Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 16

4336:

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

3291:-health aspects of e-cigs: construction, social changes, flavourings, user experience, uptake statistics, etc. This would go hand-in-hand with shunting the health information off to a separate "Health effects of e-cigs" article. I fear this could make Knowledge engage in e-cig advocacy, by unduly de-emphasizing the not-so-helpful-for-advocacy health information. Whether that fear is founded or not, I think it's important for NPOV that this article mirrors the RS coverage of e-cigs, which is largely health-based. Whether the precise details of MEDMOS are followed is a mere secondary detail. Unfortunately, the RfC failed to make a distinction between the importance of the first part of the question ("is this article primarily medical in nature") and the second part (so "use MEDMOS?") 3755:

itself. Its scare tactics. But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus. There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article. Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front.

3999:

section is dealing with 3 different generations of devices in a rapidly expanding and innovating marketplace. Each generation has benefits and problems, mostly benefits over the previous generations. Components is a very much detailed section when dealing with any device. There are even people who are just interested in design of things with no intention of using them. Should the article be targeted to them? No, but Knowledge isnt a paper enclapedia and there is more than enough room for information that is concrete and verifiable. I wouldnt put up speculation on design, or concerns about what may or not be with respect to flaws in hardware, or any place else. Such information is speculative.

5424:

from a medical listing is imho the wrong starting point, but I understand the need to start somewhere. I recommend the order set forth in the lede as a starting point. It is also the default order a lot of journal articles set, History, what it consists of, and then the effects. They dont jump to health issues. In fact Grana the most sited source uses this order. I understand the concerns of the supporters about pushing down the Health section, so perhaps we can compromise and place history first. Its a small section and does give a tiny bit on components. Its unlikely to change or expand as other sections and will not continually push the other sections down.

3551:& Williamson's more modest effort to increase nicotine/tobacco ratio with genetically engineered tobacco) and the risk of regulation of nicotine inhalers as a medical device. Of course there might be simpler economic or technical reasons, I don't know. Then -- what changed in China recently to make this a viable idea? There are some obvious socioeconomic reasons, and of course the degree of tobacco use in China that might play into that, but a little explanation there might help. You have to background, of course, with some discussion of when tobacco health effects were known and how they affected the market, as well as other nicotine delivery methods. 1631:, I know that splitting out the health content is on the table and has been discussed at length. Personally, I think the details of the way these items are constructed, which is included in the Construction section, is a fairly specialized topic that bogs down the flow of the article. IMHO, putting the Construction section before the Health section gives the article the best flow but that flow is interrupted by all the details in the section. That's why I'd split off the Construction section before splitting off the Health section. At some point the Health section will need to be split out but I'm not convinced that it needs to go out first. 3540:, an article I'd just started and hadn't really figured out an organization for. And what do you know, they actually seemed to work! Except for a few which I didn't really come up with an edit I liked, so so far I haven't done those. That's the way it is with guidelines: you try their advice, and if they help they help. But we still have to write articles ourselves, and when the flow of an article obviously fails -- as with the current jump to health effects here -- it's time to try something else. In part it fails because they're not really medical; in part it fails because, despite being new, electronic cigarettes are very much a 2679:

devises might be and (even so only potentially) could do for me. To get real and unbiased info I have to do my own research with WP only being of help in providing opinion disguised as fact. That'll work for dumb people but dumb people don't check or listen to WP at all and smart people check the sources and come up with a different conclusion than provided. The result is to feed those who are already with or w/o knowledge against something what they want to hear. You see? You make no difference at all -- you only embarrass yourself writing this non-educating stuff up. NPOV means... not what is happening here.

1596:- gave clear section headings and an order for medical devices (which it doesn't), those headings and that order are a guideline only. Of greater significance to me, and the main reason for my !vote, is that I think it serves readers better to discuss what an e-cigarette is and how it's made before discussing its impact on health. That said, the construction section is very long and it would be better if it was split out to another article and just summarized in this article. By doing that and putting construction first, the health effects are still near the top and not buried way down the page. 2343:

section, Components would turn the article into what would better be called "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" as the medical information would easily overwhelm the remaining small sections. The Health effects section itself is 33kb in readable prose. All the remaining sections combined without Components is only 14kb. The Usage section is the next largest and it also has a lot of medical sources. One option is a double split. Taking Components and the Health section out as separate pages. I think that would be the best way to go and allow the whole E-cigarette topic to expand.

4406:

most adults can. They are best used by current smokers as a way of quitting or as a harm reduction device. But evidence of the effectiveness of them used in quitting is still coming in and needs to be looked at more to be proven. Smart regulation is the way to go, age restriction, labelling of content of eliquid, and better quality control in eliquid and hardware. The age restriction has to be done by laws, but the others are starting to be addressed by trade associations. Some mention of self regulation might be useful to the article.

4340:

long term effects can be ruled out Short term effects of vaping, simple statements of conclusions drawn such as changes in heart rate etc with relevant comparisons to non-use and tobacco smoking. Gateway to tobacco, no scientific evidence for weak evidence against Smoking Cessation and Reduction, Conflicting evidence as to efficacy, small mention of controversy over generational differences. Adverse events Batteries, Liquid safety and poison control, flavours and the appeal to children.

3493:

aren't really about the same thing. Within each of these topical areas, weight certainly plays a role. But between these different topical areas, i don't think that weight is supposed to be considered this way, weight is basically an aspect of NPOV and it doesn't scew the neutrality of the article to have more health stuff, or more battery stuff etc. I'm a bit down with a cold, so i'm probably rambling :) Hope you can see my point despite that. --

31: 3136:

As for Formerly, there is no question as to what he was saying. He made a specific statement, that since the majority of discussion about e-cigs is regarding health, that health should come first. That is a logical falacy which if applied to almost any topic would result in illogical article stucture. He even weakens his case by agreeing that e-cigs are not medical devices which makes the classification as a MEDMOS article less justified.

5405:, but I think none exists. The medical manual of style does not start with health effects either, but rather with uses. I am not seeing the the opposition to the medical proposal a call for greater attention to the history section, and I wondered if you found some standard somewhere which says that history comes first before uses and function. Is it also your personal view that history is more important than usage or mechanism/construction? 1907:

fact that not a single medical option exists whilst several HUNDRED consumer options do should settle this matter quite simply. Both the US and the EU have rejected classifying them as medical device, with the US preferring to classify them as tobacco products and the EU specifically classifying them as consumer products. Why is this even up for discussion? (This is my first edit on wikipedia, please be gentle with me)

647:

be changed to place a description of the device first and have noted so on the MEDMOS talk page, since medical devices vary so greatly (unlike drugs). So on the narrow question of the ordering of sections, I would !vote for Construction to come first, so readers know what is being discussed. But I do hear and understand the argument that what matters most is how e-cigs affect you and so that should come first.

3719:. I have nothing against a large health section, and i can also see your point about prominence, even if i disagree with it (i basically think that readers will read the lead, and then jump to the sections that they are interested in).. but currently the article as an entity flows wrong, i don't know how it should reflow, perhaps with history first or construction? But as it is at the moment it (imho) fails. 3671:

it general for MOS' to specify that sections should be ordered in a specific way. MEDMOS (and probably other specialized ones do, but they are usually also targetted towards a particular article type)... not something that i've generally come across. Lets cross the bridge of further RfC's once we reach the point where they are needed again, much could be resolved if only the talk-page was used more. --

318:. There was not enough input from other editors and one editor of the three (including myself) was against splitting. That was based on size of the article. But it wont be long, based on the growth pattern of the article where that argument will not have a lot of weight. These constant edit problems are doing harm to the article. It takes up everyones time that would be better used in improving it. 3740:

section being on top if it were not so lengthy. Both position and volume of text make implied statements about what is important. Given that the health aspects are still unclear and that this aspect has been the subject of so much attention in the media and journals, this worries me a bit. Its always the non-verbal communication that controls what the audience walks away with.

5451:

first and I have often opposed it. I could be mistaken but I think you yourself have said that usage was most important, and I do not recall you defending history anywhere. This is not a medical/non-medical issue. Even for products I am wondering if you really believe that the history comes before describing what the product is and how it is used.

2962:? Its a device for concentrating the nicotine from a source for inhalation by the user. is it a medical device? Should it have a Health section at the top and follow MEDMOS? I can buy both at Walgreens, a drugstore. But I see neither is treated as a medical device on WP, but for some reason e-cigarette is? The lack of consistency is confusing. 3216:, health issues should get a significant amount of coverage in this article.) The discussion on this page has become stupidly polarized and in a context like this, writing usefully nuanced content becomes impossible. I ask everybody to take a deep breath and try to walk away from the knee-jerk reactions that folks are giving. 4357:. I'm not taking an adamant position here but let me just suggest the idea that in terms of its actual effect on the world out there, the gateway hypothesis is every bit as important as toxicology, SHS, particles etc., quite possibly more so, yet it gets comparatively sketchy coverage in the article compared to these. 3923:

neither a medical professional, an anti-tobacco activist, nor a vaper. In this regard, I think the suggestion above from Wnt (I think) that the article should have more history, somewhat less detailed medical speculation, and somewhat less detail on the finer aspects of design might be a good direction to go in.

4264:) determination about risks ("bad health outcomes") both in terms of their probability, as well as severity ("of the problem"). Further you suggest you've also quantified the benefits (unspecified) and basically found that e-cigarettes are a problem with bad health outcomes that outweigh any benefits. To 3739:

I also think that we are to some extend blending the very different concepts of placement, quantity of text, and tone. I suspect that some of the anti-medicalization faction would be less upset with the medical section being on top if it were less negative in tone. I would object less to the design

3670:

I disagree as well. The dispute here is the strict application of MEDMOS on the section ordering, once we either decide on one or the other, things can continue down either track, and figure out how to handle it. As for your 2nd bullet: Policies don't decide what order an article should be in, nor is

3363:

I'd be also be willing to see the negativity of the health section toned down as part of a compromise. The main thing we know about these things is that they are almost certainly healthier than cigarettes, and almost certainly less healthy than not vaping, though the size of that difference may not

3355:

As a "pro-medical" partisan, I think I can summarize my concerns as follows: 1) I think the main issue covered in the news and science articles has been health, and so I think that should be a big part of this article, and 2) I'm a little concerned that the size and detail of the design section makes

2603:

Actually, legal issues are what I hear being discussed. Regardless, I think you are taking the wrong approach here. The actual device is nothing more than a tool. What I am hearing from the support side is really related to the effects of the liquid being used. In any case, the "Support" argument

2588:

I actually agree with you that MEDMOS is probably unncessary here. But I think that the health section should go at the beginning for now, because that is what people are discussing outside of Knowledge. If it turns out they are harmless and the health aspect becomes a non-story, I'd move it to the

2496:

Then this RFC will be tainted, its like asking only a group of Republicans who should be president. The wording is also is a straw man, no one has said it doesnt have medical resources, but should a consumer device that doesn't require a prescription, be in the medical category when no other consumer

2342:

We are over split size at 65kb of readable prose. I am thinking that a split is a good idea, but it will be a major discussion with a very long and large RFC that will take some time. I anticipate that there will be a lot of resistance to splitting out the Health sections. Taking out the next largest

1428:

I think that it also must be recognised that bodies such as the EU have specifically declined to classify e-cigarettes as medical devices under most circumstances and that the vast majority of e-cigarettes are simply not medical devices, are often not used are such and are not allowed to make medical

646:

of sources says that health issues are very important for e-cigs and there should be significant discussion of health issues. MEDMOS provides a useful structure that the article should follow, but whether "Health effects" or "Construction" comes first is trivial. I actually think that MEDMOS should

5583:

I'd say that AlbinoFerret's first option is the most appropriate, it matches the typical order in the review articles that we have in the medical section (like for instance in Grana). It makes more sense to explain what it is and how it came about, before going into the effects of it, with the final

4691:

The original wording suggests its a medical device by asking if its medical in nature, not if its medical or consumer, that shows a bias. The original wording also points out the creators own suggested outcome. Another problem is that the creator only placed the question about medical classification

4666:

in the U.S. The federal government prohibits the physician from "prescribing" marijuana; so they make an "oral recommendation" per free speech, and by extension a "written recommendation" which may end up being required for a special state (not federal) ID license card for marijuana, then there's a

4386:

I dunno, I spend most of the day looking at e-cig regulation (for my sins) and I'd say protecting "the children" from trying e-cigs and then taking up tobacco is raised as an issue far more often than anything to do with the products themselves. (Which is why if a jurisdiction has just one e-cig law

4371:

I fully agree that it needs to be in there but I'm not certain I'd call the coverage in the article "sketchy". It appears under Canada, Australia and Others, addiction, and Usage. I also wouldn't say from my reading of it that it's a highly influential idea. The idea that "you just don't know what's

4339:

I honestly believe the best way to tackle the medical claims at this point is claim by claim citing the levels of evidence for and against. eg. Harmful contents of vapour, Scientific analysis of vapour contents and tests on those chemicals. Highlighting that as no long term studies have been done no

4086:

I don't know what others think, but I don't think having the med section first is a point that I'm going to fight to the death over. But compromise is compromise. So far all I seem to be hearing is that it would be great to move the medical stuff down, make it less negative, and keep all the stuff

3710:

areas of interest such as Mods (which is a HUGE topic), Atomizers (again HUGE topic), Batteries (probably the most controversial aspect at the moment, because of interchange of chargers causing LiIon failures sometimes with hospitalization), and Health (which is also a HUGE topic), that this is what

3651:

I disagree. Starting a new rfc when the premise is faulty from the beginning is wrong. The Electronic cigarette article is not in a medical category. The talk page has been adopted by a group to keep an eye on it and show interest in it. But the article itself is not subject to any medical guideline

3425:

I can't agree that E-cigarettes are medical products despite your insistence on them being so, they are several things: a leisure product, a tobacco replacement, a hobby, a cessation tool. Only one of these would fall into the medical category (sessation). And not to put too fine a point on it, but

3135:

You are changing the core principle that Formerly was making and then linking the new line of discussion to me as a question. I don't want to get into a tangential discussion about how much weight should be given to the health section. My argument has been the flow of the article not the content.

