Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 9

Question about source material.
I have a question. I found some pretty good info about the tech aspect of e cigs in a French paper. Would it be acceptable to cite this source here considering that it is written in French?TheNorlo (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * in general, acceptable, but not great. we should aspire to great.  if that is the only place the information can be found it is kind of suspect and there is generally some drum-banging going on when people insist on using weak sources.  but if you must use it, you should a) provide an english translation in the ref as a quote and b) not have a cow when others to reject it... Relevant policy is here Verifiability .Jytdog (talk)
 * I agree with you that it is not great, but as I stated before, reliable technical info about this subject is extremely hard to find, it would be extremely easy if we could quote vendors information but alas, they are not considered reliable for obvious reasons. I will keep looking for English info.TheNorlo (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree TheNorlo, reliable sources are lacking regarding a range of relatively common vaping equipment and phenomena. Sub-ohm vaping, rebuildable atomizers, dripping atomizers, basically a lot of stuff associated with 2nd generation devices. Yes English sources are preferred, but if we can't find any then a translated non-English source is the next best thing. TheNorlo can I ask exactly what technical information is described by the source and is this a peer-reviewed review or some other type of source?Levelledout (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It mentions ego style pv's, ego cone threading and the 510 connection. It mentions how the 510 connection became a standard and that a plethora of accessories from different manufacturer are compatible with it . It is a news article, not a peer review scientific one, but I think the 510 connection is relevant to this article since it as clearly become a standard for the industry. I don't have the source with me right now since I'm not home.TheNorlo (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes description of eGo and 510 threads/connections is something we are lacking and definitely need since these are the two standard connections used on e-cigarettes along with rarer ones such as 808 and 910. I don't think we need WP:MEDRS for this as it's non-medical information, as long as the source is WP:V compliant I think its fine. Good that you also found some sub-ohm information.Levelledout (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is from | this article it is from Clubic which I think should be acceptable for the purpose of acknowledging the existence and prevalence of the 510 connection. Here is what the source says  "Les plus répandues (pas de vis de la batterie) sont celles qui s'adaptent sur les filetages 510 et Ego (95 % du marché)"  Freely translated as: the most common types of battery connections are those that are compatible with 510 threadings and ego threadings (95% market share). The article also adds:  "La grande majorité des modèles d'e-cigarettes étant standardisée, la plupart de ces composants sont interchangeables d'une marque à l'autre."  again freely translated as: The vast majority of e-cig models are now standardized, most of their components are interchangeable from one brand to another.


 * As for kr808 and 901 specs, I think they are dying out and of no particular interest to this article, and of course, impossible to source :) TheNorlo (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah nice work (wish I could speak two languages!). I think its worth adding to the article and if you put those citations in I might be able to get a photo done of some eGo and 510 threading to go with it if I get the chance.Levelledout (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * concerning sub ohm vaping, I found a good english article on cloud chasers that I will use in the society and culture in the near future.TheNorlo (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Passive vaping
The sentense "but some studies have found that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood. " is strange! Gana refers to the study of Flouris AD et al. "Acute impact of active and passive electronic cigarette smoking on serum cotinine and lung function." wich states:
 * "Results: e-Cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes generated similar (p>?0.001) effects on serum cotinine levels after active (60.6?±34.3 versus 61.3?±36.6ng/ml)and passive (2.4?±0.9 versus 2.6?±?0.6ng/ml) smoking."

The strange thing is the serum cotinine level after "passive vaping" (which actually was no real "passive vaping", because the aerosol was generated with a pump). However: The serum cotinine level after "passive" vaping was 2.4±0.9 - which is according to Benowitz under the limit of the cutpoint which is used to seperate a smoker from a non-smoker:
 * Optimal cotinine cutpoints were 3.08 ng/mL (sensitivity = 96.3%, specificity = 97.4%) and 2.99 ng/mL (sensitivity = 86.5%, specificity = 93.1%) for adults and adolescents, respectively.
 * The serum cotinine levels were within the "normal cotinine levels".

Grana states: " (A person inhaling a nicotine aerosol usually absorbs 80% of the nicotine,48 whereas the pump discharges all nicotine into the environment, so the nicotine exposure may be higher in this study than would be the case with actual secondhand aerosol exposure.)". Which makes the sentence "but some studies have found that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood." absurd, because every human being has detectable levels of cotinine and Grana notes that 80% of the nicotine is absorbed by human during e-cigarette use, thus the exposure to nicotine in the "real world" is less. This is no personal research! The above mentioned sentence in WP is simply not supported by the given sources (neither Grana nor Flouris)!

BTW: Grana has copied weird figures... She states: "Serum cotinine in nonsmokers sitting in the chamber was similar for cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol exposure (average, 0.8 ng/mL for tobacco cigarette and 0.5 ng/mL for e-cigarette)" and in the source you can read the figures 2.4 ± 0.9 ("passive" e-cigarette) versus 2.6 ± 0.6 ng/ml (passive tobacco smoke).--Merlin 1971 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this detailed reading, but this kind of analysis goes beyond what we do as editors here. Please see MEDRS which says "Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions."  The best thing we can do is find other reviews which make different conclusions.  Something like this, perhaps: http://taw.sagepub.com/content/5/2/67 Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides the science - you overlooked the main point: The sentence: ""but some studies have found that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood."" is nowhere to find in the Grana-Study. I'm not rejecting a sentence out of the Grana-Study! I would point out that the sentence in Wikipedia is not backuped by the study! Simple said: It is wrong and not in the source!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. What do you propose that we say about 2nd hand exposure based on Grana? (or other sources) Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can read, Grana is avoiding the problems and makes no clear statement under "Secondhand Exposure". I would prefer another source. For example: The UK Government ("National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training" and "Public Health England") published "Electronic cigarettes" today. The purpose of the paper is to inform the employees and professional advisors in the public healt community (stop smoking services) about e-cigarettes. Author is Hayden McRobbie and review is done by Peter Hajek, Robert West and Lynne Dawkins. According 2nd hand exposure it states:
 * "Low levels of toxicants and carcinogens have been detected in electronic cigarette liquid and vapour although these are much lower than those found in conventional cigarette smoke and are not considered to pose any passive inhalation risk."
 * I like that sentence - It summarize the whole "2nd Hand exposure" to one clear, comprehensible and reproducible sentence (sources are also given at the end) - And: It's a publication of a government.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me, but a) that is not a UK govt document (it is from "National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training" which is a UK "Community Interest Company", and b) UK government copyright works differently from US govt copyright in any case - not public domain. So you would still need to paraphase, or actually quote. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The document has been produced in partnership with Public Health England - Public Health England is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom ;) I'm not a wordsmith... If you don't have a suggestion, how to paraphase it - I can live with a quote.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * not moving past the copyright thing yet. 1) it has a copyright notice "© 2014 National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT)" and 2) therefore it is not a UK govt document and 3) in any case, UK govt copyright does not work like US govt copyright - UK govt documents are not public domain by default. copyright is really serious in WP, so i am not letting this go. and i really hate repeating myself. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong? I did not suggest to violate any copyright! I just wrote: "I'm not a wordsmith... If you don't have a suggestion, how to paraphase it - I can live with a quote." - What have I missed? --Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * what got me was the first part "The document has been produced in partnership with Public Health England - Public Health England is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom ;)"... Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have only explained, that the document had been produced in partnership with the Government. There was no meaning of a "cross connection" between the first und the second sentence.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with copyright as we are not planning on copying large parts of the document. If you're looking for a paraphrase, how about:


 * "A document produced in partnership with Public Health England stated that, in comparison to cigarette smoke, e-liquid and e-cigarette vapour contain very low levels of carcinogens and toxic substances that are unlikely to pose a health risk via passive inhalation."


