well as needing more history and less medical speculation. As far as ordering of sections goes, I find these comments from above, , and make a reasoned, balanced, and compelling argument. Finally, I don't think the two new RfC's proposed are likely to provide constructive results at this stage in the discussion, for the reasons presented here and here, but also because this discussion here appears to be already getting pretty close to resolution. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if he will accept the task, but I propose that we ask Jytdog to prepare a WP:BOLD revision of the document (here or in his sandbox) based on the discussion in this section (rather than on his own opinions), followed perhaps by a straight up or down vote on whether to accept it.  He got this conversation started, is a non-combatant, and does not seem to be overly tilted toward either side.  I'm sure I'll find many aspects of his draft objectionable, but it will probably be better than another 2 weeks or more of acrimony.  Anybody have any thoughts on this?Formerly 98 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Answering your previous post, but I dont want it to get missed. No, I did not imply that the article should be specifically targeted at users. But that users are a growing segment of the population that may read the article. I also disagree that the components section is to fine on detail. That section is dealing with 3 different generations of devices in a rapidly expanding and innovating marketplace. Each generation has benefits and problems, mostly benefits over the previous generations. Components is a very much detailed section when dealing with any device. There are even people who are just interested in design of things with no intention of using them. Should the article be targeted to them? No, but Wikipedia isnt a paper enclapedia and there is more than enough room for information that is concrete and verifiable. I wouldnt put up speculation on design, or concerns about what may or not be with respect to flaws in hardware, or any place else. Such information is speculative. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess the difficulty then lies in where we can find room for compromise, assuming that is still our goal. I don't know what the detailed concerns are of the other "medicalists", but I suspect they are variations of my own concern that this not become a "look at all this really cool technology" article with a subliminal message that "this is cool and you really ought to try it".  Examining my motives, my push for the medical aspects to be highlighted is partly in response to the size and detail of the design section and this fear that the article begins to seem almost promotional.
 * I'm sure you think that's silly, but that's my concern and it probably won't change just because you tell me I'm wrong.
 * On the issue of facts vs. speculation, I think that you can take that argument a mile down the road, but it won't get you all the way to Omaha. We prepare for all kinds of things based on speculation, whether it is war, pandemic flu, or economic downturns.  In economics we estimate the financial impacts of future problems by multiplying their cost x their probability.  I'd not allow my kids to vape nor would I do so myself for the reason that I think the percent risk of bad health outcomes x severity of problem > benefits of vaping. Though neither may be huge, I think arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to which is greater.  Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the "reading between the lines" idea isnt helpful to anyone. I dont think its a good motivation for any edits. No one is a mind reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that some amount of speculative material should be there, but there are degrees, speculation on extreme outside chances, is unnecessary... Picking unique speculation from one review, combining that with even more unique speculation from another review etc makes for rather bad material.
 * But to mention something else that i realized today: Virtually all of the review articles that i've read about e-cigarettes (ie. all WP:MEDRS sources) start with a section on construction, history, usage etc. before they reach the medical review, Grana as a good example (for once :)). It simply flows more naturally, you want to know what the thing is, before you go into what it might effect. Made me realize why it is that i feel that the flow in the article is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what others think, but I don't think having the med section first is a point that I'm going to fight to the death over. But compromise is compromise.  So far all I seem to be hearing is that it would be great to move the medical stuff down, make it less negative, and keep all the stuff that I've expressed concern about 100% intact.  Apparently I'm a lousy negotiator. Time to climb back into the trench and load a fresh belt of ammo into the Vickers? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your concerns. But I dont think anyone is glamorizing the hardware but sticking to facts. What someone may think about the hardware descriptions, and perhaps use it, as long as they are an adult, its out of our hands as long as we are not commercializing it. I also think that lowering information to stop an adult from using something is not something that wikipedia should do, but I am unable to pop off a reference off the top of my head. It sounds like censoring to advance a social policy. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ௐ  ௐௐ  ... ௐ ௐ. ௐ  .. ௐ  ௐ .. ௐ   ..ௐௐ
