e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

alien Traveler" data-source="post: 16336200" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

So, article on e-cigs is not exception but a rule for Wiki. Wiki is edited by society and reflects current opinions, i.e. mostly widely accepted opinions. As I understand reading “Talk” section of the article, current editors are engaged in war, a lot of things are going through Arbitration Committee and simple editing is not allowed. Anyway, the article is locked for casual editing, you have to be confirmed (autoconfirmed) editor to make changes, but the changes easily could be reverted. It is a can of worms… So, to have some success new editor should get confirmation (means to edit 10 other articles without reversions), be patient, diplomatic, devoted to subject and has plenty of time.

QFT. Which is why I advocate a "home-grown" team of highly informed and organized Wikipedia Editors that have the ability to revise that article under the full scrutiny of all the failed personalities that have failed thus far to do a better job than the failed article that is currently there. Since the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and each time expecting different results, I make the revolutionary suggestion of doing things differently.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Wow. Threads like this make me question staying on ECF. Congrats, guys, way to derail a good premise into pointless quibbling. Unsubscribing from this thread, y'all enjoy.

Buck-up, Buttercup. This is a marathon, and not a sprint.

 

[skoony]

Well yeah, you're right. Tried to point this out earlier. It's not about the truth of the matter, it's also the perception that's being discussed here that's actually more important, and I think it's important to differentiate between the two in order to recognize that sometimes the perception is a more important topic to discuss than the truth. A lot of what I say about the metal toxins is exaggerated simply for effect, and I use myself as an example in order to endorse my own point, i.e. "I feel this way about breathing poisons.", instead of "They feel this way about breathing poisons."

I'm not really freaked out about it, but "they" are. Whether one person chooses to take up vaping or is frightened off is statistically irrelevant, but when hundreds of thousands of people choose to continue smoking cigarettes because of a biased perception of vaping devices as created by limited studies and a Wikipedia Article crafted to scare people away from Vaping in general, that's an entirely different matter. I think it's important to remain clear on what the subject is, and of all the subjects that are being discussed, to remain clear on which is more important than the others. It's not a simply matter of saying "This subject is important and that one is not.", it's a matter of saying "All of these subjects have a level of importance, and in order to be effective at accomplishing a goal, we (collectively) need to achieve some kind of consensus on arranging those subjects in order of relative importance. So it's "analog" and not "binary". Where does the real level of danger presented by toxic metals in vaping devices fall on a "danger scale" and how does that compare to the very real and artificially manufactured levels of fear being used to drive people away from it.

My answer: 6 for the 1st and 9 for the 2nd. If someone else thinks that the real danger is more important than the broad and sociological consequences of the perceived danger, then there will always be internal conflict within the conversational thread, because the subtext of any discussion is always going to be "Ignore that guy because he's wasting our time. THIS is what's REALLY important." So, in order to avoid THAT, I propose to simply put it out there for discussion: What's More Important to Discuss: The REAL danger of metal toxins in Vaping, or the PERCEIVED level of danger in vaping.

And anyone that wants to participate in a constructive dialogue on how to improve the quality of the Wikipedia Article could quote that question right there, and offer commentary on it. My first inclination will be to immediately evaluate how constructive that comment is, or if there is some other agenda behind it.

I say that information that misleads people into continuing to engaging in an activity with a decades-long and proven history in causing cancer, other diseases, and death instead of describing a dramatically better alternative that might save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives is more important than anything else. Some people disagree. They think that the subject that is more important is "something else", and from my perspective they're wrong. Problem is, trying to set people straight about being wrong is almost always doomed to failure, and almost always derails the conversation. I hit things a couple of times because I recognize that the writing "style" does have a tendency to get a bit dense, and things can get missed the 1st or 2nd time they are mentioned, but after the 3rd time, it's time to get off the side-road and get back to addressing the main topic, which is how to improve the Wikipedia Article on e-cigarettes, particularly the Lede.