 * Or simply


 * "A document produced in partnership with Public Health England stated that e-cigarettes are not thought to pose a health risk via passive inhalation."Levelledout (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I I would prefer: "A document produced in partnership with Public Health England stated that, in comparison to cigarette smoke, e-liquid and e-cigarette vapour contain very low levels of carcinogens and toxic substances that are unlikely to pose a health risk via passive inhalation."--Merlin 1971 (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the things that needs fixing in this article is the attribution that is going on. If something has consensus in sources, it can be stated in Wikipedia's voice and doesn't need the in-text "X says....".   See Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine).  In a section about something controversial, where reliable secondary sources provide different perspectives, it does make sense to attribute.  But really only in that case.  I don't see any major division on 2nd hand exposure among the sources. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy, atm. Nice discussion so far!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:See also
Terms that are already linking in the text should not be placed in a see also section. TheNorlo has added them twice Unsure why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Was linked here and now removed Unclear why?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I believe the link to be out of context. The article stated: "The European Parliament passed regulations in February 2014 requiring standardization of liquids and vaporizers (...)" The link leads to the broader world of Vaporizer (inhalation device) which includes dry-herbs vaporizers like cannabis or tobacco etc... I believe that the regulations that are being talked about here specifically addresses electronic-cigarettes types of vaporizers and not the plethora of other kinds of vaporizers. That is why I change the word vaporizer to "personal vaporizer" which is parenthesized in the opening of the article. If I'm wrong, I have no problem reverting back.TheNorlo (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why was the see also section deleted? Electronic cigarettes are a sub genre of the broader range of vaporizer (inhalation device) I believe that it is relevant to link to it from this article.TheNorlo (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We should be able to link that term somewhere within the article. And also you stated above it was "out of context" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, out of context from where it was linked, not universally out of context. Let me try something, revert if you object. TheNorlo (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Am happy for it to be linked somewhere in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kim's questioning of sources on the variability sentence
Statement: "There is significant variability in the kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration"

Kim says Palazzo "failed verification" .Palazzo starts out saying: "The ingredients found in e-cigarette cartridges and solutions are relatively few, and for the most part non-toxic and non-carcinogenic, especially in the low quantities delivered. They include nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and tobacco flavoring" and goes into a very long and careful discussion of contaminants, including e-cigarettes that included pharmaceuticals. (!) It was for the latter that I included this as a reference. The inclusion of drugs in e-cigarettes is significant, to me at least.

Kim also said O'Connor failed verification. O'Connor says: "However, significant concerns exist with the purity of ingredients employed, device functionality and quality control," Perhaps, Kim, you missed the significance of "quality control." That has to do with whether you know what is in the product that you are manufacturing and how consistent it is from batch to batch. Those are issues that the two articles that O'Connor cites go into. O'Connor says that there are significant issues with quality control. This very much supports the statement above.

WIth respect to the NY Times reference supporting this, I am a bit surprised that MEDRS is brought to play here. The sentence is about chemical stuff. Not about health effects.Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement to be verified was:
 *  There is significant variability in the kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration.
 * That one is not verifiable in Palazzolo(2013), and your statement about purity of chemicals is not related to the above claim. Purity is correctly a quality control issue, but it is not a "kinds and concentrations" one, nor one that addresses "labeled content ...". With regards to the NY Times, it is not reliable for statements about cancer, climate change, chemicals or any other science issue - they are reliable for politics and current affairs. --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point of this lengthy discussion and fully support Jytdog's reading of the source material. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is interesting User:CFCF. Can you please quote where in Palazzolo(2013) where "..variability in the kinds and concentration of chemicals.." is mentioned? Here is the link page 6 contains the section "Chemical Analysis of E-Cigarette Cartridges, Solutions, and Mist". --Kim D. Petersen 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact i must insist that you do so CFCF, since you just removed my failed verification tag with the claim "frivolous", this must mean that you verified the statement in the paper, and have actual objections - otherwise you'd be doing tendentious editing - correct? --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am walking away from this article. Kim has serious issues with advocacy and ownership and I am not one for drama boards. Wikipedia has better places to work. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC) (correction - didn't walk away. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC))
 * I'm sad to hear that. And i'm curious about your WP:OWN claim - have i massively reverted you? And i do believe that i've cited every objection that i've had to reliable sources haven't i? --Kim D. Petersen 22:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WHO Q&A
Is there a special reason why "Questions and answers on electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)" is linked to the Wayback Machine? Nevertheless, the Q&A is the Source for six statements the article and it is removed from the official WHO pages. Should't that be a reliable Source?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to access the original link today and got a 404 "page not found" error, so I added the archive link. I don't know why the page is not available.  I am not one to rush to judgement. Just emailed them to ask them to fix the broken link.  Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Attempted to find the content at the WHO pages: No success! Thank you for sending them a email!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * sure! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mailed them a question, too -> No response. But: The link has changed: The Q&A vanished and was replaced by a short statement that "WHO is currently reviewing the existing evidence". I've changed the article accordingly.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed text to the past tense and added date of statement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You really want to... You force to keep that previously given statement from the WHO in the article, aren't you? The statement from the WHO was never backuped by sources... And now the statement is no langer on the WHO-Website... You have to link to "Wayback". I see it come: Some other user will enter some weird sentences to the article and you will back it up. The way you're acting in WP makes me wonder! You are not the only one who contribute to WP, you know? Like everone, you have to discuss (not simply reverting thing you don't like).... WP:BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. I'm a editor to the german WP since three years - Never saw something like this. This upsets me! Go on... Make this an POV-Article at its best - Keep the halftruths. I'm out - you have won (at least for a while)! Bye!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be calm - you got all excited about this. Look, big scientific and medical bodies, which are really important sources for reliable health information, move slowly. The WHO issued a statement back just last year - in July 2013. That was their best statement at the time, and it remains valuable today. If and when they issue a new statement, we can update the article with that information, at that time. We go from statement to statement... this is not an emergency room where people are going to die if we don't do something right now. So let the statement stand -- keep your eye out for their updated statement, and when it comes out, we can update the article. It is OK, really. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we link years?
Such as done here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and no.... not in this case... That is my fault Manual_of_Style/Linking I will revert.TheNorlo (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The world famous word: Some
I am wondering if the use of this word belongs here:" "Some research indicates that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes and similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)" Did any study concluded that the health risk were higher than NTR's? If not, let's remove the word "some" if there is... then... let's leave it there.TheNorlo (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read this diff.--37.4.142.37 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Guess I missed that. TheNorlo (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there are statement that it is unclear. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The choice of word we use before research should reflect the amount of research that agrees with the statement. We should use "some research" if its a minority opinion, "most research" if its a majority and "research" if there is a consensus amongst researchers.


 * The statement in question is


 * "some research indicates that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes and similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)"
 * This appears to be a majority opinion, [see this]. The likes of Saitta, Public Health England and Caponnetto et al all concur with it. Grana partially agrees with it. Therefore "some research" is inadequate and we should use "most research" instead.


 * Arguments regarding the WHO's position statements and other position statements are not relevant here since position statements are not research. The WHO's position is also already reflected in the preceding statement "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain".Levelledout (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The current text in the body is "However, some evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions". This is great, because the biggest issue is that there have not been a lot of studies done of the safety of e-cigarettes.  It is a question of the amount of evidence altogether, not whether the majority or minority of studies that have been done, lean one way or the other. From the evidence standpoint, there is "some".  I just copied the whole sentence from the body into the lead. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you are quite correct, from the quantity and quality of evidence standpoint there is only "some evidence", but that "some" happens to be a majority opinion and this fact should not be ignored or excluded from the text. WP:NPOV in general highly values the importance of representing majority and minority opinions appropriately. In this case we already have "there is insufficient data to draw conclusions" in the sentence, therefore it should be changed to "most research" and and should read:
 * "Most research suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions."Levelledout (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to say that the amount of evidence is limited. how shall we do that? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about: "Using e-cigarettes is probably safer than smoking cigarettes, but there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the safety of e-cigarettes, especially in comparison to other nicotine replacement products." Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that we kept the main part of my suggestion as with regard to "Using e-cigarettes is probably safer than smoking cigarettes" I think it would be better to avoid making an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Due to the fact that organisations such as the WHO do not necessarily agree with this assertion, I think its better to attribute this statement to "most research suggests e-cigarettes may be safer...".