 * Rata-tat-tat-tat ▻▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘     ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ    ௐ  ௐ
 * ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻ ▻▻▻ ▻  ⋊∋∘  ⋊∋∘     ⋊∋∘   ...ௐ.   ௐ
 * ▻▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻▻ ▻   ⋊∋∘  ⋊∋∘     ⋊∋∘  ௐ    ௐ . ௐ
 * ௐ ௐ.ௐ .ௐ ௐ.ௐ  ௐ  ௐ  ..ௐ    ௐௐ    ..ௐ   ௐௐௐ..   ௐ
 * Formerly 98 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

regarding your post above - I find this rather problematic. It seems to me you already have made up your mind regarding e-cigarettes, enough to make what appears to be a quantitative (albeit WP:OR) determination about risks ("bad health outcomes") both in terms of their probability, as well as severity ("of the problem"). Further you suggest you've also quantified the benefits (unspecified) and basically found that e-cigarettes are a problem with bad health outcomes that outweigh any benefits. To advocate this WP:POV you inserted some text in the article citing a press release from AAPCC as the source. I find this goes against at least 2 of the WP:5, many general WP policies, and pretty much everything WP:MED stands for. Mihaister (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Weight Issues
thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much WP:WEIGHT should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC based on the policy, WP:WEIGHT, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The above quote seems to suggest that the only argument against the excess WEIGHT of the medical and health content of this article is "I don't like it" so allow me to advance the arguments against the excess weight of medical content in this article.

Let's start with somethings I believe everyone agrees. We're getting a pretty good understanding of what is in the emissions of an e-cigarette and what is in the second hand vapour. We're getting an understanding of how long it hangs around for. We have some information about the short term effects of exposure to those emissions. There are no long term studies because it's a new technology. No negative health effect is strongly indicated. Some chemicals in some samples are ones where we do have evidence of negative health effects. An overwhelming majority of the chemicals known to cause harm in Tobacco Smoke are not present in e-cig vapour. Now even with detail and sources, here's my take on why the above amounts to over 5,000 words of text. 1) There is a lot of redundancy, the same 4 or 5 health points are made many times over making the article bloated. It's quoted under each body that said it, each country that endorsed it etc. As many of these claims are "we're not certain but we're looking at x, we'll know more when we have evidence" it adds up to a lot of words saying very little. 2) The excess weight results in a masking of the lack of certainty. If you say "Corn flakes may spontaneously combust when stored without milk" 30 times in their wikipedia article, people start to worry about the risk of that happening. If you say once "It is possible for corn flakes to spontaneously combust although there is no indication it is likely and has never been observed" once then people are more likely to take the right level of risk and hazard. While the claims in this article are not as unlikely as spontaneously combusting cornflakes the same principle applies. 3) Ambiguous use of "may" and "could" in medical context exacerbates the above. "Smoking may cause cancer" is phrased that way in some places because not everyone who smokes will get cancer, the may relates to the individuals. "Cell phones may cause brain tumours" was for a while phrased that way because there was no confidence in the claim that they didn't. The may related to the general effect. The level of uncertainty around each claim should be clearer.

I honestly believe the best way to tackle the medical claims at this point is claim by claim citing the levels of evidence for and against. eg. Harmful contents of vapour, Scientific analysis of vapour contents and tests on those chemicals. Highlighting that as no long term studies have been done no long term effects can be ruled out Short term effects of vaping, simple statements of conclusions drawn such as changes in heart rate etc with relevant comparisons to non-use and tobacco smoking. Gateway to tobacco, no scientific evidence for weak evidence against Smoking Cessation and Reduction, Conflicting evidence as to efficacy, small mention of controversy over generational differences. Adverse events Batteries, Liquid safety and poison control, flavours and the appeal to children.