I like the strategic intent here, and would support the idea if the article itself could be legitimately created within the constraints of Wikipedia policies and practices. New articles are frequently challenged and perfect strangers will show up to your article and say "Hell no" and nominate it for deletion. Then, other strangers will show up and, usually based on completely stupid and oblivious reasons, vote one way or the other.

There is a conflict that I've noticed on the subject of e-cigarettes. The debate is whether or not to make the article more "medical" based or to make it "something else". I think you are advocating for the 2nd option. That would solve the problem they've already discussed, and would then provide an opportunity to start telling the accurate and topical truth about vaping and how it has evolved to this point.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of "Splitting" the article. One section could be "The dangers of vaping".

as much as I appreciate responses to my posts if I
wanted such an in depth critical analysis I would
ask my wife.

mike

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

But also do see that part of the inherent problem with the eCig talk page, and thus shortened main article, is when an editor is compelled to say something like this (found on the talk page - Public Health England section): "Cigarettes kill people every single day, and every day this article fails to provide necessary information about a safer alternative, it contributes to those deaths. The hand-wringers here should be thinking about how many people might be dead or dying as a result of being unable to find a safer alternative than smoking."

My goodness, what an "immature" thing to say to all those established Editors and hand-wringers. We should probably lock this thread until that miscreant is identified and punished in some way. What possible benefit could there be for employing this kind of confrontational and inflammatory language on the dignified pages of Wikipedia? Those tubby bureaucrats are going to be offended by those notions and probably will be so ashamed and embarrassed about their previous involvement on that article that they might simply slink back into the shadows and never return. Leaving it wide open for "just anyone" to show up and start fixing the article.

FYI I read your whole post and fully agree with everything you said. Give me 5 more of you and we'll have that article fixed in a month.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Vaporizer is already in Wiki, and many of us know vaporizers for what they historically and presently refer to, which is not the image many vapers probably want to be associated with. They have been around long before e-cigarettes- mainly in California, Amsterdam, Prague...

What word/description do you think best serve's the interests of the article on e-cigarettes in the Wikipedia?

 

[stevegmu]

What word/description do you think best serve's the interests of the article on e-cigarettes in the Wikipedia?

Electronic cigarette or mod. A vaporizer is for the other stuff...

 

[Jman8]

No, the article is not an embarrassment to Wikipedia, it is pretty usual article on controversial topic: opposing views are represented. And, sure, it is a mess. But take a look at alcohol (another publicly demonized source of enjoyment). It is well established that abstinence from alcohol shortens life; yes, non-drinkers live less than moderate and heavy-moderate drinkers. Try to find this info on Wikipedia… (hint: look for article “Impact of alcohol on aging”, but nothing in article “Alcohol and health”).

Go look at the main topic page of "Alcohol." The lede is very short and doesn't mention harms and benefits. Doesn't mention that those benefits / harms are uncertain (when in reality they are). But this main topic article does link to "alcoholic beverage." And what's that, that lede as well is kept to under 300 words, even while it takes up 4 paragraphs.

So, article on e-cigs is not exception but a rule for Wiki.

So, find me these other articles on eCigs that fit your rule. Bonus points if you can actually link to main topic pages. Cause, as I've noted several times, if the "health and safety of eCigs" offshoot article has a lede that is 800 words of gobbledygook, then that would make sense given the current controversies, but having the main topic article, where one learns what the thing is, really does not make sense and does very much appear to be an exception to standard Wiki articles, about things that can be put into a human body.

Until you do, the embarrassment claim is valid.

 

[Alien Traveler]

Go look at the main topic page of "Alcohol." The lede is very short and doesn't mention harms and benefits. Doesn't mention that those benefits / harms are uncertain (when in reality they are). But this main topic article does link to "alcoholic beverage." And what's that, that lede as well is kept to under 300 words, even while it takes up 4 paragraphs.