3102:

Please check yourself. I have made no determinations of weight with regards to what should or should not be covered. Formerly is making an argument that since Health Effects are the most covered aspect then that section should be first. Taken to the logical conclusion this approach, throughout WP

2153:

I'm a little confused. I don't understand why splitting off the health section would necessarily result in a de-emphasis on the health information in the article. A summary of health concerns could still feature prominently enough even if the details have been split into another article. Personally,

1210:

If you really looked at who I left a message about the RFC you would see its every editor, except IP addresses who has edited the article for about the past week or so. I only messaged those that had not left a comment. I went back 3 pages of history and included those, based on previous posts, that

684:

the available sources presents this concept as a medical concept. I agree with many who oppose who say that one might expect articles on products to be structured like other articles on products, but in the case of this article, so much more coverage exists on health effects than the actual product.

203:

Support, Given the number and level of authority of the medical sourcing available that covers this subject, especially in comparison to what's available for the non medical topics (I saw how hard it was to come up with acceptable sourcing to even describe the construction, and what's in the article

5643:

Do you feel strongly that this is a problem which conflicts with the outline proposal? QuackGuru posted some low-level headings. This outline is for top-level headings. I do not have any opinion on low level headings at this time, other than I think that some will probably be allowed. I do not want

5473:

But our starting point is wrong, it is placing the opinions in the minority first. Granted the medical questions are important, but the lede places that information at the top as the largest paragraph in the lede. Dont get me wrong, some compromise is needed, but sticking with the medical order and

5450:

One defining characteristic of the "health option" is that it starts with a description of what the product is and how it is made. In my view, information on the use of the product is more important and the history of the product is rather low in importance. Yes, I know that many people put history

4536:

This edit is completely inappropriate as the original wording neutrally asks the question as to what type of article is it without prejudicial language. You wouldn't like it if I added an alternative phrasing of "should a drug delivery device used to administer a pharmacologically active substance

4457:

I disagree, I think this article is one where the little problems would be treated as tiny if it wasn't already full of the massive problem of Bloat, Redundancy and undue weight. 8 references to speculation about gateway effects even more to people saying "we don't know enough yet". If all that was

4335:

Let's start with somethings I believe everyone agrees. We're getting a pretty good understanding of what is in the emissions of an e-cigarette and what is in the second hand vapour. We're getting an understanding of how long it hangs around for. We have some information about the short term effects

4074:

sources) start with a section on construction, history, usage etc. before they reach the medical review, Grana as a good example (for once :)). It simply flows more naturally, you want to know what the thing is, before you go into what it might effect. Made me realize why it is that i feel that the

3470:

in your 2nd paragraph - that section says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Can you please explain how what you wrote

3069:

That is an odd logical falacy. Of course the history and contruction of the tool is not going to be described over and over and over. By you logic, almost zero articles on WP would have any remote semblence of logical thought or presentation. They would be a mish-mash of information presented in

2618:

I didn't say anything about what I "hear people talking about" . I said that I did 6 different e-cigarette Google searches focused on what are generally considered reliable sources and all were 90% dominated by health issues. Because the weight given to issues by reliable sources (and not by one's

1952:

doesn't even have an appropriate category for this sort of article. The closest is device, which would suggest the first section should be "Medical Uses" and the answer to that would be "there are no medical uses an e-cigarrette is a recreational nicotine delivery device". There definitely needs to

1422:

Clearly if one searches medical journals, one will find medical-related sources with a medical related agenda. However, if you search outside of that arena into places such as the mainstream media you will find issues such as construction, harm-reduction, vaping sub-culture and regulation regularly

683:

The weight of the reliable sources is that electronic cigarettes, when discussed, are in 90% of reliable sources discussed mostly for their health effects. The reliable sources which discuss it in other contexts are usually on the lower-quality end of the spectrum of reliable sources. The weight of

5800:

How many countries? 3? 5? 7? and are they english speaking countries this is the english wikipedia. What about the majority of them that dont? Do you seriously think that a hand full of countries are going to make any difference to those who edit wikipedia seeing it as a commercial product? If you

5780:

The current text says: "E-cigarettes have been listed as "drug delivery devices" in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive. E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some

4785:

is that if you are unhappy with the wording then you should ask the originator to rephrase it. But be aware that although the original was slightly suggestive (perhaps inadvertently), sticking "like all other types of cigarettes" in there is mixing question with answer. Part of the problem is that

3492:

yeah, that might have come out confusing :) What i'm trying to say is that the article as it stands, really is a collection of different topics, and if e-cigarettes keep continuing their expansion then each will probably have a seperate article, ending up with this as a summary article, since they

3431:

Finally to your primary question: The main reason as i see it to restructure the article is because it will flow better for our readers, and while i acknowledge that much of the media seems more interested in the medical stuff, an e-cigarette is more than just a health issue. Thus using MEDMOS for

1735:

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that parts of the article be split out because there are disputes concerning those sections. I'm suggesting that they be split out because I think that doing so would improve article readability and flow, and I would suggest the splits even if there were no disputes.

1278:

E-cigarettes are consumer products, they are not medicine, nor are they sold in pharmacies. Yes, when used with an e-liquid with nicotine, then they do have some physiological effect. But such effects in consumer products are not an indicator of them being medicine. If we take for instance Coffee,

1080:

It's completely inaccurate to say that pharmacies are the main source of electronic cigarettes in the UK. E-cigarettes are available in the vast majority of newsagent (tobacco outlets) and supermarkets that sell tobacco. Just because a pharmacy opts to sell a product it doesn't make it a medicine.

5669:

and that its not written in stone that low level sections will stay low level sections. Its easily remidied by using a non medical section header for the name. Adverse Effects can become Complaints as an example. But Quack has a habit of becoming fixed on a specific wording, in fact I deleted the

5423:

I suggest you look at all the cigarette articles, they all start with history, as do all of consumer products I have seen on Knowledge. While a "standard" isnt listed in a guideline, there is a default standard by common use. More than half the responses disagree with a medical listing. Starting

4835:

I am presenting here various options for section ordering. If anyone wishes to give comments on using any of these, or to propose their own reform for section ordering, then I think that might be more likely to lead to consensus than abstractly talking about how to order this without proposing an

4405:

I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes. My personal opinion is we should make selling any tobacco products, including e-cigarettes a crime everywhere, with a mandatory life sentance without the possibility of parole. Kids are not able to make the reasoned decisions

4344:

All excellent points but can I just add that - leaving aside for a second the issue of whether the entire article is over-medicalised - it may be over-stressing (in WEIGHT terms) some health issues and underplaying others. The notable one that comes to mind is the "gateway effect". Whether or not

4101:

I think I understand your concerns. But I dont think anyone is glamorizing the hardware but sticking to facts. What someone may think about the hardware descriptions, and perhaps use it, as long as they are an adult, its out of our hands as long as we are not commercializing it. I also think that

4026:

On the issue of facts vs. speculation, I think that you can take that argument a mile down the road, but it won't get you all the way to Omaha. We prepare for all kinds of things based on speculation, whether it is war, pandemic flu, or economic downturns. In economics we estimate the financial

4019:

I guess the difficulty then lies in where we can find room for compromise, assuming that is still our goal. I don't know what the detailed concerns are of the other "medicalists", but I suspect they are variations of my own concern that this not become a "look at all this really cool technology"

3981:

revision of the document (here or in his sandbox) based on the discussion in this section (rather than on his own opinions), followed perhaps by a straight up or down vote on whether to accept it. He got this conversation started, is a non-combatant, and does not seem to be overly tilted toward

1906:

There are over 400 consumer brands of 1st generation e-cigarette, with multiple products per brand. There are precisely ZERO medically licensed e-cigarettes. Whilst there are obvious health related issues that are still being studied, the devices themselves are the subject of this article and the

275:

No, you said it was hard to find good references for components. I said no, they can be found, and I will clarify the last part for you. That editors some other editors have focused in on one section, does not lessen the other sections. Components can me more important than medical claims to some

5644:

to dismiss your concern but I was hoping that for now the discussion could focus on top level heading until the article could be rearranged a bit. Would it change your mind about these section orders of the health section had lower level toxicology and adverse effect sections during a rearrange?

5596:

Previously you have said that uses and construction/design/product description come first, like for example when I wanted the same thing by voting to support the medical option. I wondered why you said that because it seemed like we wanted the same thing. Is it really your intent now to say that

3754:

I think you have hit the nail on the head for one of my problems with the health section. An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries. What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents

3550:

I would like to see us start with the Gilbert idea and a deep explanation (if we can find it) of why it failed. Some tie-ins I'd like to see explored, if sources can be found, would be with the idea that tobacco company regulation of nicotine content was used as a basis for liability (per Brown

3046: 615:

Whether this article is "primarily medical in nature" seems to be a philosophical or even semantic point that only distracts from the more meaningful question here, which is whether "Health effects" should be the first section. Given all that we know about the health dangers of smoking, and the

3998:

Answering your previous post, but I dont want it to get missed. No, I did not imply that the article should be specifically targeted at users. But that users are a growing segment of the population that may read the article. I also disagree that the components section is to fine on detail. That

3922:

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks AlbinoFerret. I agree that the article should not be targeted to a medical audience, and disagree with what I think you said or implied, that the article should instead be targeted to users. I think the article should be targeted to the average person, who is

3451:

Regarding the pro/con medical opinion I think we must avoid saying what we do not know. Editors here cannot assess the relative merits of peer reviewed journals or other quality publications. I suggest that we state the generally agreed health position on the subject but word more contentions

476:

In RS the health aspect is by far the most important aspect of the e-cig topic, and so must be prominently treated in this article; doing otherwise would destroy the fundamental NPOV we are required to maintain. As a secondary consideration, MEDMOS could usefuly inform the style/structure here.

188:

If one conducts a Google search for the word e-cigarette in Google Scholar, 90% of the hits are health related. Likewise if one searchs on the word e-cigarette in combination with the name of any major media outlet in regular Google. NPOV requires that we emphasize what reliable sources, and in

5469:

During a massive amount of editing late at night I did forget to put history first. But the page as it was didnt last long enough to place history first when I woke up. My opinion is that the order of the lede should be followed, it is the same as the defacto standard of page order of consumer

3735:

Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Back at you: I'm not sure more is necessarily better. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive textbook. My gut feeling is that the medical section drones on endlessly trying to gaze into the crystal ball and figure out what will be readily

3042: 2678:

We write for our readers, right? I'm a long-time editor but also a reader and as a smoker I looked up our article on those e-cigs. What do I get? Non info! First I get the usual "it's bad for you" advise (w/o scientific backup either way) and only if I scroll down I get a glimpse of what those

4623:

isn't too hard to understand on this point. If a physician or surgeon orders anything for the purpose of addressing a health condition, then he's "prescribing" it. I doubt that the Danish government is going around "approving" low-sodium foods and calling them "medications". If you want to

2847:

Let see if I get this straight. The verifiable fact is that FDA (or any other entity in the US for that matter) cannot define vaping products as medical devices, because that would be illegal. However, Zad thinks that fact is of no encyclopedic consequence, because some "high-quality" medical

933:

The article is clearly a consumer product and does not require a prescription. There are no other consumer products that contain nicotine in the medical category. This article should not be in it either. I think the phrasing of the question is a strawman and the results will be tainted by it.

3432:

the whole article (as opposed to the health section(s)) is the wrong take, imho. I can't really see the NPOV issue with either way of having the structure though, that seems more to be perception rather than reality, i have other POV problems as mentioned earlier but structure is not one. --

3245:

is lost, and nobody is discussing that. MEDMOS is a very useful guideline for structuring articles with a strong health focus (I know MEDMOS says "medical" but please don't wikilawyer the point) I very much recognize the importance and utility of following guidelines but we don't apply them

1847:

is not formatted as a medical article. I realise that at present many readers will come to this article seeking medical information, and this should of course be provided, indeed it is likely to form most of the content. But "electronic cigarette" is no more a medical topic than is "whisky".

4020:

article with a subliminal message that "this is cool and you really ought to try it". Examining my motives, my push for the medical aspects to be highlighted is partly in response to the size and detail of the design section and this fear that the article begins to seem almost promotional.

5215:

If anyone has anything to say that is not a workable proposal then put it somewhere else. All of the above options that I shared are horrible and problematic but at least they exist. This is not a section for discussing theoretical non-existent proposals but for presenting existing ones.

3030: 2066:

policy, which requires that the emphasis in the article match the emphasis found in reliable sources. As has already been demonstrated, a survey of the available reliable sourcing shows that the reliable sources place heavy emphasis on discussion of health-related topics. Therefore the

1990:

2 = Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67), 3 = Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p.