 * If you want to give the 'lack of research' a bit more prominence how about:
 * "There is an insufficient quantity of research to draw reliable conclusions regarding the safety of e-cigarettes. Most of the research that does exist considers the devices to be safer than smoking tobacco products and some researchers think they are as safe as nicotine replacement products.
 * I'm not sure its necessary to say a lack of research in comparison to NRTs as we have already stated there is a lack of research in general which seems to be what the majority of sources say. If we did decide to do this, we could say:
 * "Both generally and in comparison to nicotine replacement products, there is an insufficient quantity of research to draw reliable conclusions regarding the safety of e-cigarettes. Most of the research that does exist considers the devices to be safer than smoking tobacco products and some researchers think they are as safe as nicotine replacement products.Levelledout (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How About something like:
 * "Although the quantity of published research is limited, most of them indicates that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes and similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)"TheNorlo (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds OK, grammatically it should be "most of it" as opposed to "most of those". Also although most studies say the risks are lower than tobacco, I'm not sure that most explicitly state that they are similar to NRT, hence my more complicated version.Levelledout (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How about simpler "Although the published research is limited, there are indications that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes and maybe similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good for me. TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Doc James's suggestion is similar to the original statement in principle and omits "most research". We seem to be in agreement that this is a majority opinion and I have highlighted in detail above why it is important that we include "most research" in the statement. Therefore I suggest we modify Doc James's suggestion to:
 * Although the published research is limited, most research indicates that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes and maybe similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)."
 * If we want to be clearer about NRTs we could say:
 * Although the published research is limited, most research indicates that the health risks are much lower than regular cigarettes. Some studies consider the risk similar to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)."Levelledout (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "most research" seems to imply that there's a lot when this is infact not the case. I thus prefer the other wording currently. The new WHO statement when it comes out may require a change. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not necessarily agree that the term "most research" imply that there's a lot if we specify in the opening of the sentence "Although the published research is limited" it is pretty clear that the quantity of research is unsubstantial. TheNorlo (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As the research is limited all we have are "indication" that they are safer. Hopefully WHO will clarify things for us. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are supposed to this year... Anyhow, saying: "(...)most research indicates that the health risks(...)" solves this problem if you ask me. TheNorlo (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is still a majority opinion regardless of whether it provides an indication or something more. The WHO is completely irrelevant to this matter as a position statement is not research.


 * I also agree with TheNorlo that quite clearly we are not implying that there is a large amount of research in a sentence which contains "the published research is limited". In any case I fail to see how "most", which relates to proportion, makes any implications regarding absolute quantity.Levelledout (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviews are definitely research. It is not primary research but secondary research and still research none the less. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear/misleading statistic
"and the proportion of calls made to poison centers related to e-cigarettes jumped from 0.3 percent of all calls in September 2010 to 41.7 percent in February 2014." No citation here, but some research showed that of all e-cig AND traditional cigarette calls combined the percentage increased from .3 to 41.7 percent. As written currently, it seems to imply that 41.7% of _all_ calls to poison centers are related to e-cigs. I don't see a lock on this page but I can't edit for some reason, can someone else edit for clarification? tx :-) http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0403-e-cigarette-poison.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdjitsu (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a soft lock, you need to be logged in to edit.TheNorlo (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the correction. Good catch, that's a big difference! :-) --Agyle (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch indeed! thanks TheNorlo (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Physics of e-cigs
Does anyone knows if e-cigs really vaporize as is claimed in this article or aerosolize (which I think might be the case)? I can't find any RS on this but if one of you do, I think it might be worth differentiating.TheNorlo (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Made the changes TheNorlo (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * E-cigs would both vaporize and aerosolize. The changes seem questionable. The opening sentence now contains "...which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol commonly, although incorrectly, called 'vapor' that resembles smoke." Vapor can refer to a gas, an airborne suspension of nongases, and airborne suspensions of compounds that change from a gaseous to non-gaseous state (e.g., steam, or "water vapor", which is visible because the molecules change back to a liquid state). The claim that the use of the term "vapor" is incorrect in this context should be supported by a reliable source that says it's incorrect, and even then it seems like a fringe view.


 * The sentence also seems to suggest that smoking is simulated only by the production of aerosols, and not gaseous vaporization. Unlike vapor, vaporizing seems less ambiguous in its meaning: phase transitioning to a gas. While the phase states may go back to liquids or solids as the vapor cools, forming an aerosol, and aerosols are an intrinsic aspect of e-cigarettes, vaporization also seems important.


 * If you want references about e-cigarettes vaporizing nicotine, propylene glycol or other compounds, you can use scholar.google, or let me know and I'll cite some. Agyle (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence order
I reshuffled the lead order because I find it upside-down and illogical. Typically, a lead section introduces history of the subject early, so that the reader can put it in a historical context. The lead now says that the EC were invented in 2003 in the fourth paragraph (where you moved it back by reverting), and to an uninitiated reader like myself, statement like "The benefits and risks [...] are uncertain" in the second paragraph make me say "wtf? Why?", and further reading does not provide an answer: "because they were only introduced recently". Further, the third paragraph talks about increased frequency of use, but equally does not explain why and compared to what. I don't know how to interpret statement that "novelty requires referencing" other than your oversensitivity to recent POV-pushing, but I don't have an axe to grind. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead is supposed to be a summary of article contents and does not require referencing unless likely to be challenged, and leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body. Thus, I don't really see what's wrong with having an early statement to the effect that the reason for uncertain effects of EC is too short time on the market to properly evaluate long-term effects (as the body explains in great detail), and moving the sentence about year of invention earlier in the lead. Don't throw the baby with the bathwater. No such user (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two questions there:
 * IMO we should organize the lead in the same order as the body of the text. This is spelled out at WP:MEDMOS. History is nearly always put at the end. Thus why it is at the end in the lead.
 * Per "the reason for uncertain effects of EC is too short time on the market to properly evaluate long-term effects" First there is even uncertainty about short term effects and thus this reason does not make sense. Second they have been on the market for 10 years which is enough time to determine some long term effects especially for a product used by 10% of high school kids and 3% of adults. So yes that statement is controversial. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you serious??? MEDMOS doesn't apply to the article as a whole, only in relation to the health section. That is a simple fact and not debatable.TMCk (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDMOS applies to health related articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * MEDMOS = "...guidelines for editing medical articles" which this one clearly is not. You're converting the moon into cheese.TMCk (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question that it is a medical article. There are concerns about the health effects, whether these are addictive or increasing smoking, and the main argument people present in their favor is that they are a useful treatment modality for getting people to stop smoking. The entire discussion that has been going on for weeks has been about health effects. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue this being a medical article or not, but about rigid application of MEDMOS, which is supposed to be a guideline, not set in stone. This lead simply does not flow well and comes out as shuffled; accessibility should be given higher priority than blind MOS application. Besides, even if we agree that WP:MEDMOS applies, it suggests that History should precede Legal status/Recreational use, which is in this article mostly located in section "Usage statistics", so the reading order is backwards there as well (first we learn how it spread, and then how it originated). I'll boldly swap these paragraphs and that part of the lead accordingly. I'll also notice that the lead does not cover "Construction" section, but I don't have a particular issue with that (I think I've seen a debate somewhere to the effect that it's probably not so interesting for the readers anyway, but can't find it now; I'll reduce the archiving parameter to like 3 months, 15 days is way too aggressive). I'm still not happy with the "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain" formulation, as it does not explain why it is so, for a widely used product of potentially high impact on human health. No such user (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Usage stats fit as epidemilogy. It flows perfectly well how it was. This is very subjective and different people can have different feeling on it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeez. I told you that it does not flow well, and spent a lot of time explaining why. To avoid being subjective, I quoted MEDMOS to you, and it does not mention Epidemiology in the relevant section (Drugs, medications and devices), and places "Recreational use" after History. The one which does mention Epidemiology (Diseases or disorders or syndromes) is obviously not applicable. At this stage, I must conclude that you're the WP:OWNER of this article, and I don't intend to waste more time here. No such user (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Second hand vapor
The phrase "and is unlikely to pose a health risk via passive inhalation" would seem to be unsupported by one of the references it cites - Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review.". Circulation 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667

In it I see:
 * In summary, the particle size distribution and number of particles delivered by e-cigarettes are similar to those of conventional cigarettes, with most particles in the ultrafine range (modes, ≈100–200 nm). Particle delivery appears to depend on the nicotine level in the e-cigarette fluid but not the presence of flavors. Smokers exhale some of these particles, which exposes bystanders to “passive vaping.” Like cigarettes, e-cigarette particles are small enough to reach deep into the lungs and cross into the systemic circulation. At a minimum, these studies show that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing for these products. Tests on e-cigarettes show much lower levels of most toxicants, but not particles, than conventional cigarettes. The thresholds for human toxicity of potential toxicants in e-cigarette vapor are not known, and the possibility of health risks to primary users of the products and those exposed passively to their emissions must be considered.