So, find me these other articles on eCigs that fit your rule. Bonus points if you can actually link to main topic pages. Cause, as I've noted several times, if the "health and safety of eCigs" offshoot article has a lede that is 800 words of gobbledygook, then that would make sense given the current controversies, but having the main topic article, where one learns what the thing is, really does not make sense and does very much appear to be an exception to standard Wiki articles, about things that can be put into a human body.

Until you do, the embarrassment claim is valid.

Sorry, I lost you...
May I just mention that wiki is a great sourse on general knowledge but not on "hot" topics?
If you want to know boiling temperature of VG go to Wiki.
If you want to know birth date of Jefferson go to Wiki.
If you want to know how what is synchrotron radiation go to wiki.
If you want to know whether e-cig is good or bad for your health - do your own research.
If you want to learn opposing views on ISIS - go to Wiki.

 

[evan le'garde]

Comment deleted.

 

[Jman8]

Sorry, I lost you...
May I just mention that wiki is a great sourse on general knowledge but not on "hot" topics?

I'll take that as a concession that the main topic article is, for you, embarrassing as well.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Talk:Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this statement accurate?

The review has a different view. I tried to carefully word it. There are vapers who turn the device to a higher setting to provide more vapor for better "throat hits". Extra voltage allows the ability to increase the power. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

First I don't think "vapers" just reach down and turn the "dial" all the way to "11". I thought you had to disassemble and reassemble the thing to tweak it, and the image I have in my mind is some kind of variable resistor. People modify their race cars too, but the EPA doesn't require labels on cars on the showroom floors based on what might happen if you put ghetto rent-a-tires on your pimp mobile. QG makes it sound like all vapers just turn that voltage dial around and around whenever they feel like it.

Second, I think he's confused about the difference between ecigarettes and vaping devices. Do you modify the voltages for both? Are they equally difficult to do?

Finally, I think the "throat hit" comment just feels wrong, like he's quoting something from within the vaping culture that he knows nothing about, but won't admit it. Can people look over his statements for indicators of "getting it wrong". I think the guy? is honest and straightforward, and get the general impression that he's used to writing articles based on research without any 1st hand personal experience and that may be one of the reasons why the article (particularly the Lede) is as clunky as it is.

 

[speedy_r6]

First I don't think "vapers" just reach down and turn the "dial" all the way to "11". I thought you had to disassemble and reassemble the thing to tweak it, and the image I have in my mind is some kind of variable resistor.

There are some devices where you can straight up turn it to 11...and then some. For example, I am running a Sigelei 150w with a kanger subtank mini using a 0.5 ohm coil. With the current charge state of my batteries, I could turn it all the way up to 100 watts with just the press of a button. I could take it all the way down to about 10w with the press of a button, too. On a mechanical mod, you must build the coil specifically for the battery voltage to get the wattage you want(ohms law). On a varriable voltage/variable wattage device, the resistance of the coil is less important. You can tell it to push any amount of watts or volts you want, as long as it is within the operating parameters of the device.

 

[Yozhik]

I am an editor working on the wikipedia article

Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Couple of days ago I talked to a store owner about vaping and then went to wikipedia to sort of "fill out" the details of all the things we talked about and got the idea that the wikipedia is in desperate need of some help. These are "general" editors that read articles and research papers in order to write an article and as I'm sure you all know vaping is moving very quickly, faster than the "reliable sources" can keep up.

I used to smoke (20 years) , and I've vaped a couple of times, and talked to the owner of a vaping store twice, and got burned by some scam online selling 1st generation e-cigarettes, and that is the sum-total of my qualifications on vaping, however I think the more senior editors are even less qualified but they've been around for so long they aren't going to hear it from just me.

So I thought I'd go looking online for people that know the technical details, such as (a big question of mine) what is the prefered terminology for the noun of the thing that you all use? "Nicotine Delivery System" seems to be the most accurate and clinically descriptive phrase to me, but the article wants to continue to call them "e-cigarettes". I hate this, instinctively, but before I start pushing my POV as an editor I want to check in with knowledgeable people. Maybe I'm wrong and they're all still being called e-cigarettes, IDK.