3441:

I would go with a compromise. I think we all agree that it is not the purpose of this article, or WP in general, to warn people of the dangers of ECs any more than it is to promote the products. I supported the structure change because I think it is more appropriate for a manufactured

3038: 4066:

I agree that some amount of speculative material should be there, but there are degrees, speculation on extreme outside chances, is unnecessary... Picking unique speculation from one review, combining that with even more unique speculation from another review etc makes for rather bad

3034: 3688:, and juxtaposition of statements". I don't have a official definition for what is meant by "prominence of placement', but to me the most obvious aspects would be "higher or lower in the list of subtopics" and "having or not having its own heading". I think both would be involved. 616:

widespread perception that e-cigs may be safer than conventional cigarettes, I submit that far more readers want to know about e-cigs' safety than their history. Per Formerly 98 above, the editors of successful and reputable magazines and news sources evidently agree. Therefore I

3422:. WP is not paper. Weight is a determination for us to measure contrasts between views within a scope. (ie. i can't see weight as being an argument for limiting any section of the article, let the sections take up the amount of space that we have individual aspects to write about). 5474:

making adjustments from there is the wrong way to go. E-cigarettes are not a medical product, they are not in a medical category. That medical group adopted the article as something they are interested in and placed banners at the top of the talk page does not change those facts.

3199:

so flatly stated. But those "oppose" votes have a wikilawyery, narrow point, in that in most jurisdictions, e-cigs are not regulated as medical devices. I say that the RfC is unfortunately framed because MEDRS and MEDMOS are primarily concerned with Knowledge content about

3359:

On the other hand, I think Jytdog may be correct that the order of the sections does not matter, so long as the length of the article is not so long overall that most readers never scroll down far enough to see "Medical". I could see that section go 2nd as part of a larger

2154:

I'd split the Construction section first, but I could see both being split off at the same time. With respect to dispute resolution, I don't understand why splitting off parts of the article is an unacceptable solution to dealing with the content issues here; part of the

1461:

a good change; you shouldn't make it "just because MEDMOS says so". Philosophically, from the history, we could say that Gilbert's non-commercialized nicotine vaporizer from 1963 made it a consumer product, not a medical product, that could have replaced the tobacco.

3937:

This is something that sounds to me like progress towards consensus. I agree that the article should be targeted at the average person, as well as needing more history and less medical speculation. As far as ordering of sections goes, I find these comments from above

1985:"Electronic cigarettes and refill containers should be regulated by this Directive, unless they are - due to their presentation or function - subject to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) or to Council Directive 93/42/EEC (*3)." 5801:

stressed "several" thinking it was going to make a difference you are mistaken, several to a native english speaker means a low number. I tell you what, hold an RFC on if this RFC should be restarted to see where consensus lies. It should only take 2 or 3 weeks.

5741:

We should discount the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC or better yet redo the RFC because they have not read this information that was only very recently added to this article. Or all the responders can be notified of this new information. See

5781:

countries, but are not permitted to be used as a cessation aid to help smokers quit." Therefore, e-cigarettes are a medical device. Previous responders are not aware of this new information that was recently added to the article. That invalidates this RFC IMO.

1648:

Yep, I had a look at the archived talk pages. Would it be feasible to ignore article size and doing both splits, i.e. having this article referring to the respective spezialized articles (legal, construction, health), and thus relieve the dispute tension?

3426:

e-cigarettes have several meanings: The battery(mod), atomizer, and usage - and only usage could ever fall into the medical category, and only some usages thereof would be. So no - putting them down as medical in nature is simply false. (TLDR section done)

5198:) that does not fit the definition of either tobacco product or medical product. Let's develop a structure to this article that acknowledges this verifiable fact rather than attempt to shoehorn this distinct category into existing ill-fitting frameworks. 342:

Components is also important and discussed in almost every medical reliable source if not all of them. As long as Health effects is not broken out it will not solve the problems of editor conflicts as almost al of the conflicts deal with health effects.

5712:

That is inaccurate, in certain countries if the device uses nicotine it is, but if it uses no nicotine the same device is a consumer product. So no, its not a medical device, some uses may be medical in nature in some countries. That would be calling a

4331:

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

3631:

2) Should the "Construction" section or the "Health effects" section come first? Please provide reasons based on policies and guidelines and if you are providing a !vote based only on your preference, please state that and provide the best reason you

4832:, but there is no manual of style other than article precedent for products. It seems apparent to me that the results of the poll above are not leading to a compromise, other than to confirm that complete adoption of the medical model is problematic. 3544:

phenomenon, being controlled much more by community knowledge of tobacco's health problems, economics, regulation, and liability than by medical science of the product itself. There's an exception in MEDMOS for having the history first; I say we use

2005:

If you call this article "electronic cigarette" you should focus on the device and its technical aspects (1.). If you call this article "health effects of the electronic cigarette" the focus should be on 2. and 3. (i.e. on usage). Split the article.

236:

Thats incorrect, there are plenty of sources for construction. That other editors have only focused on the medical aspect is the reason. I have been expanding components and have only been delayed by other matters in the article that suck up my time.

2789:-compliant sourcing, and surveys of the sourcing show a heavy emphasis on medical sources, as others have pointed out here on this Talk page. A court of law has its own context and purposes, but again, we are not a court, we are an encyclopedia. 332:

This RfC will not lead anywhere. Decision for an article being "medical" depends on the content (not on the subject itself). Article size isn't large, agree, but there is a good reason for doing a spinout: an obvious and tedious content conflict.

3869:

All of that stuff affects the article's content profoundly. If we are going to find a way forward, I don't think it is inappropriate to ask why the feeling is so strong about blanket applications of these policies and guidelines across the whole

2225:

As I said above splitting the article could be an (alternative) answer to question raised by the current RfC (which, I think, won't have a useful conclusion). Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking.

4319:, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it. 3315:, that the close would be a no-brainer, as arguments to give little weight would only come down to DONTLIKEIT; i haven't seen anybody arguing for little weight make an argument about what the bulk of sources say. That would probably settle it. 541:

applies to actual content in articles. My stance, which is that consumer products that are primarily used for medicinal purposes should be first looked at from a medical standpoint, isn't so much OR as it is a question of emphasis. If that is

3364:

be large compared to being obese or eating a lot of hamburgers. We can probably turn down the level of obsessiveness about trace amounts of metal microparticles and the like. We all breath that kind of stuff daily just walking down the street.

4696:

called votebanking, asking medical editors if they should keep the article in the medical category. Its like asking mice if they want to keep cheese. This whole rfc is flawed. If the original statement stands then the rephrasing stands imho.

4608:

I think that this is dependent on where in the world you come from. Here in Denmark, a Doctor can't prescribe anything that isn't a government approved medication. He can advice you to take a non-medical product, but not prescribe it to you.

1470:

The Chinese product was introduced for "smoking cessation and replacement". Smoking cessation is clearly a medical product - smoking replacement is obviously not a medical product. The philosophical ambiguity since then remains unabated.

3053:

have focused on, whether taking a "pro" or "con" position. I don't know that its in a guideline anywhere, but it seems odd to me that so many here are upset that Knowledge should cover this topic in the same way as the rest of the world.

2256:

Reading what is being written gives the impression to me that editors are aware of the rules. Why not give some space for pondering on how to apply them? Questions are raised not because editors don't understand the rules but because they

1888:

This is a consumer product - one that happens to be of medical interest for its ostensibly adverse health-effects. We follow the rules for an article on a consumer product, making sure that the notable controversy is adequately covered.

2327:

I would wholeheartedly support a split, leaving the major conclusions and overall consensus of the medical literature in a one or two paragraph section prominent in this article linked to a main article "Health effects of E-cigarettes"

1997:

So, there are three aspects: 1. The technical (about the device), 2. the medical usage (for smoking cessation), and 3. the non-medical usage (for leisure, possibly harmful). Most sources are, of course, on the health issues i.e. on the

1661:, yes, I think so. Both sections are fairly long and are specialized and detailed enough to stand on their own. Shorter versions of both sections (but especially the Construction section) would improve the flow of this article as well. 3884:

Leveledout, as frustrated as you may be feeling I think its probably better to focus on 1) what we agree on, and 2) exploring differences in a detailed way to see where hidden points of agreement and willingness to compromise might be

1776:

no, the REAL trouble is, health isn't the principal aspect of this consumer product and you and your buddies from project medicine are trying to hijack the article for who knows what reason.... but make no mistake you will not succeed

2557:

rules. I offered speculation on why the cigarette articles and cigar articles might not put health effects as the first section, but ultimately whether or not those articles are correctly formatted is immaterial to this discussion.

4667:

crackdown on doctors writing recommendations without seeing patients or meeting various other standards... no doubt a third term will eventually be invented. You might say the English language is always the first casualty of law.

506:

I can see the argument that this is a consumer, rather than a medical product, however as survey data suggests the use of e cigs is mainly to stop or reduce tobacco use (which is therefore a medical use), MEDMOS would apply here.

2172:

I agree with you that the disputes wont be avoided, but they will be on a talk page of an artile that deals only with health issues. The section can still be proment proment on this page, it will still contain the major points.

5189:

All of the above maintain the challenged notion that these devices are "medical", whereas they are currently regarded legally, by the scientific literature, and by the public as general consumer products. "Contraindications"?

3899:

I've done a strikethrough on my comments, I admit that I had not read this discussion in its entirety before posting. After doing so I realise that my previous comments probably don't add much to the debate at this particular

3736:

apparent 5 years from now, and that the design section is dangerously approaching the appearance of something put out by the Electronic Cigarettes Manufacturing Association. I'm sure you will disagree, just my humble opinion.

4027:

impacts of future problems by multiplying their cost x their probability. I'd not allow my kids to vape nor would I do so myself for the reason that I think the percent risk of bad health outcomes x severity of problem : -->

1329:

find them is newsagents, tobacconists & specialist shops. The leading models, refillable tanks, are pretty much exclusively sold through specialist shops. The Royal College of Pharmacists state that they're not a medical

5470:

devices. I think we should use the order of other consumer products of its kind if not every other consumer product. Its not "many" people that prefer a defacto standard of a consumer product, its more than half and growing.

4618:

I suspect that every Danish doctor that has ever written orders for a stroke patient to be given a low-sodium meal in hospital—and that's probably all of them, given the way medical training works—will disagree with you.

4445:

its more like death by a thousand cuts. Discounting the little problems is ok if its one or two, but the little problems can, if not addressed, add up to a big problem. The whole article is one mass of little problems.

3535:

The test of whether MEDMOS should be used is whether using it is beneficial to the article. For example, when I read this discussion I discovered there were the recommendations for headers, so I tried applying some at

1229:

and he didn't edit here in the last couple of days. That shows "canvassing" within policy. Not so much what Doc did when you take a look at the 3RR notice board and trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin closing the

4102:

lowering information to stop an adult from using something is not something that wikipedia should do, but I am unable to pop off a reference off the top of my head. It sounds like censoring to advance a social policy.

1843:. Here's an analogy. I would advise anyone to drink whisky in preference to methylated spirits or moonshine. I believe whisky is less damaging to health that alternatives which might contain methanol. Yet the article 1404:

The article is titled "Electronic cigarette" and that's what it should be about. If people want a medical article they can create a separate one for health effects, but this one should primarily describe the devices

1178:

Apparently the Doc would rather not hear opinion that goes against his POV. thanks for your shiny example of consensus-building. Do you really think I wouldn't've commented on this irrespective of any notification?

5435:

One thing I didnt answer is the lack of opposition. Over half of the responses were against the medical order and preferred one like a consumer device. They acknowledged a defacto one exists because of common use.

2310:- why not doing an article spinout with (further) sub-articles giving greater detail (NOT based on POV). Doing so would make the RfC redundant since the spun out article on health issues would follow, of course, 2104:

Just like legal, at the time of the split, it wasa source of editing disputes. The same thing applies to Health effects. Its the source to almost all the editing disputes. Keeping it will only keep the problems.

4757:

I believe the original wording is biased because it only mentions one option and does not correctly summarize the issue. I have edited the alternate phrasing slightly to only ask the question of its formatting.

3584:

Sigh... I should have looked first before saying that! Despite a burst of recent talking head activity, apparently people suspected and tested nicotine for parkinsonism two decades ago. As briefly reviewed in

1457:. MEDMOS gives a recommended list of sections, which may be good advice for this or any medical article. But it's not going to write the article for you. Any change made to follow that advice has to actually 1437:

are inappropriate across the whole article. The medical community feels very strongly about e-cigarettes and this can be recognised in the health section, which rightly should be subject to medical policies and

2534:

That is an odd statement to make. WP is not here to promote a specific point of view. Your argument seems to be that because they are new people need to be told of the health effects right away so that they

856:

Would you care to say why you feel the level of health relatedness for this subject warrants the MedMOS ordering? Not trying to be contentious would just appreciate hearing the reasoning from outside editors.

3504:

sorry you are sick, kim. in my experience WEIGHT applies to the overall structure of the article, as well as perspectives described within any given section. i do hear you that the article is sprawling, and

2519:

The health effects of cigarettes and cigars are well established and not controversial. Its 40 year old news that my 5 year old nephew knows. That's why health isnt' in the first section of those articles.