Dancingsnails (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In the conclusion of that article I see:
 * Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution.

quite contradictory to the statement it's used as a citation for. Dancingsnails (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The third citation also does not support that statement. The closest in it is:
 * in addition to reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, vaping may also reduce harm incurred from second hand smoke and benefit the environment.

Which is a fair bit different from saying that it's unlikely to pose a health risk. Dancingsnails (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've replace that statement with what I think is the strongest that's supported by those citations. (Although it may still be a bit strong. Perhaps instead of "is likely to pose less harm to others", "may pose less harm to others" would more accurately reflect the consensus (or lack thereof) of those citations.) Dancingsnails (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential source
A newsletter called Cancer Prevention is published by New York Presbyterian Hospital in NYC and their current cover piece is a review on e-cigarettes. Meant to be a summary of the issues for a lay audience. Not peer-reviewed. You call can decide if it is a useful source or not: http://www.nypcancerprevention.org/features/case_for_or_against_e-cigarettes.html   Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty good overview, and perhaps could be used for general observations at least, if not for specific scientific points. Barnabypage (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Another here provides a broad overview of papers on the subject. It will be useful in assessing the reliability of other sources. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine extraction
Does any user know how nicotine for use in electronic cigarettes is extracted from tobacco?

Is it water soluable?

Laurel Bush (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that it is still largely unregulated, there's no reason to assume all such products are the same or made the same way. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Liquid manufacturers buy it from pharmaceutical supply companies.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Dr David Yunqiang Xiu for using heating element in 2008
Was looking through the history regarding the e-cigarette and noticed it's missing the information for the second generation e-cigarette which uses a heating element instead of ultrasound to vaporise. This technique was invented by Dr David Yunqiang Xiu and is the basis of many modern e-cigarettes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.149.241 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ecigs and smoking
Most of those who smoke e-cigs also smoke traditional cigs thus reverted per "All population-based studies of adult use show the highest rate of e-cigarette use among current smokers"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Regulation in public spaces.
2 things: I believe that this section should be renamed something like Regulation in US public spaces. Secondly I think that the entire section should be moved to the article called Legal status of electronic cigarettes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.231.112.171 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 July 2014‎
 * Correct. It is utterly wp:UNDUE in this article, which should simply have a link to the legal status article. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be moved to a subpage. Do not mind if global details are added and it is kept global in nature. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014
hi, there is no words about glassomizer/glassomiser. This content should be after to clearomizer. Glassomizer is a kind of atomizer that using pyrex glass tube as container of e liquid. Pyrex glass is healthier and better looking, also it can stand with higher temperature. The color are various and can be replaced if the tube was broken. It can support all type of coils.

Luckifinity (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cost of e-cigarettes vs tobacco
I can see there's a discussion in the archives on this topic, which didn't move forward because it was unsourced. I think it's a topic that should be covered, as in countries where tobacco is heavily taxed, such as the UK, the cheaper price of e-smoking is a factor in its popularity. I've found two sources relating to the UK, both of which estimate e-cigarettes to be at least 20% cheaper than tobacco smoking, and one of which links their fall in price to their rise in popularity http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/04/e-cigarettes-health-revolution-smokers and http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx. Having bought both products, I would agree with the NHS website that 20% is an 'underestimate' with a typical pack of 20 cigarettes in the UK costing £8 - £9 at the present date, whereas the equivalent amount of e-liquid costs less than £4, and bearing in mind the device is a one-off outlay of about £20 - but I would imagine it's inappropriate to quote prices in the article because they'd date so quickly and it could be construed as advertising (perhaps an experienced editor could advise on this, I am a novice). Malentaheloyse (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Phantom extra word
In 3rd paragraph: About 60% are **either** smokers and the most of the rest are ex-smokers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bags2007 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed but not the best source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New major scientific review of available research on the use, content, and safety of e-cigarettes
This review "Electronic cigarettes: Review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers, and potential for harm and benefit" by Peter Hajek, Jean-François Etter, Neal Benowitz, Thomas Eissenberg and Hayden McRobbie (published in "Addiction") should be, along with other reviews, more than enough to outweight the unbearable "Grana-Review". If not... then something else is lacking here!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While we're throwing out new reviews, [], should be added as well. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Merlin. It's time Wikipedians interested in this topic considered the complete removal of deprecated information and junk science from this article. This includes the Grana (2014) study, the 2009 FDA study, and the old Callahan study linked by Yobol, among others. A thorough review is in order. Notice that Benowitz is a co-author on both the old Grana study and the new Hajek study, which seems to indicate he has changed his mind in light of new evidence. I propose we qualify all discussion of the Grana study with something along the lines of "An early review by Grana, now superseded by newer evidence [Hajek 2014], speculated that..." (Mihaister (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC))
 * When there is disagreement in the medical literature, we document those disagreements with due weight to the quality or sources and amount of disagreement. We certainly do not remove sources because individual editors do not agree with their conclusions, nor do we decide when one source "supersedes" another when one is not clearly better than another. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The review by Hajek (2014) is the first one that does not caveat its conclusions with "there is not information." In fact, these authors draw definitive conclusions based on the available evidence, which clearly does exist, and is sufficient to inform the conclusions they present. As such, I find the Hajek study is a clear step forward in our understanding of these devices, and should be given far more weight than previous studies, which resort to speculation about hypothetical risks, while claiming "there's not enough evidence" as to benefits. (Mihaister (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

This is a good source. It does state "Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire article, you'll find that it itemizes each misconception and unsubstantiated propaganda forwarded by special interest groups in the press as well as their publications and debunks them with comprehensive reviews of existing evidence. That's why I proposed above to remove unsubstantiated claims from the older literature, which have now been superseded by factual arguments based on available evidence and unbiased literature review. Mihaister (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The results and conclusions of Hajek et al. (2014) are the same as those published by the previous review of Farsalinos & Polosa (2014). According to Dr. Farsalinos' blog, his group will be publishing a critique of Grana et al. (2014) soon. Perhaps then we'll all be able to agree on what is and what isn't "superseded" in terms of the science of electronic cigarettes. Mihaister (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This claims should be corrected:
 * Claim: Chemicals in EC cause excess morbidity and mortality.
 * Evidence: Long-term use of EC, compared to smoking, is likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders.


 * Claim: Smokers who would otherwise quit combine EC and cigarettes instead of quitting and maintain a similar smoking rate.
 * Evidence: EC use is associated with smoking reduction and there is little evidence that it deters smokers interested in stopping smoking tobacco cigarettes from doing so.


 * Claim: Young people who would not try cigarettes otherwise start using EC and then move on to become smokers.
 * Evidence: Regular use of EC by non-smokers is rare and no migration from EC to smoking has been documented...The advent of EC has been accompanied by a decrease rather than increase in smoking uptake by children.