Also I've acquired the POV that there is almost no connection between "smoking" and "vaping". No flame, no burning, no tobacco, no smoke, no stink, no cancer, etc... and yet it seems that the wikipedia terminology is anchored to "Ye Olden Wayes" of thinking about Vaping. (I never one saw a single reference to smoking inside this Vaping Shop. No ads, no tobacco, no paraphernalia (for tobacco and otherwise), and then the Wikipedia article was smoke this, cigarette that, etc...

Again I could be wrong, but I suspect not.

So, some things I'm interested in includes correct terminology, and also if there are any official, legitimate (and not self-appointed internet marketers) associations and organizations that have as their mission to serve to educate the public on vaping (like so many other industries, etc... do.) I assume there's at least one for Vaping, and probably more. Knowing those organizations (particularly who is legit and who is not) would be useful.

And anything else anyone else thinks is worth knowing about Vaping.

Thanks in advance.

One thing that jumped out at me is that I'd say this is a bit biased:

"The earliest e-cigarette can be traced to American Herbert A. Gilbert,[106] who in 1963 patented "a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette" that involved "replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air".[107][108] This device produced flavored steam without nicotine.[108] The patent was granted in 1965.[109] Gilbert’s invention was ahead of its time.[110] There were prototypes, but it received little attention[111] and was never commercialized[108] because smoking was still fashionable at that time.[112] Gilbert said in 2013 that today's electric cigarettes follow the basic design set forth in his original patent.[109]"

I'd add the following line to correct the bias:

"However, Gilbert's patent only disclosed the use of a flavor cartridge through which moist, flavored air would be drawn and then heated for inhalation, such as by a heat bulb or tube.[107]"

Despite Gilbert's self-serving claim, modern e-cigs follow a very different and more efficient approach than his patent. Rather than heating moistened air from a cartridge, the heating coil in a modern e-cig directly applies heat to the e-liquid in a wick and the resulting vapor is drawn in by the user via airflow.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Despite Gilbert's self-serving claim, modern e-cigs follow a very different and more efficient approach than his patent. Rather than heating moistened air from a cartridge, the heating coil in a modern e-cig directly applies heat to the e-liquid in a wick and the resulting vapor is drawn in by the user via airflow.

So as I understand it, it's not "bias" you object to, but inaccuracy and that Gilbert's invention in 1965 was not an "e-cigarette" in the modern sense of the word.

I'm willing to look into it, but if Gilbert called it an "e-cigarette" and it functioned generally in the same way as they do today (with or without nicotine, and with a new or old school heating method) then it's going to be impossible to ignore it as some kind of starting point. However there can be some fine-tuning in the language, where Gilbert's invention is introduced as some kind of "precursor" to the "modern e-cigarette" that we know today, which was invented by ....

Some asian guy, as I recall. Japan? China? It was China. Which, as I think of it, how does a Chinese person invent something? Seriously. I thought the communist government owned everything and the biggest weakness of the Chinese country was suppression of individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, and somehow despite that environment this guy invents e-cigarettes. And I thought in a communist country the government owns all intellectual property? Anyways, thought I'd throw that in there as a comment on my own personal interest.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

There are some devices where you can straight up turn it to 11...and then some. For example, I am running a Sigelei 150w with a kanger subtank mini using a 0.5 ohm coil. With the current charge state of my batteries, I could turn it all the way up to 100 watts with just the press of a button. I could take it all the way down to about 10w with the press of a button, too. On a mechanical mod, you must build the coil specifically for the battery voltage to get the wattage you want(ohms law). On a varriable voltage/variable wattage device, the resistance of the coil is less important. You can tell it to push any amount of watts or volts you want, as long as it is within the operating parameters of the device.

Okay great, thanks for that but to the editor in question is he correct in his statements? He's shown a willingness to try and make more superficial edits but I'm hunting bear here. If he's factually correct in layperson's terms, and seems to know the context all this data goes to, then it's going to be difficult to argue that the research, etc... is flawed, misapplied, etc...