4557:

medical devices. They don't treat any medical condition. They are not prescribed by doctors. They are sold & used as consumer products, & that's what producers, distributors & users insist they

1865:. This is not a medical article. It's a consumer product article. The fact that this particular consumer product has been the study of medical studies does not make it NOT a consumer product article. -- 3026: 1571:

As many have stated above me, e-cigarettes are a consumer product and not a pharmaceutical product or other drug. Health effects definitely have a place, but they are not the primary focus of the article.

2089:

The article could be summarized somewhat while still maintaining NPOV. Legal issues regarding them appear to be the major issue in reliable sources, yet this is relegated to a summary and side article.

5386:

It is the standard order of its type of consumer product, cigarettes, as found on the articles. None start out with Health effects or have the other medical sections. I have modified the title a little.

4575:, this is not true. A "prescription" is whatever your doctor tells you to do. It is not limited to writing a pharmaceutical prescription that you take to a pharmacist to get a regulated drug. Doctors 1953:

be medical information in this article, it's where a lot of people will start looking for the conclusions the medical community has drawn about these devices, that does not make this a medical article.

3103:

articles, would result in absurd articles that have no logical structure. I was simply pointing out the logical falacy that Formerly was using to try and justify why Health Effects should be first.

2553:

Not at all. I'm not for warning anyone about anything. I'm for making sure the article gives different subjects the same weight and priority as is extant in non-Knowledge sources as demanded by the

2261:. May I give a quote to you (not just an abstract WP): "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." 1675:

Keeping Health effects and forking off other parts will not solve editing disputes. Almost all the disputes are in the Health effects section, so keeping it defeats the purpose of the proposed split.

3403:, and i also agree that health aspects, with the same caveats as before, must be a significant section. I also (although i can't determine if you think so) that the health section should be based on 2848:

literature can be found about these devices, which somehow makes them medical devices. Surely I'm missing something, cause that doesn't quite make sense for me. So, I'll ask again, please explain.

3656:. Secondly weight goes to the size of information and weather a source is included, it never discusses placement of sections, and should not override the style of articles on similar subjects. 3287:

For me, there's an underlying NPOV issue here. One wished-for change among some editors here, as I understand it, is that this article should be de-medicalized (or de-healthified) to focus on

2281:, a Knowledge core content policy, mainly so that we can avoid having this particular article's Talk page host the main discussions about the medical topics, because you find them upsetting? 1977:

as such (beneficial for health) but it can also be used just for leisure (possibly harmful). Recently EU decided (wisely) that electronic cigarettes and the liquid solutions are not medical

3802:

I did not name anyone but addresses concerns of mine about the reasoning on guidelines. Ill try and rephrase some of it in the future, but the erroneous viewpoints are part of the problem.

883:

This is clearly not a medical article. If one wishes to write an article regarding the medical effects/benefits/risks of electronic cigarettes, then they should do that. I will point out

5040:

The most common complaint about the medical order is that it does not quickly present the product mechanism. Here is a version which uses that short order, but moves mechanism to the top:

1081:

Most pharmacies I know of sell beauty products of no medicinal value and I known of one major pharmacy chain that sells Coca-Cola, which the last time I checked was not a medicine either.

1110:. This article is about a class of consumer products and the medical agenda is a only a tangential subtopic. As such, it should be structured like other consumer product pages such as 3556:

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

2785:

What we need to do is follow the sourcing. In the case of the subject of this article, multiple authoritative bodies and top-tier medical journals have provided lots of high-quality

3982:

either side. I'm sure I'll find many aspects of his draft objectionable, but it will probably be better than another 2 weeks or more of acrimony. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

1492:, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. And that article - if any - would have all the reason to acclaim itself as a medical one. I think it would be quite logical to benchmark 3564:

you should cover the health effects, which you've started to introduce in the history - evaluate how they've reduced tobacco mortality; also how they retain nicotine addiction.

4829: 3588:

there still is no real progress in actually protecting patients with nicotine, despite some signs of neuroprotective effects and some wacky (who knows maybe true) ideas like

1259:

The article is about a manufactured product and should be structured as such. The health issues may be of great importance but they are not the only aspect of this device.

773:

Clearly medical, and leaving medical information out would leave a very short and ill-conceived article, biased article. Most of what is in here is and should be medical. --

1818:

belatedly (sorry). It looks like a medical article at the moment but ideally should not be (I appreciate the point that non-medical reliable sources are harder to come by).

4650:

As an example can be given the legality/non-legality of prescribing excersise, which has only within the last 10 years been a possibility, and has been tried in test-runs

4537:

follow the section order for a medical device", but your own rephrasing is equally prejudicial. I'd urge you to revert this edit, after which I will revert this one.

4391:

and public health debate I'm talking about - not scientific investigation. But as you say, it's not a huge deal compared with the issue of the article's overall tone.

1464:(A moment of silence to contemplate the millions of lives that could have been saved, had a common sense way to reduce cancer deaths been pursued with resources. The 4087:

that I've expressed concern about 100% intact. Apparently I'm a lousy negotiator. Time to climb back into the trench and load a fresh belt of ammo into the Vickers?

5527:

I am not going to say anything about medical order because no two people imagine the same thing when talking about that. I support the order that you proposed here.

3399:

First let me state what i'm in agreement with in your comment: Yes, a medical section must exist, at least until such time as the article get unwieldy and should be

573:

This is a consumer product, but one that dispenses a highly addictive substance. If this were the first source of nicotine, it would never pass FDA approval as a

2306:

I apologize to have caused a misunderstanding, I may have used clumsy wording. That's not what I am suggesting at all. Splitting this article should be based on

2158:

process is discussion, which is what's happening here. Also, dealing with content issues and splitting need not preclude dealing with editor behavioural issues.

975:. It's primarily a gadget/devise with non-medical purpose. A health section is of course warranted but not in a leading manner. Comparison to layouts like, I.e. 374:. This is a medical related article. A few editors think e-cigs are harmless vapor. That's incorrect. Yes, I know: e-cigs are safer than traditional cigarettes. 3781:

please discuss content, not contributors; please focus on what sources say, and please frame arguments with regard to what policies and guidelines say, all per

1379:

Kim the shampoo comment is funny. But in the a lot of US pharmacies sell cosmetics, wouldnt the same faulty reasoning make mascara and blush a medical product?

2954:

sources used in health sections of a lot of consumer products. The health sections are not at the top of the page, they dont follow MEDMOS. A prime example is

1291:

which is a crystalline xanthine alkaloid and a stimulant drug. On the legal side, both the EU and the US have refused to consider these as medical products. --

4372:

in them" is far more influential. However it sounds like we largely agree and this page needs two people in agreement arguing over minutiae like it needs .

2199:, though I do not agree that's what's being proposed here. I'm inclined to view this proposal along the same lines as the "legal status" section split (as 956:

both contain nicotine and are sold without a prescription, and I think that many people associate those smoking cessation products with health/medicine.

948:

Would you mind naming a few examples of "consumer products that contain nicotine" so I can better understand what you mean by this phrase? For example,

3191:

1 "medical" vs "health": On the face of it, there are only a few countries' medical regulatory bodies that classify e-cigs as medical devices. There

3373:

concerns of the anti-"over-medicalization" faction are, and where there is room for negotiation, compromise, and turning down the confrontationalism.

3003:

I am making the same point Doc James, Formerly 98, Alexbrn, Jinkinson, Blue Rasberry are making. Formerly 98 makes this same point particularly well.

2048:

Ill second its a very good question, and since most of the problems revolve around health claims, it should be the section split off to a new article.

891:, which are also effectively delivery devices of Nicotine, both have History being the first section and Health effects being towards or at the end. 3025:

I agree it's not a medical device, but I still think the medical concerns should be in the beginning of the article because that's the subtopic that

425: 4790:. So the best you could hope for might be "Should the e-cigarette article follow general Knowledge page order guidelines or the medical guidelines?" 5236:

The above proposals dismiss the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RFC. None above are satisfactory and are all medical listings. The

4737:; I came here because I thought it weird that an RfC would have "alternate phrasing". Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate 4486:

Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category?

4042:

I think the "reading between the lines" idea isnt helpful to anyone. I dont think its a good motivation for any edits. No one is a mind reader.

3352:. The discussion has been way too polarized, there is too much focus on "winning", and we've spent too much time arguing about symbolic issues. 1496:

in this case. Levelledout is also making a good point while explaining how EU has declined to classify electronic cigarettes as medical products

5402: 2684: 1235: 1069: 1005: 988: 458: 4836:

order. I think the medical order is a good start even if it is not the best fit for this article, just because it is an well-developed model.

1311:

Untrue re the EU - see above. In the UK they certainly are sold in pharmacies and at pharmacy counters; that is where you normally find them.

3329:

I think most people understood the issues here. I am new to this page and I did. We have had a neutrally worded RfC, let us stick with it.

3050: 1778: 602:

i'm missing something here. Are you saying that Knowledge can decide on its own what a product is or isn't? Has the FDA rejected approval? --

3840:. I don't think that it should be off the agenda so to speak to discuss exactly why it is of such enormous importance to some editors that 2449:

But the request is only going to medical editors. It should be in the widest pool. Its like the mouse guarding the cheese. The article was

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1554:

issues that need to be remedied; moving the "Health effects" section to the bottom of the article where it belongs would be a good start.

5192:

I suggest we stop trying to cram a square peg into a round hole and recognize the reality that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology (

2900:

Seem like that is exactly what you were trying to say. Perhaps you should re-phrase your statement, but I come to the same conclusion,

5368:

You used the word "Standard order". Where did you get the standard? So far as I know, one does not exist. Did you design this yourself?

1369:

Pharmacies (at least here in Denmark) also sell shampoo (regular not specifically medical), does that make Shampoo a medical product? --

4828:

In my opinion, the discussions above have mostly been about "Is this a medical topic or not?" with people voting yes or no. There is a

4718:

The original RfC was neutrally worded and has got a good response. This is an attempt to reword it in a non-neutral way. Let it run.

3418:

is a useful measure in applying/limiting the amount of content there should be in individual non-similar sections, that is why we have

294:

This RfC is sort of artificial because it does not separate the meaning e-cig (usage of) and e-cig (device). More sources exist on the

1297:

Mind you: This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the health effects section, just that this at the heart isn't a medical article. --

1071:, where there is documentation that e-cigs are sold in all kinds of stores in the UK (the article is about selling to <18yo.'s). -- 4070:

But to mention something else that i realized today: Virtually all of the review articles that i've read about e-cigarettes (ie. all

1619:

Do you think it would be an alternative to split out the health content to an article "Health effects of the electronic cigarette"?

302:. However, this does not imply that the device itself is a priori medical (some analogy with a syringe). Why not split the article? 2680: 2131:

or other venues that deal with editor behavior. It is unacceptable to change article structure to avoid dealing with these issues.

1692:

It won't end the discussion on the health issues. But this discussion right now is in the section of an RfC raising the question if

1231: 1001: 984: 454: 4503:

Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or a consumer product like all other types of cigarettes?

3208:

about health; and b) most coverage in the media and in the biomedical literature (and there has been a lot of both) have discussed

4692:

in the medical category when its a consumer device and medical editors are not the only consumers. Its a subtle form of canvasing

4028:

benefits of vaping. Though neither may be huge, I think arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to which is greater.

3566:

Hmmm, I ought to search to see if they're used in Parkinson's and whether they have any unique role due to the controllable dosing

1363:. And yes, there are a few countries that sell them in pharmacies but as CheesyAppleFlake notes: Even there it is not the norm. -- 717:) does it this way. My conjecture is that they do so because it makes the paper flow better... ie. start with an understanding of 4518:

Should a consumer product, in which the article itself is not in the medical category, follow the page order for a medical device

730:

The lead of our article should include the basic information about construction necessary to provide context for later sections.

5354:

The discussion isnt about the content, but the order of the content.Taking everything from one source as you suggest isnt good.

2725:

Speaking of legal issues, US District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:09-cv-00771-RJL, 2010) ruled e-cigarettes were

2811:

I'm not quite sure how willful ignorance of court ruling having the power of law meets encyclopedic standards. Please explain.

2746:

Knowledge is not a court of law and our purposes and guidelines really have no reason to be in line with a given court ruling.

2480: 2433: 2389: 1153: 169: 127: 4968:

Here is a version which deletes the distinctly medical sections and pet use of e-cigarettes, but otherwise retains the order.

5620:

During the discussion of sections and page order Quack has been busy adding "medical" section to the page without consensus.

1986: 1763:. Since health is the princpal aspect of this topic in which POV matters, it needs to treated front & centre in the main 2406:

This RFC is to narrow and does not get to the heart of the matter, if the article should be in the medical category at all.

2024:." could mean here splitting and using all the energy consumed in unfruitful discussions for improvements and maintenance. 1929: 1360:

No, you are confusing the EU with member countries. I refer you to the TPD (tobacco products directive) of 2014 article 20

3350:

I think Jytdog has made some excellent points, and has nicely cut through the bullshit on both sides, as he so often does

2016:

Would someone take a minute and explain to me why this article cannot be split - disregarding article size and following

3628:, how much weight should content on health have in this article? Please !vote and provide reasons based on the policy. 1933: 4353:

main driver (or at any rate, purported driver...) of e-cigarette regulation. As I think I've said before on this page,

4023:

I'm sure you think that's silly, but that's my concern and it probably won't change just because you tell me I'm wrong.