 * All excellent points but can I just add that - leaving aside for a second the issue of whether the entire article is over-medicalised - it may be over-stressing (in WEIGHT terms) some health issues and underplaying others. The notable one that comes to mind is the "gateway effect". Whether or not there is any evidence to support its existence, this is a huge issue in that it is arguably the main driver (or at any rate, purported driver...) of e-cigarette regulation. As I think I've said before on this page, influential ideas are important even if erroneous. I'm not taking an adamant position here but let me just suggest the idea that in terms of its actual effect on the world out there, the gateway hypothesis is every bit as important as toxicology, SHS, particles etc., quite possibly more so, yet it gets comparatively sketchy coverage in the article compared to these. Barnabypage (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that it needs to be in there but I'm not certain I'd call the coverage in the article "sketchy". It appears under Canada, Australia and Others, addiction, and Usage. I also wouldn't say from my reading of it that it's a highly influential idea. The idea that "you just don't know what's in them" is far more influential. However it sounds like we largely agree and this page needs two people in agreement arguing over minutiae like it needs [something else it doesn't need].SPACKlick (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I spend most of the day looking at e-cig regulation (for my sins) and I'd say protecting "the children" from trying e-cigs and then taking up tobacco is raised as an issue far more often than anything to do with the products themselves. (Which is why if a jurisdiction has just one e-cig law in place, it's usually an age restriction.) I stress that this is the regulatory and public health debate I'm talking about - not scientific investigation. But as you say, it's not a huge deal compared with the issue of the article's overall tone. Barnabypage (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes. My personal opinion is we should make selling any tobacco products, including e-cigarettes a crime everywhere, with a mandatory life sentance without the possibility of parole. Kids are not able to make the reasoned decisions most adults can. They are best used by current smokers as a way of quitting or as a harm reduction device. But evidence of the effectiveness of them used in quitting is still coming in and needs to be looked at more to be proven. Smart regulation is the way to go, age restriction, labelling of content of eliquid, and better quality control in eliquid and hardware. The age restriction has to be done by laws, but the others are starting to be addressed by trade associations. Some mention of self regulation might be useful to the article. AlbinoFerret  01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes. Er, well, no - nor do I! Barnabypage (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * its more like death by a thousand cuts. Discounting the little problems is ok if its one or two, but the little problems can, if not addressed, add up to a big problem. The whole article is one mass of little problems. AlbinoFerret  01:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think this article is one where the little problems would be treated as tiny if it wasn't already full of the massive problem of Bloat, Redundancy and undue weight. 8 references to speculation about gateway effects even more to people saying "we don't know enough yet". If all that was trimmed and the health effects were handled sensibly, the little problems would be a breeze. SPACKlick (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Phrasing of the RFC
New version to address concerns:Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Previous versions Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or a consumer product like all other types of cigarettes? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Should a consumer product, in which the article itself is not in the medical category, follow the page order for a medical device AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit is completely inappropriate as the original wording neutrally asks the question as to what type of article is it without prejudicial language. You wouldn't like it if I added an alternative phrasing of "should a drug delivery device used to administer a pharmacologically active substance follow the section order for a medical device", but your own rephrasing is equally prejudicial.  I'd urge you to revert this edit, after which I will revert this one. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But by that criteria a beer glass is also a medical device! E-cigarettes aren't medical devices. They don't treat any medical condition. They are not prescribed by doctors. They are sold & used as consumer products, & that's what producers, distributors & users insist they are.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CheesyAppleFlake, this is not true. A "prescription" is whatever your doctor tells you to do.  It is not limited to writing a pharmaceutical prescription that you take to a pharmacist to get a regulated drug.  Doctors "prescribe" diets and exercise.  I know of one who "prescribed" whiskey sours as a muscle relaxant.  If your doctor tells you to switch to e-cigs (e.g., for harm reduction), then e-cigs have been prescribed to you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this is dependent on where in the world you come from. Here in Denmark, a Doctor can't prescribe anything that isn't a government approved medication. He can advice you to take a non-medical product, but not prescribe it to you. --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that every Danish doctor that has ever written orders for a stroke patient to be given a low-sodium meal in hospital—and that's probably all of them, given the way medical training works—will disagree with you. The dictionary isn't too hard to understand on this point.  