 

[Yozhik]

So as I understand it, it's not "bias" you object to, but inaccuracy and that Gilbert's invention in 1965 was not an "e-cigarette" in the modern sense of the word.

I'm willing to look into it, but if Gilbert called it an "e-cigarette" and it functioned generally in the same way as they do today (with or without nicotine, and with a new or old school heating method) then it's going to be impossible to ignore it as some kind of starting point. However there can be some fine-tuning in the language, where Gilbert's invention is introduced as some kind of "precursor" to the "modern e-cigarette" that we know today, which was invented by ....

Some asian guy, as I recall. Japan? China? It was China. Which, as I think of it, how does a Chinese person invent something? Seriously. I thought the communist government owned everything and the biggest weakness of the Chinese country was suppression of individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, and somehow despite that environment this guy invents e-cigarettes. And I thought in a communist country the government owns all intellectual property? Anyways, thought I'd throw that in there as a comment on my own personal interest.

He invented what he called the "smokeless non-tobacco cigarette". Basic idea is that ambient air is drawn through a flavor cartridge to become moistened air with nicotine in it, then a heat bulb is used to heat the moistened air, which is then drawn in by the user. In essence, it's not all that different from a nicotine inhaler, except he added a heat source to make the vapor feel more like smoking.

It's also purely an electrical device, nothing electronic about it. Perhaps equally important, it wouldn't work at all if you tried to use it like a modern e-cigarette. This is because modern e-cigs use a solution composed of nicotine in propylene glycol and glycerine, which requires a different approach, such as Hon Lik first figured out. With the nicotine solution we use, you have to atomize it first in order to vape it, as it's too viscous to simply breathe in using Gilbert's design. Hon Lik did that initially with a electronically controlled piezoelectric component, but now we use an electronically controlled resistive heating component instead.

As to Chinese intellectual property laws, during Mao all intellectual property was pretty much abolished. Once he was dead though, China began adopting IP laws in the late 1970s as part of its Open Door Policy. In order to gain admission to the WTO in the late 1990s, it had to sign the TRIPS agreement, which requires that it implement international standards regarding copyrights, trademarks, and patents. All of these post-Mao developments in IP law were pretty much required of China if it wanted to play in international markets. As to Communism in China, Marx/Lenin/Mao are mostly just a veneer on an otherwise totalitarian oligarchy that in many ways is more similar to what Mao's Communists fought to abolish than what they created.

 

[Jman8]

Talk:Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this statement accurate?

Sorry for slightly hijacking what you were getting at in this inquiry, but feel it is resolved both here and on Talk Page.

I'm reading other editors (namely DJ) who says, "If one does not source every single statement someone will come along and tag it with [citation needed] in no time." And this in regards to QG's statement of, "Personally I prefer no unsourced text even if true."

So, I looked at the source material for the assertion on main article page that reads, "The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain." And I'm not finding that assertion in the source material. In fact, the source material exactly says:

Citation 14 (from 2015): "Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have substantially increased in popularity. Clear evidence about the safety of e-cigarettes is lacking, and laboratory experiments and case reports suggest these products may be associated with potential adverse health consequences. The effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is modest and appears to be comparable to the nicotine patch combined with minimal behavioral support. Although a role for e-cigarettes in the treatment of tobacco dependence may emerge in the future, the potential risk of e-cigarettes outweighs their known benefit as a recommended tobacco treatment strategy by clinicians. Patients should be counseled on the known efficacy and potential risks of e-cigarettes."

Citation 15 (from 2014): "Clinicians are advised to be aware that the use of e-cigarettes, especially among cigarette smokers, is growing rapidly. These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking."

Both of these are with regards to quitting smoking and the effectiveness. And not about the overall benefits and health risks.

I'm wondering if you, @Wallace_Frampton wish to attack this aspect as I think it could be way to greatly shorten the lede.