4748: 2484: 2437: 2393: 1823: 1157: 173: 131: 3684:

states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text,

4308:

should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC

3304:

should health content get?" hm. Weight questions are notoriously difficult. But i think it we were to pose an RfC

664:

per Formerly 98, most reliable sources talk about the health effects of e-cigs rather than their recreational uses.

5593: 5585: 4654: 4642: 4610: 4563: 4076: 3727: 3672: 3494: 3433: 2868: 2777: 1504: 1410: 1370: 1364: 1335: 1298: 1292: 1170: 1072: 1065: 1035: 722: 603: 530: 393: 38: 3620:, per my comment above, may I suggest that you withdraw the RfC and start two new ones, along the following lines 2768:

Correct, but Knowledge doesn't invent its own classifications, we have to follow reality. Otherwise we'd be doing

1973:

It's a matter of definition and terminology. The electronic cigarette is not a medical device a priori. It can be

710:

it goes on to address chemistry, health effects etc. Even our most (over)used negative review paper (Grana et al.

4786:

I'm not sure that there is any "page order for consumer products", I think this probably falls under the general

1945: 1700:

article should be followed and a split could be an answer to it, i.e. applying MEDMOS to the split out article.

574: 47: 17: 5737: 1550:. The fact that the majority of sources the article uses are medical publications is one of a series of serious 1782: 1169:

And "th user" has also been active almost every day on this article. Sigh! What are you trying to imply Doc? --

1344:

Which part of supermarkets sells them then? The refillable tanks are mostly sold online, as far as I can see.

4723: 3821: 3457: 3334: 2211:

consider this "acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

1521: 1264: 917: 276:

people. I would be expanding the components section but constant editor disputes slows work on the article.

152:

It is clearly medical. All one needs to do is look at the sources available. Perfectly reasonable to follow

4638:

See BEK nr 1671 af 12/12/2013 §1 of "Bekendtgørelse for recepter" (law regarding ordination/prescription")

4572: 4559: 4276:

in the article citing a press release from AAPCC as the source. I find this goes against at least 2 of the

1406: 1331: 5665:

The issues I see with the low level headings is that they are the names of medical sections listed in the

5652: 5605: 5535: 5459: 5413: 5376: 5224: 5178: 4809: 4763: 4742: 4702: 4629: 4592: 4524: 4509: 4492: 4107: 4047: 4004: 3807: 3760: 3661: 3537: 2967: 2502: 2458: 2411: 2178: 2110: 2053: 1680: 1384: 1216: 1122:; that is, History first, then construction, types, usage, and last any controversy as to health effects. 961: 939: 839: 801: 783: 692: 348: 323: 281: 242: 3726:

about similar aspects, and the prominence of placement is mostly within sections/paragraphs/sentences. --

1912: 1822:

may not be a bad model, and there are no doubt others on categories of consumer goods. Just at a glance,

1000:" You would be able to buy devises at your local drugstore. But so far they stick with nicotine patches. 5345: 4795: 4542: 4425: 4396: 4362: 4265: 4221: 4092: 4033: 3987: 3928: 3905: 3890: 3875: 3745: 3693: 3378: 3059: 2941: 2637: 2594: 2563: 2525: 2208: 1831: 1559: 1529: 1500: 1443: 1201: 1086: 731: 621: 194: 5717:

a medical device. It would also me discounting the opinions of over half of the responders to the RFC.

2062:

The reason the health content may not be largely moved off into a subarticle is because of Knowledge's

3951:

are likely to provide constructive results at this stage in the discussion, for the reasons presented

2319: 2270: 2262: 2227: 2025: 2007: 1924:

This article is about a consumer product. This consumer product certainly has related medical issues.

1751: 1701: 1658: 1650: 1628: 1620: 1555: 334: 311: 303: 5743: 4576: 1764: 5114:

Here is my attempt to merge the medical order with the existing order. I like this ordering system.

3195:- so for those !voting "oppose" above, saying flatly that "e-cigs are not medical devices", this is 5788: 5753: 5700: 5554: 5203: 4463: 4377: 4289: 4257: 3964: 3273:

The article would be fine either way. I am interested to learn why other editors think it matters.

2958:. It even provides a lot of nicotine and even worse chemicals. Is it a medical device? How about a 2853: 2816: 2737: 2476: 2429: 2385: 2333: 2318:

should be followed with regard to a split based on article size (since it is not that large yet).

2216: 2038: 1958: 1894: 1543: 1184: 1149: 1127: 1060: 862: 670: 407: 381: 165: 123: 110:

Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at

3959:, but also because this discussion here appears to be already getting pretty close to resolution. 3711:

UNDUE is about. I think each section should be allowed to grow to the point where the article can

2936:. This is the question we should be looking at, based on the subject and structure of the article. 1572: 4719: 3817: 3453: 3391: 3330: 2163: 1949: 1937: 1925: 1873: 1741: 1666: 1636: 1601: 1593: 1260: 913: 853: 796:

The RFC is not about removing any information but the order of the sections already on the page.

411: 2589:

end. But for the next 2-4 years I think health issues will dominate the public discussion. JMHO

818: 551: 508: 1325:

No, that's not really the case. Boots and a few other chemists sell "cigalikes", but where you

5807: 5802: 5794: 5770: 5765: 5759: 5723: 5718: 5706: 5676: 5671: 5662: 5657: 5645: 5640: 5634: 5629: 5610: 5598: 5588: 5558: 5546: 5540: 5528: 5522: 5517: 5464: 5452: 5447: 5442: 5437: 5430: 5425: 5418: 5406: 5398: 5393: 5388: 5381: 5369: 5365: 5360: 5355: 5349: 5329: 5324: 5229: 5217: 5207: 5183: 5171: 4813: 4805: 4799: 4778: 4767: 4759: 4752: 4727: 4706: 4698: 4676: 4657: 4645: 4633: 4625: 4613: 4603: 4596: 4588: 4567: 4546: 4528: 4520: 4513: 4505: 4496: 4488: 4467: 4452: 4447: 4429: 4412: 4407: 4400: 4381: 4366: 4293: 4225: 4111: 4103: 4096: 4079: 4051: 4043: 4037: 4008: 4000: 3991: 3968: 3932: 3909: 3894: 3879: 3831: 3825: 3811: 3803: 3794: 3778: 3764: 3756: 3749: 3730: 3716: 3697: 3675: 3665: 3657: 3645: 3611: 3596: 3589: 3577: 3518: 3497: 3480: 3461: 3436: 3382: 3338: 3324: 3295: 3282: 3262: 3233: 3161: 3145: 3130: 3112: 3079: 3063: 3020: 2971: 2963: 2945: 2932:

sources. If the article isn't primarily medically related, then it isn't appropriate to apply

2909: 2893: 2871: 2857: 2842: 2820: 2806: 2780: 2763: 2741: 2688: 2641: 2624: 2613: 2598: 2581: 2572:

Well, neither of them is listed in project medicine yet all are effectively the same device.

2567: 2548: 2529: 2506: 2498: 2491: 2462: 2454: 2444: 2415: 2407: 2400: 2349: 2344: 2337: 2322: 2298: 2265: 2230: 2220: 2196: 2182: 2174: 2167: 2148: 2114: 2106: 2099: 2084: 2057: 2049: 2042: 2028: 2010: 1962: 1916: 1898: 1880: 1857: 1853: 1835: 1786: 1771: 1760: 1754: 1745: 1730: 1704: 1689: 1684: 1676: 1670: 1653: 1640: 1623: 1605: 1580: 1576: 1563: 1508: 1480: 1447: 1414: 1388: 1380: 1373: 1353: 1349: 1339: 1320: 1316: 1301: 1268: 1239: 1220: 1212: 1205: 1193: 1188: 1173: 1164: 1131: 1090: 1075: 1052: 1048: 1038: 1029: 1025: 1020:

In the UK pharmacy counters are where they are found; tobacco outlets very rarely carry them.

1009: 992: 965: 957: 943: 935: 921: 900: 866: 843: 835: 826: 805: 797: 787: 765: 738: 725: 711: 697: 685: 675: 656: 628: 606: 586: 582: 559: 533: 516: 498: 494: 481: 462: 436: 415: 396: 387: 352: 344: 337: 327: 319: 315: 306: 285: 277: 270: 246: 238: 225: 198: 180: 138: 5196: 5193: 4651: 4458:

trimmed and the health effects were handled sensibly, the little problems would be a breeze.

3947:

make a reasoned, balanced, and compelling argument. Finally, I don't think the two new RfC's

3816:

I agree. AlbinoFerret was indeed addressing article content and how it looks to our readers.

3250:, that is fine, but the consensus should be based on reasons why it matters. So I'll ask - 1057:

Why would that matter? Here's a couple of examples of tobacconists that sell e-cigs in the UK

5666: 5341: 4791: 4738: 4693: 4663: 4653:, so No. Doctors can't simply decide on their own what they want to prescribe in Denmark. -- 4639: 4538: 4421: 4392: 4358: 4324: 4315: 4305: 4247: 4217: 4088: 4029: 3983: 3924: 3901: 3886: 3871: 3851: 3847: 3790: 3741: 3689: 3641: 3625: 3514: 3476: 3467: 3415: 3408: 3374: 3320: 3311: 3301: 3278: 3258: 3229: 3221: 3213: 3157: 3126: 3118: 3096: 3088: 3055: 2937: 2933: 2925: 2921: 2633: 2590: 2559: 2521: 2311: 1928:

isn't a primarily medical article and resolves the issue by separating the information into

1827: 1693: 1589: 1525: 1439: 1430: 1361: 1197: 1082: 751: 706:

review, then the layout of those almost invariably describes the product/construction/usage

652: 643: 205: 190: 153: 111: 4071: 3860: 3712: 3681: 3653: 3506: 3419: 3404: 3400: 3356:

the article read like an article in a vaping enthusiast magazine or even a vendor website.

3141: 3108: 3075: 3012: 2951: 2929: 2917: 2905: 2885: 2834: 2798: 2786: 2755: 2609: 2577: 2544: 2536: 2307: 2290: 2140: 2124: 2095: 2076: 1722: 1488:

Electronin cigarette is a consumer device, not a medical one. Also, if you take a look at

1434: 896: 822: 703: 555: 512: 432: 262: 217: 3117:

sorry what do you mean "check yourself"? also would you please answer how you determine

3070:

order of their prevelance without any regard for how anyone would read about a subject.

4624:

continue this claim, then I suggest that you back up your claim with reliable sources.

2776:

what our policies say. Knowledge cannot on its own decide what a product is or isn't. --

1429:

claims about their products in many jurisdictions. Therefore medical guidelines such as

5782: 5747: 5694: 5550: 5199: 4620: 4584: 4459: 4440: 4373: 4285: 3978: 3960: 3586: 2849: 2812: 2733: 2730: 2620: 2554: 2468: 2421: 2377: 2329: 2278: 2212: 2063: 2034: 1954: 1944:

similarly have three paragraphs on the health effects which direct to the main article

1908: 1890: 1759:

The trouble is, as evidenced in the ongoing discussion, such a split would also risk a

1710: 1551: 1280: 1180: 1141: 1123: 1115: 858: 817:

Since it is a tobacco related product that hasn't been proven to cause no heath issues

779: 761: 665: 375: 189:

particular, scholarly ones are emphasizing. Right now, that's the health controversy.

157: 115: 5516:

We may have the start of a compromise. But please lose the rest of the medical order.

5118:

Medical order for products - shortened variation, merge with current problematic order

2195:

I understand the concern that the split of the "health section" could be construed as

2123:

processes. If there are behavior problems with editors they need to be worked out at

2020:. Applying the quote "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge, 5714: 4787: 4782: 4672: 4304:

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much

4281: 4269: 3837: 3782: 3706:. Where i don't agree is that on such a diverse topic as this, where we have several 3703: 3607: 3573: 3300:

thanks alexbrn! so it seems like the real underlying point of debate is: "How much

2315: 2274: 2159: 2128: 2017: 1866: 1737: 1662: 1645: 1632: 1616: 1597: 1476: 3857:

Any attempt to split the article from the health section must be vehemently opposed.

392:

Which editors think that e-cigs are harmless vapor? Or is that simply a strawman? --

4580: 4261: 3292: 2959: 2769: 2155: 2120: 1849: 1768: 1547: 1345: 1312: 1044: 1021: 597: 578: 547: 543: 538: 526: 490: 478: 5336:

Sure, why not? We could probably pull content fitting that outline directly from

3854:

page bear very little relevance to the article's subject and its current sections.

1826:

has some strong points (though over-emphasising individual brands), for example.

4260:

regarding e-cigarettes, enough to make what appears to be a quantitative (albeit

3091:

to give health concerns. How do you determine WEIGHT? (real question) thanks.

4320: 4277: 3974: 3786: 3637: 3617: 3510: 3487: 3472: 3316: 3274: 3254: 3225: 3217: 3153: 3122: 3092: 1058: 648: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4583:

as a muscle relaxant. If your doctor tells you to switch to e-cigs (e.g., for

5093:

Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)

5019:

Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)

4949:

Legal status (off-label use or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)

3241:

2 Use of guidelines: by framing it as "should MEDMOS apply", the question of

3137: 3104: 3084: 3071: 3005: 2901: 2878: 2827: 2791: 2748: 2605: 2573: 2540: 2303: 2283: 2273:, let me make sure I'm understanding correctly: You are suggesting we invoke 2253: 2133: 2091: 2069: 1715: 1539: 1111: 892: 428: 298:

of the e-cig because (for obvious reasons) there is more research done on the

255: 210: 1713:

and split off a topic just because there are editing disputes regarding it.