If a physician or surgeon orders anything for the purpose of addressing a health condition, then he's "prescribing" it.  I doubt that the Danish government is going around "approving" low-sodium foods and calling them "medications".  If you want to continue this claim, then I suggest that you back up your claim with reliable sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See BEK nr 1671 af 12/12/2013 §1 of "Bekendtgørelse for recepter" (law regarding ordination/prescription") --Kim D. Petersen 00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an example can be given the legality/non-legality of prescribing excersise, which has only within the last 10 years been a possibility, and has been tried in test-runs, so No. Doctors can't simply decide on their own what they want to prescribe in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A parallel situation has to do with medical cannabis in the U.S. The federal government prohibits the physician from "prescribing" marijuana; so they make an "oral recommendation" per free speech, and by extension a "written recommendation" which may end up being required for a special state (not federal) ID license card for marijuana, then there's a crackdown on doctors writing recommendations without seeing patients or meeting various other standards... no doubt a third term will eventually be invented.  You might say the English language is always the first casualty of law. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The original wording suggests its a medical device by asking if its medical in nature, not if its medical or consumer, that shows a bias. The original wording also points out the creators own suggested outcome. Another problem is that the creator only placed the question about medical classification in the medical category when its a consumer device and medical editors are not the only consumers. Its a subtle form of canvasing WP:CANVAS called votebanking, asking medical editors if they should keep the article in the medical category. Its like asking mice if they want to keep cheese. This whole rfc is flawed. If the original statement stands then the rephrasing stands imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The original RfC was neutrally worded and has got a good response. This is an attempt to reword it in a non-neutral way. Let it run. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note that AlbinoFerret posted the alternate wording to the village pump; I came here because I thought it weird that an RfC would have "alternate phrasing". Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the original wording is biased because it only mentions one option and does not correctly summarize the issue. I have edited the alternate phrasing slightly to only ask the question of its formatting. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * AlbinoFerret, the advice given at WP:RFC is that if you are unhappy with the wording then you should ask the originator to rephrase it. But be aware that although the original was slightly suggestive (perhaps inadvertently), sticking "like all other types of cigarettes" in there is mixing question with answer. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure that there is any "page order for consumer products", I think this probably falls under the general WP:MOS. So the best you could hope for might be "Should the e-cigarette article follow general Wikipedia page order guidelines or the medical guidelines?"Levelledout (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will adjust it a little more to address your concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Workable proposals
In my opinion, the discussions above have mostly been about "Is this a medical topic or not?" with people voting yes or no. There is a manual of style for section ordering for medicine, but there is no manual of style other than article precedent for products. It seems apparent to me that the results of the poll above are not leading to a compromise, other than to confirm that complete adoption of the medical model is problematic.

I am presenting here various options for section ordering. If anyone wishes to give comments on using any of these, or to propose their own reform for section ordering, then I think that might be more likely to lead to consensus than abstractly talking about how to order this without proposing an order. I think the medical order is a good start even if it is not the best fit for this article, just because it is an well-developed model.


 * 1) Here is the current section order.
 * Current problematic option
 * 1) *Health effects
 * 2) *Smoking cessation
 * 3) **Harm reduction
 * 4) **Safety
 * 5) **Aerosol
 * 6) **Addiction
 * 7) *Construction
 * 8) **Atomizer
 * 9) **Power
 * 10) **E-liquid
 * 11) *Usage
 * 12) *History
 * 13) *Society and culture
 * 14) **Legal status
 * 15) **Economics
 * 16) *Related technologies
 * 17) Here is the standard order for medical products.
 * Medical order for products
 * 1) *Medical uses
 * 2) *Contraindications
 * 3) *Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
 * 4) *Overdose (including toxicity)
 * 5) *Interactions
 * 6) *Mechanism of action
 * 7) *Physical and chemical properties
 * 8) *Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
 * 9) *Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
 * 10) *History
 * 11) *Society and culture
 * 12) **Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
 * 13) **Recreational use
 * 14) **Economics
 * 15) *Research
 * 16) *Veterinary use
 * 17) Here is a version which deletes the distinctly medical sections and pet use of e-cigarettes, but otherwise retains the order.