 * Claim: EC use will increase smoking prevalence indirectly, e.g. by making smoking acceptable again in the eyes of people who cannot tell the difference between EC and cigarettes, via machinations of the tobacco industry, or by weakening tobacco control activism.
 * Evidence: There are no signs that the advance of EC is increasing the popularity of smoking or sales of cigarettes.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Were are these claims? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're kidding me, aren't you? ;) OK... Let's start with with the claim "They carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke, and may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke"--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many instances in the current version of the article which directly or indirectly make those claims posted above by Merlin 1971 and they generally make reference to the Grana study or to fear-mongering and unsubstantiated propaganda from a [WHO TFI] position statement. Now that several MEDRS sources have evaluated the evidence, it's time we revised the article to give due weight to the peer-reviewed 2-ary literature, and discount the unsubstantiated claims as fringe theory. Mihaister (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Gateway-Myth": Harvard survey of >26,000 finds e-cigs not a gateway to cigarette smoking - Determinants and prevalence of e-cigarette use throughout the European Union: a secondary analysis of 26 566 youth and adults from 27 Countries (Published in BMJ Tobacco Control!)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Varvadas study is primary research, even if they used data collected and independently analyzed by another party (2012 Eurobarometer 385). As of 8 July 2014 I am unable to locate any secondary literature referencing and providing interpretation for this study. Mihaister (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Have adjusted the text pertaining to addiction to reflect the new Hajek 2014 source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Position statement from the AHA
Just came out  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Regulations Section
I have folded the regulations section into the legal status section. Although nothing in it was originally sourced. Left this note here in case there needs to be discussion on separation in future. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO NPOV statement in lede
The lede currently contains the sentence

"They carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke,[8]"

Sourced to the WHO whose tobacco Free initiative say "In the form of tobacco products, nicotine is an addictive chemical that in excessive amounts can be lethal (0.5-1.0 mg per kg of weight of the person)." and "In addition, use of these products -when they contain nicotine- can pose a risk ... for addiction to nonsmokers of tobacco products.". However, counter to this claim are this, this, this, This well sourced piece, this detailed piece, this piece from a quack, Discover Magazine, This Book and many other sources all show thatNicotine has never been shown to be addictive in humans outside of tobacco smoke. I've boldly deleted the controversial sentence. SPACKlick (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The WHO is a high quality WP:MEDRS compliant source. None of the other sources you have presented appear to meet WP:MEDRS. We certainly don't delete medical material sourced to MEDRS because non MEDRS sources dispute them. Yobol (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup WHO is a high quality source. We do not use the popular press for medical claims. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'll agree that WHO funds and publishes some great medical research, They receive funding for an anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine stance, and provide no reference, anywhere, for the addictive properties of nicotine. I really believe this claim should be removed without either a peer reviewed source showing it or the context of the relevant funding of the WHO. SPACKlick (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, they are the "World Health Organization" and their position is clearly notable. With respect to the comments that the WHO have a COI because of their funding, no comments needed. We are not replacing it with a source about the "myth of nicotine addiction" Doc James  (talk· contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree their position is notable, it may even be accurate, I just don't believe it's verifiable. It reads to me as an opinion from a body who have a vested interest in maintaining that opinion. The science doesn't seem to bare it out, it hasn't been done. There are snippets here and there leaning in differing directions (monkey's displaying some addictive behaviours with nicotine injections against patients whoa re never-smokers in studies showing no signs of addiciton or withdrawal from long term large nictotine exposure). I'd just like to see a better source on that statement if it stays in the lede, as in a secondary source that shows it has been shown rather than just claims it.SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Edit to add this which links to many primary sources.SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone please respond to this? I get that the consensus seems to be that the WHO is a high quality source; nevertheless, the report from which the statement is taken cites nothing.  How can this, then, justify the inclusion of the statement in the lede?  Is it really accepted that anything the WHO says is sacrosanct? Huwie (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources that are good for Wikipedia are those with a reputation for fact-checking, which the WHO has in spades. Whether we as individual editors agree with the WHO is not relevant.  The opinion of major medical organizations are almost always relevant for mention; if there is a contrary opinion from equally reliable sources, we add those contrary opinions and note the controversy or disagreement in the medical literature, with due weight. What we don't do is decide that the source is wrong based on our own opinion and then remove it. Yobol (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between mentioning the opinion of an organisation and stating something as fact in the lede. The lede does not mention that the claim is suggested by the WHO, it simply states it as fact.  I find it disappointing that this is considered fine and it changes my opinion of Wikipedia somewhat, but I can see that arguing about it isn't likely to change anything.  Thanks for your reply. Huwie (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A recent court decision demonstrates that supposedly MEDRS quality sources can and do have Conflicts of Interest and act in manners qualified as arbitrary and capricious. It looks to me like some on this discussion might be holding strong opinions when it comes to this topic, thus themselves may be conflicted with respect to related articles. (Mihaister 22 July 2014)
 * Reliance on court decision to prove a point about MEDRS is not going to get far (courts unfortunately get it completely wrong a lot on scientific topics). I do agree that there seems to be those who have a specific POV to push here, although I suspect the group containing the WP:SPA editors should probably look at themselves in the mirror. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The referenced court decision has nothing to do with scientific content, rather with Conflicts of Interest that disqualify particular opinions, no matter the perceived "quality" of the source. Blanket statements about the value of court decisions with pretense of universal truth are not going to get far. (Mihaister 22 July 2014)

New WHO Position Statement
WHO has revised their position on electronic vaporizers in a new Position Statement. We should update the references to the old June 2014 statement to reflect the new acknowledgment from WHO that vaporizers "may have a role to play in supporting attempts to quit." This is a major shift in attitude from WHO and is also consistent with yesterday's release of a new position statement from AHA (discussed below). Mihaister (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a good reference. Came out in July 2014. states "The evidence for the effectiveness of ENDS as a method for quitting tobacco smoking is limited and does not allow conclusions to be reached." on page 6.
 * They have not updated this page yet
 * So not sure if this is the final draft yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The WHO's support is cautious at best and while we should certainly mention this new position paper we should be careful not to overstate their enthusiasm for e-cigs. Likewise with the AHA. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, UK Dept of Health, ACSH and some academics accuse «WHO of "scaremongering" and using "cherry-picked science"» in their new statement on electronic vaporizers. WHO responds to criticism with attempted censorship. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources for medical content especially not the last one. Interesting though. Reminds me of the 1960s literature we studied in medical school around Tobacco companies. I especially like the skull and cross for WHO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Public Health experts' reaction to WHO
Doctors, researchers, and public health experts from Europe issued a press release on September 4, stating the WHO "review of e-cigarettes contains errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, meaning policymakers may miss their potential health benefits." (Reuters). They also state that the WHO report is "using alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence." Mihaister (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reuters is not a reliable source for medical information. Where was the original published? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In Addiction, here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12730/abstract Barnabypage (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barnabypage. I was having some trouble locating it. Also of interest is this supporting review article from BJGP. Mihaister (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The second on is a commentary. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One might argue the WHO position paper is also "commentary," since it was also not peer-reviewed. In any case, the evidence emerging in the peer-reviewed literature and presented on this talk page is starting to reveal a pattern of prejudiced, unscientific, and unethical behavior unbecoming an organization tasked with protecting public health on a global scale. This makes their opinion dubious at best, and, at worst, untrustworthy, a position incompatible with the WP:MEDRS designation. It looks to me the anti-tobacco arm of WHO is in the business of manufacturing junk science and all their opinions regarding e-cigarettes should be stripped of MEDRS status, until such time that they can be proven by a preponderance of evidence to be complete, factual, accurate, and reliable. Mihaister (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an argument, but against that I would add that whether or not it's a reliable source for medical info, the position statement (technically just a report to COP6, but highly likely to influence it strongly) is inherently important because it's the WHO that is making it. Rightly or wrongly it will have significant impact. Barnabypage (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that the McNeill et al. critique applies directly to the Grana et al. publication, which is used throughout this Wiki article to make 'alarmist misinterpretations and misrepresentations' of evidence similar to the WHO position paper. The authors explicitly reference the Grana publication as the origin of these erroneous claims in the WHO report. I think we should qualify any and all references to WHO and Grana in light of the evidence discussed by McNeill et al. This link to the full text of McNeill et al. will expire in 30 days. Mihaister (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What change are you proposing to this article? And what refs are you proposing we use to support it? Removing the WHO statements is a none starter Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Removing the statements of such an illustrious organization would be un-encyclopedic of us. The changes that should be implemented to this article such that it accurately portrays and gives due weight to the current scientific evidence are as follows:
 * Rewrite the "Health Effects" section to begin with and completely address the accurate review of the evidence presented by McNeill et al. (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Burstyn (2013), and just reiterated today by Bates (2014).
 * Discuss the WHO 2014 statement and other fringe opinion such as Grana et al. separately, qualified with the findings of McNeill et al. Something along the lines of "WHO position statement from July 2014 stated that .... . This review has been criticized as containing «errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations» of the evidence, as well as «using alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence.»"
 * Remove all health-related statements and usage information referenced to Grana et al. throughout. Present findings of the Grana et al. review in the same section and style as suggested above for the WHO statement.
 * Evaluate all other current references to determine if they also may contain the same errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the evidence, or alarmist language disguising opinion as evidence per McNeill et al. Relegate presentation of such citations to the new fringe opinion section.
 * Thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree although we cannot refer to the WHO opinion as WP:Fringe the issue here isn't that a fringe theory is being given undue weight but that there are two widely competing mainstream views on the matter. So we do need to balance things more and be clear that we are expressing the findings of one group and then another rather than make any of the health claims as facts, there's too much disparity in the sources for this article to claim in either direction SPACKlick (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely with SPACKlick on this one. Even if they are sometimes based on poor information, views like the WHO's are very widely held in the public health mainstream and it's quite misleading to describe them as fringe. (I'd actually venture to guess they are much more widely held than the pro-e-cig harm reduction position, though we shouldn't get into speculating on that in the article, of course.)
 * Plus, positions on some of the more behavioural (rather than chemical) issues such as the gateway effect and re-normalisation are, basically, just views. There isn't any long-term data yet either way. So again, "fringe" is misleading. Barnabypage (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Splitting out all the positions that you oppose is something I do not support. Above there are no suggestions for changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right and "fringe" is a bit much for WHO. However, the fact remains, as eloquently pointed out by SPACKlick that we're dealing with two widely competing views, both of which could be interpreted as mainstream. Thus, the article has to somehow portray this controversy accurately, with due weight to both sides, rather than expand on one position and disparage the other using loaded language. Mihaister (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Voke
Not e-cig but inhaler per  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is clearly positioned to sell as an e-cig alternative (not just an NRT alternative), as Nicoventures has acknowledged, and is a "vapour product" with regulatory approval. But agreed, it has no electronic components, so on reflection it technically probably doesn't belong here. I'll move it to the Related Technologies section. Barnabypage (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Attributing Motivation
The History section puts it "the international tobacco companies, recognising the development of a potential new market sector that could render traditional tobacco products obsolete, are increasingly involved in the production and marketing of their own brands of e-cigarettes and in acquiring existing e-cigarette companies".