3863:

must be applied even when it isn't needed (such as to describe construction)

2955: 2451:

placed in the medical catagory by a editor that only edited medical articles

1941: 1819: 1517: 1493: 1489: 980: 953: 888: 774: 756: 253:

Your response provides excuses but doesn't counter my main points, does it?

3599: 3592: 2376:

As this is the third time we are discussing this about time to have a RfC.

714: 2002:(2. and 3.), but this does not make the device a medical device a priori. 4668: 4553:

But by that criteria a beer glass is also a medical device! E-cigarettes

3722:

From my view (and experience on other articles), i would say that DUE is

3603: 3569: 2631:

discussion, you're now a member and an outside observer no longer. :: -->

1472: 1288: 1062: 976: 949: 2866:

So because medical sources describe the medical aspects of e-cigs =: -->

5044:

Medical order for products - shortened variation, emphasizing mechanism

4418:

I dont think any editor on WP is for kids starting to use e-cigarettes.

2453:

without any discussion. It was not a medical article for over 4 years.

5670:

sections, he added them back, I edited the names, he added them back.

5403:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Home_Living#Manual_of_style_-_section_order

4387:

in place, it's usually an age restriction.) I stress that this is the

2928:

is a style guideline for medical articles that has nothing to do with

5078:

Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)

5004:

Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)

4937:

Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)

3204:. And a) most regulatory bodies that have said anything, have said 3121:(regardless of what you think Formerly was talking about). thanks! 2067:

health-related topics must feature prominently in the main article.

1844: 1284: 1468:

of the sacrifice our society has made on Moloch's capitalist altar!)

3973:

I don't know if he will accept the task, but I propose that we ask

2467:

It is a math science and technology RfC. There is no medicine RfC.

750:. Strongly agree that topic is medical in nature and should follow 721:, and then gradually move towards reviewing the health material. -- 5401:

I have looked for a standard on products and even proposed one at

4256:- I find this rather problematic. It seems to me you already have 884: 3452:

claims in a way that shows that there is some dispute over them.

2207:

to a separate article without causing NPOV problems in the main.

2627:

In any case it is clear that we will not agree. Welcome to the

2119:

If there are content issues, they need to be resolved using the

1538:

Electronic cigarettes are as much of a medical topic as regular

1227:

Yobol, who stands with the "med-crowd" received the same message

1119: 5728:

But the source says "...e-cigarettes have been classified as “

3602:, Parkinson's disease simply makes it easier to quit smoking! 1138:

This user was requested to particpate a few hours easier here

25: 5764:

There is no consensus for it. Leave the RFC run its course.

5340:. Would save us all the trouble of developing new content. 4177:

Rata-tat-tat-tat ▻▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ ௐ ௐ

3246:

mindlessly, and if local consensus develops to not use them

2920:

compliant sources out there, it does not really follow that

1068:

01:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - you may also want to see this

3834:

was raising a valid point that relates to article content.

702:

Isn't it interesting that whenever you pick up a secondary

5337: 4345:

there is any evidence to support its existence, this is a

3396:

This will probably be in the TLDR domain, but here we go:

3369:

I'd like to hear a reasonably concise summary of what the

2619:

friends, co-workers, and family) are is the standard that

4804:

I will adjust it a little more to address your concerns.

3846:

The rest of the sections must be structured according to

2420:

The first bit is a question of "is this article medical"

2033:

That's a good question, and a very good suggestion, IMO.

1287:

is not a pharmacological product, even if it can contain

424:

You may want to check your printer paper, it may contain

5690: 5625: 5621: 4734: 4280:, many general WP policies, and pretty much everything 4273: 4253: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3945: 3942: 3939: 2450: 2200: 1497: 1226: 1139: 3652:

other than a health section on any page is subject to

3636:

I would be happy to launch the new ones, if you like.

3252:

Why does it matter to folks which section comes first?

3187:- the RfC is unfortunately framed, for two reasons. 546:, most editorial decisions made here on Knowledge are 316:

my original discussion I started on the classification

5584:

part being the political and sociological aspects. --

3680:

Kim and AlbinoFerret, I disagree somewhat with you.

4579:

diets and exercise. I know of one who "prescribed"

1499:. This is something we certainly should not ignore. 1211:

I had a good feeling would support this biased RFC.