 * Medical order for products - shortened variation
 * 1) *Medical uses
 * 2) *Contraindications
 * 3) *Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
 * 4) * Overdose (including toxicity)
 * 5) * Interactions
 * 6) *Mechanism of action
 * 7) *Physical and chemical properties
 * 8) * Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
 * 9) * Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
 * 10) *History
 * 11) *Society and culture
 * 12) **Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
 * 13) **Recreational use
 * 14) **Economics
 * 15) *Research
 * 16) * Veterinary use
 * 17) The most common complaint about the medical order is that it does not quickly present the product mechanism. Here is a version which uses that short order, but moves mechanism to the top:
 * Medical order for products - shortened variation, emphasizing mechanism
 * 1) *Mechanism of action
 * 2) *Medical uses
 * 3) *Contraindications
 * 4) *Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
 * 5) * Overdose (including toxicity)
 * 6) * Interactions
 * 7) *Physical and chemical properties
 * 8) * Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)
 * 9) * Frequency of use (how commonly is it used)
 * 10) *History
 * 11) *Society and culture
 * 12) **Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)
 * 13) **Recreational use
 * 14) **Economics
 * 15) *Research
 * 16) * Veterinary use
 * 17) Here is my attempt to merge the medical order with the existing order. I like this ordering system.
 * Medical order for products - shortened variation, merge with current problematic order
 * 1) *Uses
 * 2) *Contraindications
 * 3) *Adverse effects (including withdrawal)
 * 4) *Construction
 * 5) **Atomizer
 * 6) **Power
 * 7) **E-liquid
 * 8) *History
 * 9) *Society and culture
 * 10) **Legal status
 * 11) **Economics
 * 12) *Research
 * 13) *Related technologies

Does anyone else have any ideas for ordering this?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * All of the above maintain the challenged notion that these devices are "medical", whereas they are currently regarded legally, by the scientific literature, and by the public as general consumer products. "Contraindications"? Really? I suggest we stop trying to cram a square peg into a round hole and recognize the reality that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology that does not fit the definition of either tobacco product or medical product. Let's develop a structure to this article that acknowledges this verifiable fact rather than attempt to shoehorn this distinct category into existing ill-fitting frameworks. Mihaister (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If anyone has anything to say that is not a workable proposal then put it somewhere else. All of the above options that I shared are horrible and problematic but at least they exist. This is not a section for discussing theoretical non-existent proposals but for presenting existing ones.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above proposals dismiss the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RFC. None above are satisfactory and are all medical listings. The article is not listed as a medical device.
 * Standard order for other cigarettes Consumer product 
 * History
 * Construction
 * Health effects
 * Usage
 * Society and culture
 * Legal status
 * Economics
 * Related technologies


 * Modified order for other cigarettes Consumer product taking into account support responses
 * History
 * Health effects
 * Construction
 * Usage
 * Society and culture
 * Legal status
 * Economics
 * Related technologies
 * AlbinoFerret 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? We could probably pull content fitting that outline directly from here.  Would save us all the trouble of developing new content. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion isnt about the content, but the order of the content.Taking everything from one source as you suggest isnt good. AlbinoFerret  15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You used the word "Standard order". Where did you get the standard? So far as I know, one does not exist. Did you design this yourself?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the standard order of its type of consumer product, cigarettes, as found on the articles. None start out with Health effects or have the other medical sections. I have modified the title a little. AlbinoFerret  15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked for a standard on products and even proposed one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Home_Living, but I think none exists. The medical manual of style does not start with health effects either, but rather with uses. I am not seeing the the opposition to the medical proposal a call for greater attention to the history section, and I wondered if you found some standard somewhere which says that history comes first before uses and function. Is it also your personal view that history is more important than usage or mechanism/construction?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at all the cigarette articles, they all start with history, as do all of consumer products I have seen on Wikipedia. While a "standard" isnt listed in a guideline, there is a default standard by common use. More than half the responses disagree with a medical listing. Starting from a medical listing is imho the wrong starting point, but I understand the need to start somewhere. I recommend the order set forth in the lede as a starting point. It is also the default order a lot of journal articles set, History, what it consists of, and then the effects. They dont jump to health issues. In fact Grana the most sited source uses this order. I understand the concerns of the supporters about pushing down the Health section, so perhaps we can compromise and place history first. Its a small section and does give a tiny bit on components. Its unlikely to change or expand as other sections and will not continually push the other sections down.  AlbinoFerret  17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing I didnt answer is the lack of opposition. Over half of the responses were against the medical order and preferred one like a consumer device. They acknowledged a defacto one exists because of common use. AlbinoFerret  18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One defining characteristic of the "health option" is that it starts with a description of what the product is and how it is made. In my view, information on the use of the product is more important and the history of the product is rather low in importance. Yes, I know that many people put history first and I have often opposed it. I could be mistaken but I think you yourself have said that usage was most important, and I do not recall you defending history anywhere. This is not a medical/non-medical issue. Even for products I am wondering if you really believe that the history comes before describing what the product is and how it is used.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * During a massive amount of editing late at night I did forget to put history first. But the page as it was didnt last long enough to place history first when I woke up. My opinion is that the order of the lede should be followed, it is the same as the defacto standard of page order of consumer devices. I think we should use the order of other consumer products of its kind if not every other consumer product. Its not "many" people that prefer a defacto standard of a consumer product, its more than half and growing.