It is a fact the cigarette companies are bringing out their own e-cigarettes and buying existing e-cigarette companies and brands.

But it is attributing motivation to them to state they're doing so in connection with making traditional tobacco products obsolete. And it is far from clear that's the case, or their sole motivation. Critics and analysts have suggested the last thing the tobacco companies want to do is shut down their cigarette business, and their motivations for doing getting into the e-cig business include positioning e-cigarettes as a product to keep smokers smoking, a bridge between their last cigarette and their next; a way to re-normalize smoking; a way around smoking bans that doesn't require quitting smoking; a way to get company and product name back on television:

[Stanford researcher]

[UCSF researcher]

[Businessweek]

[NYTimes]

Fortunately, I don't think we have to know what exactly their motivation or mix of motivations might be. Nor do we have to go back and forth on competing claims of motivation. We could just state the facts:

"the international tobacco companies are increasingly involved in the production and marketing of their own brands of e-cigarettes and in acquiring existing e-cigarette companies".

This maintains a neutral form and avoids guessing on motivation. Does this seem reasonable?

Thanks!

Cloudjpk (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not our place to speculate about the motives of others. However, the threat to combustible tobacco is not speculation, rather documented fact, as stated by all big tobacco companies in recent reports: Altria, Japan Tobacco, BAT, Lorillard, Reynolds. The statement in the article should stay as it is, though perhaps should be referenced to some or all of the reports above. I think we can all agree without speculating that companies are in business to make money and protect or expand their markets. Mihaister (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that at the very least we should recognise that Big Tobacco's motivations are more complex than "losing market share to e-cigs", as indicated above. Beyond the usual "risks and uncertainties" sections in financial reports, I haven't seen any acknowledgement that appreciable levels of tobacco sales are actually disappearing in the direction of vapour products.
 * At the same time, their motivations are not necessarily about promoting tobacco, either - for example, the fact that e-cigs can be sold through similar distribution and retail channels to similar consumers makes it an obvious sector to diversify into when your main product is (long-term, in the developed world at least) in decline.
 * It's also worth noting that e-cigs are just one of several alternative technologies being pursued by Big Tobacco. They are part of a portfolio of alternatives. While they may have come to market first it may be highly misleading to suggest that Big Tob sees e-cigs as "the successor product".
 * So all in all, I agree, we should be careful about attributing motives here unless we have clear statements from the tobacco cos. or informed commentators in reliable sources. Barnabypage (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The tobacco industry is hardly a reliable source [decades of deception] and is even less reliable when the subject is itself. Its reports establish merely what it is claiming publicly.