5170:Does anyone else have any ideas for ordering this? 3049:, and the majority of academic papers published in 3471:in your 2nd paragraph squares with that? Thanks. 3269:my answer to my own question, by the way, is that 4906:Here is the standard order for medical products. 4830:manual of style for section ordering for medicine 4355:influential ideas are important even if erroneous 4198:ௐ ௐ.ௐ .ௐ ௐ.ௐ ௐ ௐ ..ௐ ௐௐ ..ௐ ௐௐௐ.. ௐ 3087:, formerly is making an argument about how much 577:, let alone be available without a prescription. 525:Curious Yobol - what you are saying is basically 208:is clearly the appropriate guideline for layout. 4972:Medical order for products - shortened variation 4735:posted the alternate wording to the village pump 1516:- This is an electronic cigarette. It is not an 983:should be the guide to place it in proper order. 4188:▻ ▻ ▻ ▻ ▻▻ ▻▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ...ௐ. ௐ 3568:... I think I'm about done with this anyway :) 2604:does not justify illogical article structure. 4191:▻▻ ▻ ▻▻▻ ▻▻ ▻ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ⋊∋∘ ௐ ௐ . ௐ 3702:I agree with all of things that you cite from 2867:medical. Erh? Something here went circular. -- 834:Summoned here by bot. Clearly health-related. 4587:), then e-cigs have been prescribed to you. 2924:should be applied. As I'm sure you are aware 2825:Be happy to reply when you address my point. 8: 3843:The health/medical section must appear first 3224:) 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (added a bit 204:now is built on: medical journal articles), 1981:their presentation or function is medical: 620:making "Health effects" the first section. 5083:Frequency of use (how commonly is it used) 5009:Frequency of use (how commonly is it used) 4940:Frequency of use (how commonly is it used) 3836:I do think that it is import to maintain 1064:, not particularly difficult to find. -- 4158:ௐ ௐௐ ... ௐ ௐ. ௐ .. ௐ ௐ .. ௐ ..ௐௐ 3414:On the other hand, i do not agree that 2489:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 2442:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 2398:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 1162:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 489:Essentially a medical-related product. 178:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 136:(if I write on your page reply on mine) 5597:history comes before uses and design? 5130:Adverse effects (including withdrawal) 5061:Adverse effects (including withdrawal) 4984:Adverse effects (including withdrawal) 4922:Adverse effects (including withdrawal) 4303: 406:This is not a brand of printer paper. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5290:taking into account support responses 3466:Kim, with regard to your comments on 912:for the reasons that Arzel provides. 7: 5545:I too support the order proposed by 5286:Modified order for other cigarettes 5244:Standard order for other cigarettes 4662:A parallel situation has to do with 156:as it has been doing for some time. 5477:If the order you are suggesting is 5240:is not listed as a medical device. 4840:Here is the current section order. 3152:this is not productive. stopping. 24: 5744:Electronic cigarette#Legal status 5685:Medical device according to MEDRS 5074:Physical and chemical properties 5000:Physical and chemical properties 4934:Physical and chemical properties 4484:New version to address concerns: 4075:flow in the article is wrong. -- 3850:even though the sections on the 29: 3595:. One reason: as described in 4733:Just a note that AlbinoFerret 4327:) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3212:issues. (As a side note, per 2203:above), which was forked as a 1767:article and not pushed aside. 1: 5808:07:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC) 5795:06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) 5771:01:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 5760:00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 5724:14:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 5707:08:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 5677:18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 5658:18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 5065:Overdose (including toxicity) 4988:Overdose (including toxicity) 4925:Overdose (including toxicity) 4480:Alternate Phrasing of the RFC 4468:13:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 4453:01:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 4430:08:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 4413:01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 4401:18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 4382:18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 4367:18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 4349:issue in that it is arguably 2350:00:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 2338:17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 2314:. I was suggesting only that 1963:17:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 1930:Short-term effects of alcohol 1917:22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC) 1899:07:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 1367:14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1295:12:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 867:19:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 844:17:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 5635:22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5611:16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5589:22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5559:22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5541:21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5523:20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5465:16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 5443:18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5431:17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5419:15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5394:15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5382:15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5361:15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5350:15:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5330:14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5230:14:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 5208:22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 5184:19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 4814:17:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4800:16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4768:14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4753:13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4728:09:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4707:15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4677:18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4658:01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4646:00:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4634:19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4614:18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4597:17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4568:14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4547:14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4529:14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4514:14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 4497:17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4294:04:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 4226:00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 4112:22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4097:21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4080:20:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4052:20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4038:20:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 4009:19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3992:19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3969:19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3933:18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3910:22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3895:19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3880:19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3826:18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3812:17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3795:17:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3765:16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3750:16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3731:16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3698:16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3676:15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3666:15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3646:15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3612:15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3578:14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3519:15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3498:14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3481:14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3462:14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3437:13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3383:13:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3339:13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3325:12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3296:10:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3283:10:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3263:10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3234:12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3162:18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3146:15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3131:13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3113:13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3080:13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3064:03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 3021:01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 2972:01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 2946:04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2910:13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2894:03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2872:03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2858:04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2843:03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2821:03:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2807:02:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2781:02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2764:01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 2742:07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2689:05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2642:05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2614:05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2599:05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2582:04:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2568:04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2549:04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2539:that they are bad for you. 2530:04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2507:04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2492:04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2463:04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2445:04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2416:04:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2401:03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 2323:20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2299:20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2266:19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2231:20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2221:18:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2209:Knowledge content guidelines 2183:16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2168:15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2149:15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2115:15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2100:14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2085:14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 2058:22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 2043:16:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 2029:16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 2011:15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1934:Long-term effects of alcohol 1881:04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 1858:08:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 1836:11:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 1787:11:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC) 1772:18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC) 1755:17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) 1746:15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) 1731:14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1705:19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1685:14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1671:14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1654:14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1641:02:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 1624:22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 1606:15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) 1581:03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 1564:03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 1509:17:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1481:14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1448:14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1423:and readily being discussed. 1415:14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1389:01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 1374:14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1354:01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1340:13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1321:13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1302:13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1269:11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1240:00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1221:23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1206:22:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1196:apparently had some doubts. 1189:20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1174:20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1165:20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1132:07:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1091:01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1076:02:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1053:01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1039:14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1034:That is simply incorrect. -- 1030:13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1010:04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 993:04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 966:17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 944:04:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 922:11:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 901:04:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 827:17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 806:12:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 788:10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 766:19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 739:12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 726:19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 698:17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 676:13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 657:13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 629:10:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 607:02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 587:21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 560:13:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 534:02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 517:15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 499:13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 482:05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 463:07:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 437:05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 416:05:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 397:12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 388:05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 353:14:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 338:18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 328:23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 307:20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 286:12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 271:01:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 247:04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 226:04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 199:04:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 181:03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 139:03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 1824:Mobile digital media player 998:primarily medical in nature 5824: 4910:Medical order for products 4844:Current problematic option 3830:I also have to agree that 2497:product with nicotine is. 314:I did suggest that in the 4420:Er, well, no - nor do I! 2916:Simply because there are 1946:Health effects of tobacco 1592:- and more particularly, 18:Talk:Electronic cigarette 2876:Not what I said either. 1283:isn't a medical device, 3686:prominence of placement 3185:COMMENTS and a question 1522:central venous catheter 5693:in certain countries. 4781:, the advice given at 3538:Acute flaccid myelitis 5730:drug delivery devices 5594:KimDabelsteinPetersen 996:BTW: If it would be " 42:of past discussions. 5507:Related technologies 5496:Society and culture 5317:Related technologies 5306:Society and culture 5274:Related technologies 5263:Society and culture 5164:Related technologies 5150:Society and culture 5090:Society and culture 5016:Society and culture 4946:Society and culture 4901:Related technologies 4890:Society and culture 1765:Electronic cigarette 1043:And you live where? 449:That's a good one. * 106:Ordering of sections 5549:immediately above. 5051:Mechanism of action 4997:Mechanism of action 4931:Mechanism of action 3248:or depart from them 3180:Not so random break 3035:Wall Street Journal 2277:to avoid following 1709:We may not violate 1544:alcoholic beverages 5289: 5247: 4853:Smoking cessation 4824:Workable proposals 4519: 4504: 4274:inserted some text 3715:and the sub-topic 3624:1) Per the policy 3567: 3271:it doesn't matter. 2630: 1938:Alcohol and health 1926:Alcoholic Beverage 5287: 5245: 5127:Contraindications 5058:Contraindications 4981:Contraindications 4919:Contraindications 4744:Orange Suede Sofa 4517: 4502: 4500:Previous versions 4258:made up your mind 3565: 3395: 2628: 2490: 2443: 2399: 1992: 1469: 1455:Very vague oppose 1376: 1304: 1163: 642:in letter. The 179: 137: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5815: 5805: 5791: 5785: 5768: 5756: 5750: 5721: 5703: 5697: 5674: 5655: 5650: 5632: 5608: 5603: 5538: 5533: 5520: 5462: 5457: 5440: 5428: 5416: 5411: 5391: 5379: 5374: 5358: 5327: 5288:Consumer product 5246:Consumer product 5227: 5222: 5181: 5176: 5096:Recreational use 5022:Recreational use 4952:Recreational use 4745: 4664:medical cannabis 4607: 4573:CheesyAppleFlake 4560:CheesyAppleFlake 4450: 4444: 4410: 4299:WP:Weight Issues 4251: 3491: 3389: 3019: 3017: 3010: 2892: 2890: 2883: 2841: 2839: 2832: 2805: 2803: 2796: 2772:. Remember that 2762: 2760: 2753: 2729:medical devices 2488: 2473: 2441: 2426: 2397: 2382: 2347: 2297: 2295: 2288: 2147: 2145: 2138: 2083: 2081: 2074: 1989: 1948:. Not Also that 1876: 1869: 1729: 1727: 1720: 1501:Jayaguru-Shishya 1463: 1407:CheesyAppleFlake 1368: 1332:CheesyAppleFlake 1296: 1161: 1146: 777: 695: 690: 673: 668: 601: 384: 378: 269: 267: 260: 224: 222: 215: 177: 162: 135: 120: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5823: 5822: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5803: 5789: 5783: 5766: 5754: 5748: 5719: 5701: 5695: 5687: 5672: 5653: 5646: 5630: 5626:Adverse effects 5606: 5599: 5586:Kim D. Petersen 5536: 5529: 5518: 5460: 5453: 5438: 5426: 5414: 5407: 5389: 5377: 5370: 5356: 5325: 5225: 5218: 5179: 5172: 4826: 4743: 4655:Kim D. Petersen 4643:Kim D. Petersen 4611:Kim D. Petersen 4601: 4482: 4448: 4438: 4408: 4301: 4254:your post above 4245: 4077:Kim D. Petersen 3866: 3728:Kim D. Petersen 3673:Kim D. Petersen 3495:Kim D. Petersen 3485: 3434:Kim D. Petersen 3182: 3047:Times of London 3013: 3006: 3004: 2886: 2879: 2877: 2869:Kim D. Petersen 2835: 2828: 2826: 2799: 2792: 2790: 2778:Kim D. Petersen 2756: 2749: 2747: 2469: 2422: 2378: 2374: 2345: 2291: 2284: 2282: 2141: 2134: 2132: 2077: 2070: 2068: 1971: 1874: 1867: 1779:191.187.236.240 1723: 1716: 1714: 1371:Kim D. Petersen 1365:Kim D. Petersen 1299:Kim D. Petersen 1293:Kim D. Petersen 1171:Kim D. Petersen 1142: 1073:Kim D. Petersen 1066:Kim D. Petersen 1036:Kim D. Petersen 877: 775: 723:Kim D. Petersen 693: 686: 671: 666: 604:Kim D. Petersen 595: 531:Kim D. Petersen 394:Kim D. Petersen 382: 376: 263: 256: 254: 218: 211: 209: 158: 146: 116: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5821: 5819: 5811: 5810: 5778: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5739: 5736:countries,..." 