 * But our starting point is wrong, it is placing the opinions in the minority first. Granted the medical questions are important, but the lede places that information at the top as the largest paragraph in the lede. Dont get me wrong, some compromise is needed, but sticking with the medical order and making adjustments from there is the wrong way to go. E-cigarettes are not a medical product, they are not in a medical category. That medical group adopted the article as something they are interested in and placed banners at the top of the talk page does not change those facts.
 * If the order you are suggesting is
 * Usage
 * Construction
 * Health effects
 * History
 * Society and culture
 * Legal status
 * Economics
 * Related technologies
 * We may have the start of a compromise. But please lose the rest of the medical order. AlbinoFerret  20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to say anything about medical order because no two people imagine the same thing when talking about that. I support the order that you proposed here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I too support the order proposed by immediately above. Mihaister (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that AlbinoFerret's first option is the most appropriate, it matches the typical order in the review articles that we have in the medical section (like for instance in Grana). It makes more sense to explain what it is and how it came about, before going into the effects of it, with the final part being the political and sociological aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Previously you have said that uses and construction/design/product description come first, like for example when I wanted the same thing by voting to support the medical option. I wondered why you said that because it seemed like we wanted the same thing. Is it really your intent now to say that history comes before uses and design?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

During the discussion of sections and page order Quack has been busy adding "medical" section to the page without consensus. Toxicology and Adverse effects were added. AlbinoFerret 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you feel strongly that this is a problem which conflicts with the outline proposal? QuackGuru posted some low-level headings. This outline is for top-level headings. I do not have any opinion on low level headings at this time, other than I think that some will probably be allowed. I do not want to dismiss your concern but I was hoping that for now the discussion could focus on top level heading until the article could be rearranged a bit. Would it change your mind about these section orders of the health section had lower level toxicology and adverse effect sections during a rearrange?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues I see with the low level headings is that they are the names of medical sections listed in the WP:MEDMOS and that its not written in stone that low level sections will stay low level sections. Its easily remidied by using a non medical section header for the name. Adverse Effects can become Complaints as an example. But Quack has a habit of becoming fixed on a specific wording, in fact I deleted the sections, he added them back, I edited the names, he added them back. AlbinoFerret  18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical device according to MEDRS
This is a medical device in certain countries. QuackGuru ( talk ) 08:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is inaccurate, in certain countries if the device uses nicotine it is, but if it uses no nicotine the same device is a consumer product. So no, its not a medical device, some uses may be medical in nature in some countries. That would be calling a Walking stick a medical device. It would also me discounting the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC. AlbinoFerret  14:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But the source says "...e-cigarettes have been classified as “drug delivery devices” in several countries,..."
 * We should discount the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC or better yet redo the RFC because they have not read this information that was only very recently added to this article. Or all the responders can be notified of this new information. See Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for it. Leave the RFC run its course. AlbinoFerret  01:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The current text says: "E-cigarettes have been listed as "drug delivery devices" in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[83] E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some countries, but are not permitted to be used as a cessation aid to help smokers quit.[115]" Therefore, e-cigarettes are a medical device. Previous responders are not aware of this new information that was recently added to the article. That invalidates this RFC IMO. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How many countries? 3? 5? 7? and are they english speaking countries this is the english wikipedia. What about the majority of them that dont? Do you seriously think that a hand full of countries are going to make any difference to those who edit wikipedia seeing it as a commercial product? If you stressed "several" thinking it was going to make a difference you are mistaken, several to a native english speaker means a low number. I tell you what, hold an RFC on if this RFC should be restarted to see where consensus lies. It should only take 2 or 3 weeks. AlbinoFerret  07:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)