I would agree that the industry's motivations are likely complex! To my mind that suggests yes, we should be even more careful about attributing motives. I don't think we know the companies' actual movivation or mix of motivations. I again suggest we state only what can be established. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with this edit
This text was added "Multiple surveys showed that users of electronic cigarettes consistently report that EC helped them either quit smoking or reduce the number of cigarettes smoked" ref says "there is preliminary evidence that EC use facilitates both quitting and reduction in cigarette consumption in smokers interested in quitting smoking". Thus reworded as the previous content does not seem to be supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting... The same study also says "Users reported consistently that EC helped them either to quit smoking (42–99%) [3, 4, 34-37, 39] or to reduce it (60–86%) [3, 24, 36, 39]." and " In surveys, regular EC users report that these devices helped them to limit or stop smoking and they perceive EC as less addictive than cigarettes." Therefore, the original statement was accurate and supported. Here's the full paragraph from which the above excerpt was quoted:
 * EC reduce urges to smoke and there is preliminary evidence that EC use facilitates both quitting and reduction in cigarette consumption in smokers interested in quitting smoking. In England, which has the most detailed data on EC and cigarette use, the growth in EC use has been accompanied by an increase in smoking cessation rates, a continued reduction in prevalence and no increase in smoking uptake [107, 108]. Whether EC are contributing to these favourable tobacco control trends is as yet unclear.
 * In my reading, the "preliminary" qualifier applies to whether the population-wide observations of accelerated decrease in smoking prevalence can be attributed to ecigs. But the source appears pretty clear about the consistency of survey results. Mihaister (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The accuracy of surveys is questionable and thus the evidence is preliminary. We could ask further editors to comment. 09:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First, it is not within Wiki editors' purview to question the accuracy of peer-reviewed publications. Second, the authors of this review talk about uncertainty in the survey results, whereas the comment above seems to imply something of a more nefarious nature, which again is very disconcerting coming from a wiki editor who should follow NPOV. That being said, I welcome the opinion of any editor with an interest in the topic, provided it is factual and unbiased. Mihaister (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have 6 quality studies [summary of 5 of them] [1 more recent study] that find e-cigarettes do not increase cessation, and in fact decrease cessation, maintain continued smoking. Surveys tell us what people believe and what they atttribute results to, which is a very different thing. So it would be accurate to say there are surveys in which people say e-cigarettes help them quit smoking. It would also be accurate to say the objective data comes to a very different conclusion. I suggest both be stated; something of the form "lots of people believe foo; the data say otherwise"; that's factual, unbiased, and accurate. I think it also gives the full picture of the situation. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are problems with the studies, I shall focus on the 1 more recent in this reply. The study dealt with people who had cancer. It also only allowed those patients that had tried to quit with ecigarettes before but had been unsuccessful. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-e-cigarette-use-among-patients-with-cancer/ So its a study of die hard smokers, that have kept smoking, even though they have cancer and have failed to quit even though they have tried. This study while appropriate to cancer patients who havent quit before with an ecigarette before. but failed, and what results can be reached on the second try. It is not useful to promote the idea that egigarettes are not useful in getting the general population to quit.AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first 5 so-called "quality studies" Cloudjpk mentions are in fact surveys just like the ones the same poster criticizes in the next sentence. The 6th one linked is a primary source, thus irrelevant for this discussion. The proposed "form" above is actually inaccurate, misleading, and prejudiced. The review (i.e. secondary source) published by McNeill et al. presents evidence from 6 RCT studies (not surveys) (refs 14-19 here), all of which consistently show that ecigs can help smokers quit with a similar success rate as approved nicotine replacement therapy. In addition, cross-sectional data in the UK from the ASH surveys also show that smokers using ecigs are more likely to report continued, long-term abstinence than those using traditional NRT. Finally, McNeill et al. also discuss the limitations and misinterpretations of 3 of the "studies" referred to by the above poster (refs 2, 20, 21). Mihaister (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By my count 3 out of the 6 RCTs in question had no control group. RCTs morever generally overpredict real-world success; this has been the case with NRT, and is a principal reason why you need population level studies. I would agree it is not within Wiki editors' purview to question the accuracy of peer-reviewed publications. It is not accurate to say the bulk of the evidence supports user beliefs or vendor claims of cessation effectiveness. Most e-cigarette users are dual users who have not quit smoking. It would be accurate to say e-cigarette use generally reduces the number of cigarettes smoked. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we just agreed editors are not in a position to provide peer review for already peer-reviewed, accepted, and published articles. I also thought that presenting opinion as if it were evidence is improper, at the very least constituting original research. The verifiable fact remains that the published review by Hajek et al. unambiguously states right in the Abstract that the weight of evidence supports ecigs "as a safer alternative to smoking and a possible pathway to complete cessation of nicotine use."
 * I am also aware that the Grana et al. review paraphrased above by Cloudjpk forwards a different opinion, one that was weighed by the review study of McNeill et al. discussed above. This is obviously a controversial topic, and the various MEDRS sources clearly fall on either side of the opinion divide. I think we need to take a step back and portray the controversy with due weight to each side, using the available secondary sources: Grana, McNeill, Hajek, and others that may emerge. Mihaister (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cloudjpk, While it has been proved in studies/surveys that some duel use occurs. To my knowledge the studies to date only have looked at the short term, say 30 days after trying vaping to see if people are duel users. That is not conclusive to say that most people who vape still smoke combustible cigarettes 60, 90, 120 days or a year later. In the short term its almost to be expected. Also what constitutes duel use? One drag on one cigarette in x amount of days? Im sure most if not all vapers took a drag off a cigarette to see if they still liked them in the first month or two. It would be insane to say one drag or one partial cigarette in 60, 90, 120 days is duel use, because duel use of anything is commonly thought to be continuous.
 * Mihaister Part of peer reviewing is the publishing of studies that refute the findings of previously published articles. The articles are not laws of science, but steps in the process of finding the scientific truth. Relying on published papers as truth in hard science like physics is reasonably sound because a lot of work goes into a review before publishing. Relying on published articles in Health science is a prescription for disaster. There is little to no review before publishing in Health science, the review happens once published by anyone who reads it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't interpret my position WRT peer review as an abrogation of critical thinking on the part of Wiki editors. Critical thinking plays a role in determining due weight of the source articles. However, we must be careful when discussing peer-reviewed published works, such that it does not degenerate into original research. In spite of this rather lengthy debate, the example here should actually be pretty easy to address, relying solely on secondary sources, and with no need for synthesis:
 * Grana et al. - Most e-cigarette users are dual users who have not quit smoking
 * McNeill et al. - Grana et al. misrepresents the consistent picture emerging from the literature; makes selective use of evidence
 * Hajek et al. - e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to smoking and a possible pathway to complete cessation of nicotine use
 * This continued resistance of some editors against accurate and complete presentation of evidence is very disconcerting and unencyclopedic. Mihaister (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, sorry if I misread your comment. I agree that all the accurate info needs to be presented, especially when the secondary source points out problems. I have no want or need to go into original research. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for citing funding sources
The statement "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents" has been repeatedly added and removed from the article. It seems we need to have a discussion about this and reach consensus. Also note, as I stated above on this talk page, a Federal Judge passed ruling that pharma funding does represent a COI with respect to tobacco topics. If you qualify publications in the article based on association with e-cig industry or consumer groups, in the interest of NPOV, associations with the pharmaceutical industry must also be disclosed.Mihaister (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree! I'm fine with that. Cloudjpk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does the ref say WRT "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Burstyn funded by e-cig advocacy group CASAA that accepts e-cigarette industry funding http://www.marketwatch.com/story/casaa-new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in-electronic-cigarettes-pose-minimal-health-risk-2013- ; Romagna by FlavorArt e-cigarette liquid manufacturers [declaration of interest] Cloudjpk (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: CASAA is a consumer group (not industry) as detailed on their webpage as well as within the Burstyn study Funding Disclosure statement. The CASAA webpage clearly states "CASAA has no financial or policy agreements with the electronic cigarette, tobacco or pharmaceutical industries." BTW, @Cloudjpk, your link to marketwatch appears defective.
 * Also, while we're at it, let's also discuss the COI of Benowitz, co-author of the Grana review. Benowitz is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies, a fact which was found to be an unacceptable COI by a Federal judge in his appointment to TPSAC. Mihaister (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea to point out the funding source that is a COI, but as Mihaister pointed out we better be sure that funding information is from a reliable and accurate source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CASAA accepts and receives e-cigarette industry funding [and this is not in dispute]. The corrected marketwatch link [here] Benowitz is actually an optimist on e-cigarettes and health but if his pharm funding is deemed relevant I have no problem mentioning that. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The link says vendors, or those who sell to the public, thats quite different than the e-cigarette industry which to me says manufacturers or producers. The link does say some contributers may have industry affiliations. But it is impossible to stop people from donating because they may work, someone in their family works for, or have done work in the past for some company. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "vendors" here is not limited to retailers; indeed CASAA accepts funding and participation from e-cigarette retailers and manufacturers. CASAA's "Scientific Director" Carl V. Phillips has a long history of [tobacco industry funding]. While CASAA claims no affiliation with the industry, its board shows close ties. And e-cigarette trade groups [lobby with CASAA] However I'm fine with terming CASAA merely "e-cigarette proponents" as in "Studies funded by the e-cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents" I take there is consensus that CASAA is an advocacy group for e-cigarettes? Cloudjpk (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudjpk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that CASAA "is an advocacy group for e-cigarettes." See here their mission statement, which states that they aim to "ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking." E-cigarettes are just one of many such reduced harm alternatives, among other smokeless tobacco and non-tobacco nicotine products. The most accurate statement would be that CASAA is a consumer advocacy group for tobacco harm reduction. Mihaister (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that CASAA also lobbies for other products, including the ones you mention. That doesn't mean CASAA is not an advocacy group for e-cigarettes, and no one is claiming it's strictly or solely that. We all agree that it has done and is doing advocacy for e-cigarettes. So seems reasonable to describe it as "an advocacy group for e-cigarettes". To decribe it as "an advocacy group for e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and non-tobacco nicotine products in a general framework it characterizes as tobacco harm reduction" might be more accurate, but might not be entirely relevant, and is certainly long :) "Consumer" is problematic here as long as CASAA accepts industry funding and participation and has notable industry ties. Fortunatately, it's not necessary to debate the point; neutral terms are available, such as "advocacy group", "proponents", "advocates", etc. Can't we use one of them? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that in the case of CASAA vendor is a manufacturer. In fact [CASAA does not offer business memberships] only individuals may join. I do agree with Mihaister that CASAA is not just an eciggarette proponent, but is a proponent of reduced harm alternatives to smoking, of which one alternative is ecigarettes. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good; then we all agree that among other things CASAA is a proponent or advocacy group for e-cigarettes. Whatever else it may do, that fact is relevant to its funding of a study on e-cigarettes, especially one whose findings line up with its advocacy. We can leave "manufacturer" and "industry" to FlavorArt. Thus: studies funded by the e cigarette industry and e-cigarette proponents. Is that clear enough, or would it be better to identify each study's funding? Cloudjpk (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only relevant if we apply equal measures to all studies. Such as for instance the Grana review, which is funded by tobacco opponents / advocates for e-cig opposition. But frankly i'd say that we should leave it out, unless there is a reliable source that makes this issue a problem. --Kim D. Petersen 14:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Grana review was funded by WHO, University of California, NCI, and FDA. It would be accurate to characterize them as anti-tobacco organizations, although that's not their primary mission. It would not be accurate to characterize them as advocates for e-cig opposition. However if you think their funding is relevant, I'm fine with mentioning it. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You miss the point here - funding can be a problem, but it is not by definition one. Unless reliable sources explicitly makes this an issue, then we shouldn't. (in both cases). --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That rephrase is not agreed to. CASAA is a proponent for tobacco harm reduction and suggests the use of smokeless nicotine products to achieve harm reduction. They list ecigarettes as one product, but also recommend Snus and Lozenges/Orbs and seeks to protect the rights of users of those products to keep using them. To say they are a ecigarette advocate is very inadequate. More accurate is saying they are an advocate for tobacco harm reduction. I also agree with others that if CASAA is used for an example of COI, opponents of tobacco harm reduction through the use of ecigarettes others should be spotlighted for COI as long as reliable sources who point this out are found for either side. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well; what phrasing would work for you? That expresses the relevance of their funding to e-cigarettes? Cloudjpk (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources make the relevance of their funding so important? --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a vested interest, goes to WP:Independent_sources. I'm therefore following WP:Identifying_reliable_sources. That is all that is proposed here. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all WP:IS is an essay, and as such has no real relevance except as advice, secondly even by WP:IS's standard, a peer-reviewed paper is an independent source - so that one falls to the ground. As for WP:BIASED, sorry, but that one doesn't fly for the same reasons. It is the editorial oversight of the journal that makes it reliable or non-reliable, and it is the journals quality (or lack there of) that addresses bias.
 * It appears you don't like the source, so what you need to do, is not insert your own views and doubts about the source, but find reliable sources that demonstrates that your view is in sync with reality, and thus can be presented in a WP:NPOV way in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; is there some question that FlavorArt has a direct financial interest? Or that CASAA has a direct advocacy interest? Or that peer-reviewed papers' funding is not relevant? Has editorial oversight replaced disclosures of competing interest? Cloudjpk (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To the extent of us writing about it in the article: Yes, the editorial oversight replaces such. If you can find reliable sources that express a significant doubt about the reviews that we present here, then we as editors may consider whether it is a good source to use, or whether we should note such critique in the article. But as a general rule, on WP, this is only used to determine whether or not a source is reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) The essay WP:TRUTH may be useful to read at this point --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That answers my last question. Care to address the others? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The other questions are not relevant, unless you can bring up reliable sources that provide significant doubts to the reliability of the source/sources. If so (ie. you find such WP:RSs), then we can move on, and consider whether the relevant reviews/sources should be given less weight, get a commentary based on those RS's or be completely removed. --Kim D. Petersen 20:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. The tobacco industry has a long history of using research funding to generate results designed to mislead the public, summarized in its [RICO conviction] in particular industry funded "research" that kept finding no risks from secondhand smoke. Carl V. Phillips has a history of [taking tobacco industry funding]. CASAA lists Phillipps as its ["Scientific Director"]. CASAA funded Burstyn, a study that claims to find no risk from secondhand e-cigarette aerosol. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYN and WP:BLP for reasons as to why your comment above is inappropriate and unusable on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the references! I see the procedural problem. What I don't see is any substantive refutation. The cited and well documented sources bear directly on the question of what weight to give the source in question. Am I to understand that for procedural reasons we are to ignore that evidence? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SYN you are not allowed to add up all the sources to come to your own conclusions. That is Original Research and is not allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not just "procedural reasons", they are the very foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. (WP:PILLARS see the first two). Alternatively, as said above, you can search for reliable sources that presents your views in such a way so that it can be addressed here, --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! The problem to be solved was: the article cites "research" which has sizeable conflicts of interest that are not mentioned, a notable omission. There are various solutions to this problem. However you have convinced me Wikipedia procedures render the problem unsolveable in some cases, including the present one. I will therefore stop trying to solve it. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And that's what I'd call consensus. Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of studies on a limited group being used to make statements about the general population
Is it appropriate to use studies that deal in numbers less than say 5k to make assumptions about the general population? AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. But it depends on the study and how it is presented/considered in the secondary literature. If several reviews point out data from such a study, and if there is no real contradiction within these reviews, then it most certainly is appropriate --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we shouldn't be using primary research anyway, I agree we should wait for secondary literature to make a pronouncement on the study sizes. Mihaister (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To which study do you refer? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At this time the question was general in nature. 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinoFerret (talk • contribs)