First is that the assertion is made, via the full stop (aka period) as if the assertion applies to all aspects of eCigs and benefits / health risks, when clearly the source material is not stating that. Though the paragraph that follows is about smoking cessation, the assertion that is "lead" for this paragraph is falsely being attributed to the source material. It would need to say, "With regards to smoking cessation, the benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain."

Even that would temper things in the lede, as it is noting a specific qualification for that assertion rather than implying, as it currently does, like no one anywhere has reported on the benefits and health risks.

So for me, that would be where I'd draw line in the sand, but would push further, and go for idea that smoking cessation as it relates to eCigs ought not to be in the lede. I'm kinda thinking I've made that point already on Talk Page awhile back, but this idea of source material helps reintroduce that. I think I brought up that the 2009-10 U.S. court decision restricts vaping industry from making claims of their product as smoking cessation product, unless it is registered with FDA as a drug. So, industry decided to avoid that whole label, choosing the recreational path, instead of the medical path. And I think when I brought this up on Talk Page before, the counterpoint to this is that Wikipedia is written for international audiences, and not just those in the U.S.

And yet, that counterpoint doesn't explain why the lede needs to bring up smoking cessation. IMO, that ought to be left out of the lead, and ideally put into another forked off topic article, or at least put into subsection of main topic article.

Literally, every assertion in the second paragraph of the lede is serving a political agenda. And no assertion clarifies what an eCig actually is, but instead gets into "how might society use this, if society has an agenda in place that eCigs might aid in."

Just about everything in the lede after the first paragraph is in that political spin mode, and so just tackling the one sentence is not likely to convince all editors to abandon that course, but I think if sourced material is so critical, it would be picking away at opposition's need to politicize the lede of the Wikipedia main topic article.

 

[edyle]

But for some odd reason the eCig page is allowed to be a huge mess of "benefits and harms" noted in lede and then expounded upon throughout the main article page, as if that is standard practice on Wikipedia. Perhaps another Wikipedia reader/editor can find some other article page that has gone through the convoluted justifications for inclusions/exclusions that this article has, but I rarely see it. Global Warming topic comes to mind as another convoluted mess, and yet, that one makes sense to be a mess, while also makes sense to have the fork that currently exists called "Global Warming Controvery." And there are other forks such as "Climate Change Denial."

That's what struck me too about that wiki page.
Seems to be a huge long drawn out wall of text.

 

[Jman8]

As I've stated previously, it does help in wanting to edit the article (just wanting to) if you are familiar with the previous discourse on Talk Page with what you wish to have changed.

So, I did word search on "smoking cessation" within this Talk Page's archives. And in the very first archive is a discussion (from 2009) about Health Effects.

I do find it understandable why that discussion was had as industry did use to blatantly market itself as a smoking cessation product, and again the FDA court case then (around 2010), essentially told industry to back off of making such claims.

IMO, if this whole thing is revisited again, and addressed with people (by which I mean vapers) who are not hung up on idea of "eCigs saved my life" but are interested in presenting a neutrally written article, then I think it is possible all this could be removed from the lede. But convincing fellow vapers of this would be around 10 times easier than convincing opposition that eCig article need not mention "smoking cessation" to be an effective topic article for WHAT is an eCig.

 

[Jman8]

So, going through the archives based on search terms noted in previous post, and looking for places where "cessation" and/or "lede" are mentioned. I realize I may forego sections (on Talk Page Archives) that get at what I'm looking for, but am also skimming each archive, starting back on Archive 1. Currently on Archive 3, and honestly not finding a whole lot (which is great), but also see that much of the talk is about "health risks."

I don't know if I can emphasize enough that what the eCig market was like in 2009-10 is not the same as what it is in 2015, even in an under regulated market. But still, wish to address the Talk history on how cessation claims came to be so important they need to be noted in 2nd paragraph of the lede for the main topic article.

And found this section, in Archive 3, for: "possibly overstated claims of safety"