Dual use
I've reverted this simplification by User:Jmh649. My reason for doing so, was that: --Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not supported by Grana, the citation given - the maximum Grana states is that dual use is "High" or "Major".
 * Even if correct, it may oversimply. Here i mean that if the typical pattern (which i don't know is correct) of usage is that people start with dual-use, then singular use and finally stopping - then that pattern might have high dual-use, but still be within a cessation pattern. And thus the text could mislead us.
 * Hmm i have to correct that a bit - since Grana does state that "The epidemiological, population-based studies indicate that, across countries, e-cigarettes are most commonly being used concurrently with conventional tobacco cigarettes (dual use).", which i apparently overlooked. But i'm still not convinced that we can A) put that as fact in WP's voice B) singularly base this on Grana C) do it without promoting a narrative that might mislead. Discuss? --Kim D. Petersen 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * it appears that User:Jmh649 is making a lot of major edits without consensus, including taking a referenced section out. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has stated "The majority of e-cigarette users continue to smoke traditional cigarettes." for a long time. Thus I was simply restoring the previous language.
 * We have a long standing agreement that we will use high quality secondary sources. In fact consensus supports this. Not sure when this entered the article but it is not a review and it is not even pubmed indexed.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While the article may have said "majority" for some time, the reference, Grana makes no such claim. In fact the word "majority" is only used once and that instance deals with the length of time ecigarettes were used. The sentence that we can find in Grana is "e-cigarettes are most commonly being used concurrently with conventional tobacco cigarettes (dual use)" and "The most common outcome was dual use of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes" the words "most commonly" are used. I changed the article to match the reference rather than remove the whole thing because it wasnt referenced. I will be changing it back to reflect what Grana actually says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally your edit of "According to a 2014 review, although the evidence is limited, research suggests high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes with traditional cigarettes, no proven cessation assistance, and a rapid increase in youth awareness with e-cigarettes" removed what Grana actually says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We must paraphrase. The previous wording was a little too close to the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific Changes Proposed for lede
Per WP:lede The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I suggest significantly reducing the amount of health comment within the leade, where it can never receive significant discussion. The lede is currently 4 paragraphs and the first is a good summary of what an e-cig is. The second currently Health, the third is use and the fourth is legality. This could be more concisely summarised with the detail left for the article.

I would move the information about the creation into the first paragraph and create a second paragraph out of the remainder something like.
 * An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer which simulates tobacco smoking by producing an aerosol that resembles smoke. It generally uses a heating element within an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings, while others release a flavored vapor without nicotine. Currently marketed e-cigarette devices arose from an invention made in China in 2003. The e-cigarette market has been rapidly expanding. 


 * The benefits and risks of e-cigarette usage are currently uncertain and the matter of some debate among the scientific community. Evidence suggests e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products  but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions about long-term use. The use of e-cigarettes has become more frequent in both the US and the UK. Approximately 60% of users are current smokers and the majority of the remainder are ex smokers. 


 * Electronic cigarette legislation and public health investigations are currently pending and are being debated in many countries. The European Commission adopted a proposal to revise the European Union Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC requiring standardization of liquids and personal vaporizers, disclosure of ingredients, and child- and tamper-proofing of liquid containers; the US Food and Drug Administration published proposed regulations in April 2014 along similar lines.