5691:medical device 5686: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5648:Blue Rasberry 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5601:Blue Rasberry 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5531:Blue Rasberry 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5500: 5494: 5491: 5490:Health effects 5488: 5485: 5475: 5471: 5455:Blue Rasberry 5433: 5409:Blue Rasberry 5372:Blue Rasberry 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5310: 5304: 5301: 5298: 5297:Health effects 5295: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5267: 5261: 5258: 5257:Health effects 5255: 5252: 5233: 5232: 5220:Blue Rasberry 5212: 5211: 5174:Blue Rasberry 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5154: 5148: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5140: 5137: 5131: 5128: 5125: 5121: 5120: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5108:Veterinary use 5105: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5097: 5094: 5088: 5085: 5080: 5075: 5072: 5067: 5062: 5059: 5056: 5053: 5047: 5046: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5034:Veterinary use 5031: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5023: 5020: 5014: 5011: 5006: 5001: 4998: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4982: 4979: 4975: 4974: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963:Veterinary use 4961: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4953: 4950: 4944: 4941: 4938: 4935: 4932: 4929: 4926: 4923: 4920: 4917: 4913: 4912: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4894: 4888: 4885: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4877: 4874: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4863: 4860: 4857: 4856:Harm reduction 4851: 4850:Health effects 4847: 4846: 4825: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4648: 4621:The dictionary 4585:harm reduction 4516: 4501: 4499: 4481: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4300: 4297: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4189: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4068: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4024: 4021: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3867: 3865: 3864: 3858: 3855: 3844: 3835: 3828: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3737: 3720: 3668: 3634: 3633: 3629: 3615: 3614: 3581: 3580: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3412: 3386: 3385: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3266: 3265: 3243:why it matters 3238: 3237: 3181: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3051:Google Scholar 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2948: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2373: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2046: 1995: 1994: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1919: 1901: 1883: 1860: 1838: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1707: 1609: 1608: 1583: 1566: 1533: 1511: 1483: 1451: 1450: 1425: 1424: 1417: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1306: 1305: 1281:Coffee machine 1272: 1271: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1176: 1116:vacuum cleaner 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1078: 1013: 1012: 995: 970: 969: 968: 927: 926: 925: 924: 904: 903: 876: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 847: 846: 829: 811: 810: 809: 808: 791: 790: 768: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 688:Blue Rasberry 678: 659: 638:in spirit but 632: 631: 612: 611: 610: 609: 590: 589: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 520: 519: 501: 484: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 442: 441: 440: 439: 419: 418: 401: 400: 399: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 229: 228: 201: 183: 145: 142: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5820: 5809: 5806: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5792: 5786: 5772: 5769: 5763: 5762: 5761: 5757: 5751: 5745: 5740: 5738: 5735: 5731: 5727: 5726: 5725: 5722: 5716: 5715:Walking stick 5711: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5704: 5698: 5692: 5684: 5678: 5675: 5668: 5664: 5661: 5660: 5659: 5656: 5651: 5649: 5642: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5633: 5627: 5623: 5612: 5609: 5604: 5602: 5595: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5587: 5582: 5560: 5556: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5539: 5534: 5532: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5521: 5515: 5506: 5501: 5498: 5497: 5495: 5492: 5489: 5486: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5463: 5458: 5456: 5449: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5441: 5434: 5432: 5429: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5417: 5412: 5410: 5404: 5400: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5392: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5380: 5375: 5373: 5367: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5359: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5328: 5323: 5316: 5311: 5308: 5307: 5305: 5302: 5299: 5296: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5273: 5268: 5265: 5264: 5262: 5259: 5256: 5253: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5242: 5241: 5239: 5235: 5234: 5231: 5228: 5223: 5221: 5214: 5213: 5210: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5197: 5194: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5182: 5177: 5175: 5163: 5160: 5155: 5152: 5151: 5149: 5146: 5141: 5138: 5135: 5134: 5133:Construction 5132: 5129: 5126: 5123: 5122: 5119: 5116: 5115: 5113: 5109: 5106: 5103: 5098: 5095: 5092: 5091: 5089: 5086: 5084: 5081: 5079: 5076: 5073: 5071: 5068: 5066: 5063: 5060: 5057: 5054: 5052: 5049: 5048: 5045: 5042: 5041: 5039: 5035: 5032: 5029: 5024: 5021: 5018: 5017: 5015: 5012: 5010: 5007: 5005: 5002: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4989: 4986: 4983: 4980: 4977: 4976: 4973: 4970: 4969: 4967: 4962: 4959: 4954: 4951: 4948: 4947: 4945: 4942: 4939: 4936: 4933: 4930: 4927: 4924: 4921: 4918: 4915: 4914: 4911: 4908: 4907: 4905: 4900: 4895: 4892: 4891: 4889: 4886: 4883: 4878: 4875: 4872: 4871: 4870:Construction 4869: 4864: 4861: 4858: 4855: 4854: 4852: 4849: 4848: 4845: 4842: 4841: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4833: 4831: 4823: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4784: 4780: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4720:Martin Hogbin 4708: 4704: 4700: 4695: 4690: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4656: 4652: 4649: 4647: 4644: 4640: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4622: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4612: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4581:whiskey sours 4578: 4574: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4487: 4479: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4451: 4442: 4437: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4411: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4317: 4313: 4310:based on the 4307: 4298: 4296: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4249: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4216: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4190: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4176: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4025: 4022: 4018: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3980: 3977:to prepare a 3976: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3921: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3868: 3862: 3859: 3856: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3842: 3841: 3839: 3833: 3829: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818:Martin Hogbin 3815: 3814: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3674: 3669: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3619: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3598: 3594: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3563: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3543: 3539: 3534: 3533: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3496: 3489: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3469: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3454:Martin Hogbin 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3430: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3393: 3392:edit conflict 3388: 3387: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3351: 3348: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3331:Martin Hogbin 3328: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3306:based on the 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3186: 3179: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3043:The Economist 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3016: 3011: 3009: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2891: 2889: 2884: 2882: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2865: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2840: 2838: 2833: 2831: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2802: 2797: 2795: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2759: 2754: 2752: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2472: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2425: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2381: 2371: 2351: 2348: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2289: 2287: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2232: 2229: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2144: 2139: 2137: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2080: 2075: 2073: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2003: 2001: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1980: 1976: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1870: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1726: 1721: 1719: 1712: 1708: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1467: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1405:themselves.-- 1403: 1400: 1399: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1375: 1372: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1300: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261:Martin Hogbin 1258: 1255: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1145: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1077: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1061: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 932: 929: 928: 923: 919: 915: 914:Willhesucceed 911: 908: 907: 906: 905: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 879: 878: 874: 868: 864: 860: 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 845: 841: 837: 833: 830: 828: 824: 820: 816: 813: 812: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794: 793: 792: 789: 785: 781: 778: 772: 769: 767: 763: 759: 758: 753: 749: 746: 740: 737: 735: 729: 728: 727: 724: 720: 716: 713: 709: 705: 701: 700: 699: 696: 691: 689: 682: 679: 677: 674: 669: 663: 660: 658: 654: 650: 645: 641: 637: 634: 633: 630: 627: 625: 619: 614: 613: 608: 605: 599: 594: 593: 592: 591: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 568: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 540: 537: 536: 535: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 521: 518: 514: 510: 505: 502: 500: 496: 492: 488: 485: 483: 480: 475: 472: 471: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 438: 434: 430: 427: 423: 422: 421: 420: 417: 413: 409: 405: 402: 398: 395: 391: 390: 389: 385: 379: 373: 370: 369: 354: 350: 346: 341: 340: 339: 336: 331: 330: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 310: 309: 308: 305: 301: 297: 293: 287: 283: 279: 274: 273: 272: 268: 266: 261: 259: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 227: 223: 221: 216: 214: 207: 202: 200: 196: 192: 187: 184: 182: 175: 171: 167: 163: 161: 155: 151: 148: 147: 143: 141: 140: 133: 129: 125: 121: 119: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5804:AlbinoFerret 5779: 5767:AlbinoFerret 5733: 5729: 5720:AlbinoFerret 5688: 5673:AlbinoFerret 5663:Bluerasberry 5647: 5641:AlbinoFerret 5631:AlbinoFerret 5628:were added. 5619: 5600: 5547:AlbinoFerret 5530: 5519:AlbinoFerret 5499:Legal status 5487:Construction 5454: 5448:AlbinoFerret 5439:AlbinoFerret 5427:AlbinoFerret 5408: 5399:AlbinoFerret 5390:AlbinoFerret 5371: 5366:AlbinoFerret 5357:AlbinoFerret 5326:AlbinoFerret 5309:Legal status 5300:Construction 5285: 5266:Legal status 5254:Construction 5243: 5237: 5219: 5191: 5173: 5169: 5153:Legal status 5117: 5107: 5082: 5077: 5070:Interactions 5069: 5064: 5055:Medical uses 5050: 5043: 5033: 5008: 5003: 4993:Interactions 4992: 4987: 4978:Medical uses 4971: 4928:Interactions 4916:Medical uses 4909: 4893:Legal status 4843: 4834: 4827: 4806:AlbinoFerret 4779:AlbinoFerret 4760:AlbinoFerret 4717: 4699:AlbinoFerret 4626:WhatamIdoing 4604:WhatamIdoing 4589:WhatamIdoing 4554: 4521:AlbinoFerret 4506:AlbinoFerret 4489:AlbinoFerret 4485: 4483: 4449:AlbinoFerret 4417: 4409:AlbinoFerret 4388: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4311: 4309: 4302: 4284:stands for. 4244: 4104:AlbinoFerret 4044:AlbinoFerret 4001:AlbinoFerret 3832:AlbinoFerret 3804:AlbinoFerret 3779:AlbinoFerret 3777: 3757:AlbinoFerret 3723: 3707: 3685: 3658:AlbinoFerret 3635: 3616: 3561: 3541: 3509:are likely! 3370: 3349: 3307: 3305: 3288: 3270: 3251: 3247: 3242: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3196: 3192: 3184: 3183: 3024: 3014: 3007: 3002: 2964:AlbinoFerret 2960:Tobacco pipe 2887: 2880: 2836: 2829: 2800: 2793: 2773: 2757: 2750: 2726: 2499:AlbinoFerret 2470: 2455:AlbinoFerret 2423: 2408:AlbinoFerret 2379: 2375: 2346:AlbinoFerret 2292: 2285: 2258: 2205:content fork 2204: 2175:AlbinoFerret 2142: 2135: 2107:AlbinoFerret 2078: 2071: 2050:AlbinoFerret 2021: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1978: 1974: 1972: 1921: 1903: 1885: 1872: 1871: 1862: 1840: 1815: 1724: 1717: 1697: 1690:AlbinoFerret 1677:AlbinoFerret 1585: 1568: 1548:potato chips 1535: 1513: 1485: 1465: 1458: 1454: 1419: 1401: 1381:AlbinoFerret 1326: 1275: 1256: 1213:AlbinoFerret 1194:AlbinoFerret 1143: 1107: 997: 972: 958:WhatamIdoing 936:AlbinoFerret 930: 909: 880: 836:Coretheapple 831: 814: 798:AlbinoFerret 770: 755: 747: 733: 718: 707: 687: 680: 661: 639: 635: 623: 617: 570: 503: 486: 473: 450: 403: 371: 345:AlbinoFerret 320:AlbinoFerret 299: 295: 278:AlbinoFerret 264: 257: 239:AlbinoFerret 219: 212: 185: 159: 149: 117: 109: 78: 43: 37: 5342:Formerly 98 4792:Levelledout 4577:"prescribe" 4539:Formerly 98 4422:Barnabypage 4393:Barnabypage 4359:Barnabypage 4248:Formerly 98 4218:Formerly 98 4089:Formerly 98 4030:Formerly 98 3984:Formerly 98 3925:Formerly 98 3902:Levelledout 3887:Formerly 98 3872:Levelledout 3742:Formerly 98 3690:Formerly 98 3375:Formerly 98 3360:compromise. 3056:Formerly 98 2938:Levelledout 2634:Formerly 98 2591:Formerly 98 2560:Formerly 98 2522:Formerly 98 2271:Jophiel 123 1950:WP:MEDORDER 1828:Barnabypage 1594:WP:MEDORDER 1556:Iaritmioawp 1526:A1candidate 1440:Levelledout 1438:guidelines. 1198:Formerly 98 1083:Levelledout 854:WP:NOTAVOTE 575:schedule II 191:Formerly 98 36:This is an 5689:This is a 5622:Toxicology 4739:canvassing 4389:regulatory 4252:regarding 3785:. Thanks. 3717:summarized 3542:historical 2950:There are 2625:WP:BALASPS 2197:WP:POVFORK 1761:WP:POVFORK 1588:. Even if 1540:cigarettes 1330:product.-- 1112:humidifier 719:what it is 672:talk to me 98:Archive 20 90:Archive 18 85:Archive 17 79:Archive 16 73:Archive 15 68:Archive 14 60:Archive 10 5784:QuackGuru 5749:QuackGuru 5696:QuackGuru 5667:WP:MEDMOS 5551:Mihaister 5502:Economics 5312:Economics 5269:Economics 5200:Mihaister 5156:Economics 5099:Economics 5025:Economics 4955:Economics 4896:Economics 4865:Addiction 4694:WP:CANVAS 4460:SPACKlick 4441:SPACKlick 4374:SPACKlick 4316:WP:WEIGHT 4306:WP:WEIGHT 4286:Mihaister 4067:material. 3961:Mihaister 3852:WP:MEDMOS 3848:WP:MEDMOS 3626:WP:WEIGHT 3507:WP:SPLITs 3468:WP:WEIGHT 3416:WP:WEIGHT 3409:WP:MEDMOS 3312:WP:WEIGHT 3302:WP:WEIGHT 3214:WP:WEIGHT 3206:something 3119:WP:WEIGHT 3089:WP:WEIGHT 2956:Cigarette 2952:WP:MEDRS 2934:WP:MEDMOS 2926:WP:MEDMOS 2922:WP:MEDMOS 2850:Mihaister 2813:Mihaister 2734:Mihaister 2471:Doc James 2424:Doc James 2380:Doc James 2330:SPACKlick 2312:WP:MEDMOS 2213:Mihaister 2035:Mihaister 2022:ignore it 1955:SPACKlick 1942:Cigarette 1909:Entropy72 1891:The Gnome 1820:Cigarette 1694:WP:MEDMOS 1590:WP:MEDMOS 1518:endoscope 1494:cigarette 1490:cigarette 1466:magnitude 1431:WP:MEDMOS 1181:Mihaister 1144:Doc James 1124:Mihaister 981:cigarette 954:Nicorette 889:Cigarette 859:SPACKlick 752:WP:MEDMOS 667:Jinkinson 644:WP:WEIGHT 377:QuackGuru 206:WP:MEDMOS 160:Doc James 154:WP:MEDMOS 118:Doc James 112:WP:MEDMOS 5161:Research 5142:E-liquid 5136:Atomizer 5104:Research 5030:Research 4960:Research 4879:E-liquid 4873:Atomizer 4266:advocate 4072:WP:MEDRS 3949:proposed 3870:article. 3861:WP:MEDRS 3713:WP:SPLIT 3682:WP:UNDUE 3654:WP:MEDRS 3600:25217056 3593:24753353 3420:WP:SPLIT 3405:WP:MEDRS 3197:not true 3193:are some 3027:CBS News 2930:WP:MEDRS 2918:WP:MEDRS 2787:WP:MEDRS 2629:argument 2481:contribs 2434:contribs 2390:contribs 2308:WP:CFORK 2160:Ca2james 2125:WP:RFC/U 1750:Agree. 1738:Ca2james 1663:Ca2james 1646:Ca2james 1633:Ca2james 1617:Ca2james 1598:Ca2james 1435:WP:MEDRS 1327:normally 1289:Caffeine 1154:contribs 977:asbestos 950:Nicoderm 715:24821826 704:WP:MEDRS 408:Cloudjpk 170:contribs 128:contribs 5734:several 5493:History 5294:History 5251:History 5238:article 5190:Really? 5147:History 5087:History 5013:History 4943:History 4887:History 4862:Aerosol 3979:WP:BOLD 3708:diverse 3442:object. 3293:Alexbrn 3031:NYTimes 2621:WP:NPOV 2555:WP:NPOV 2372:Discuss 2320:Jophiel 2279:WP:NPOV 2263:Jophiel 2228:Jophiel 2064:WP:NPOV 2026:Jophiel 2008:Jophiel 1969:Neutral 1850:Maproom 1769:Alexbrn 1752:Jophiel 1711:WP:NPOV 1702:Jophiel 1659:Jophiel 1651:Jophiel 1629:Jophiel 1621:Jophiel 1573:Doors22 1552:WP:NPOV 1346:Johnbod 1313:Johnbod 1279:then a 1230:report. 1045:Johnbod 1022:Johnbod 832:Support 815:Support 771:Support 748:Support 732:Adrian 681:Support 662:Support 636:Support 622:Adrian 618:support 598:Jim1138 579:Jim1138 571:Support 504:Support 491:Johnbod 487:Support 479:Alexbrn 474:Support 404:Support 372:Support 335:Jophiel 312:Jophiel 304:Jophiel 186:Support 150:Support 144:Support 39:archive 5654:(talk) 5607:(talk) 5537:(talk) 5461:(talk) 5415:(talk) 5378:(talk) 5226:(talk) 5180:(talk) 4859:Safety 4788:WP:MOS 4783:WP:RFC 4558:are.-- 4555:aren't 4321:Jytdog 4312:policy 4282:WP:MED 4270:WP:POV 3975:Jytdog 3944:, and 3900:stage. 3885:found. 3838:WP:AGF 3787:Jytdog 3783:WP:TPG 3724:mostly 3704:WP:DUE 3638:Jytdog 3618:Jmh649 3511:Jytdog 3488:Jytdog 3473:Jytdog 3317:Jytdog 3308:policy 3275:Jytdog 3255:Jytdog 3226:Jytdog 3218:Jytdog 3210:health 3202:health 3154:Jytdog 3123:Jytdog 3093:Jytdog 3045:, the 3039:Forbes 3033:, the 3029:, the 2623:sets. 2316:WP:IAR 2275:WP:IAR 2129:WP:ANI 2018:WP:IAR 1979:unless 1922:Oppose 1904:Oppose 1886:Oppose 1868:Jayron 1863:Oppose 1845:whisky 1841:Oppose 1816:Oppose 1586:Oppose 1569:Oppose 1536:Oppose 1514:Oppose 1486:Oppose 1420:Oppose 1402:Oppose 1285:Coffee 1276:Oppose 1257:Oppose 1108:Oppose 973:Oppose 931:Oppose 910:Oppose 881:Oppose 875:Oppose 819:Avono♂ 736:Hunter 708:before 694:(talk) 649:Jytdog 626:Hunter 5732:” in 5484:Usage 5303:Usage 5260:Usage 5139:Power 4884:Usage 4876:Power 4268:this 4262:WP:OR 3401:split 3138:Arzel 3105:Arzel 3085:Arzel 3072:Arzel 2902:Arzel 2770:WP:OR 2606:Arzel 2574:Arzel 2541:Arzel 2485:email 2438:email 2394:email 2304:Zad68 2254:Zad68 2201:noted 2156:WP:DR 2121:WP:DR 2092:Arzel 2000:usage 1546:, or 1520:or a 1158:email 1118:, or 893:Arzel 885:Cigar 784:email 552:Yobol 548:WP:OR 544:WP:OR 539:WP:OR 527:WP:OR 509:Yobol 429:Arzel 300:usage 296:usage 174:email 132:email 16:< 5790:talk 5755:talk 5702:talk 5624:and 5555:talk 5346:talk 5338:here 5204:talk 5124:Uses 4810:talk 4796:talk 4764:talk 4749:talk 4724:talk 4703:talk 4673:talk 4630:talk 4593:talk 4564:talk 4543:talk 4525:talk 4510:talk 4493:talk 4464:talk 4426:talk 4397:talk 4378:talk 4363:talk 4347:huge 4325:talk 4290:talk 4278:WP:5 4272:you 4222:talk 4108:talk 4093:talk 4048:talk 4034:talk 4005:talk 3988:talk 3965:talk 3957:here 3955:and 3953:here 3929:talk 3906:talk 3891:talk 3876:talk 3822:talk 3808:talk 3791:talk 3761:talk 3746:talk 3694:talk 3662:talk 3642:talk 3632:can. 3608:talk 3597:PMID 3590:PMID 3574:talk 3562:Then 3515:talk 3477:talk 3458:talk 3407:and 3379:talk 3335:talk 3321:talk 3279:talk 3259:talk 3230:talk 3222:talk 3158:talk 3142:talk 3127:talk 3109:talk 3097:talk 3076:talk 3060:talk 2968:talk 2942:talk 2906:talk 2854:talk 2817:talk 2738:talk 2685:talk 2681:TMCk 2638:talk 2610:talk 2595:talk 2578:talk 2564:talk 2545:talk 2537:know 2526:talk 2503:talk 2477:talk 2459:talk 2430:talk 2412:talk 2386:talk 2334:talk 2217:talk 2179:talk 2164:talk 2111:talk 2096:talk 2054:talk 2039:talk 1975:used 1959:talk 1936:and 1913:talk 1895:talk 1854:talk 1832:talk 1783:talk 1742:talk 1698:this 1696:for 1681:talk 1667:talk 1637:talk 1602:talk 1577:talk 1560:talk 1530:talk 1505:talk 1477:talk 1444:talk 1433:and 1411:talk 1385:talk 1350:talk 1336:talk 1317:talk 1265:talk 1236:talk 1232:TMCk 1217:talk 1202:talk 1185:talk 1150:talk 1128:talk 1120:iPad 1087:talk 1049:talk 1026:talk 1006:talk 1002:TMCk 989:talk 985:TMCk 979:and 962:talk 952:and 940:talk 918:talk 897:talk 887:and 863:talk 852:Per 840:talk 823:talk 802:talk 776:CFCF 762:talk 757:Cirt 754:. — 712:PMID 653:talk 583:talk 556:talk 529:. -- 513:talk 495:talk 459:talk 455:TMCk 451:grin 433:talk 412:talk 383:talk 349:talk 324:talk 282:talk 243:talk 195:talk 166:talk 124:talk 4669:Wnt 4351:the 3604:Wnt 3570:Wnt 3545:it. 3371:key 3289:non 3008:Zad 2881:Zad 2830:Zad 2794:Zad 2751:Zad 2727:not 2286:Zad 2136:Zad 2072:Zad 1991:1). 1718:Zad 1524:. - 1473:Wnt 640:not 426:BPA 258:Zad 213:Zad 5793:) 5758:) 5746:. 5705:) 5557:) 5348:) 5206:) 5195:, 4812:) 4798:) 4766:) 4751:) 4741:. 4726:) 4705:) 4675:) 4641:-- 4632:) 4609:-- 4595:) 4566:) 4545:) 4527:) 4512:) 4495:) 4466:) 4428:) 4399:) 4380:) 4365:) 4314:, 4292:) 4224:) 4110:) 4095:) 4050:) 4036:) 4007:) 3990:) 3967:) 3941:, 3931:) 3908:) 3893:) 3878:) 3824:) 3810:) 3793:) 3763:) 3748:) 3696:) 3664:) 3644:) 3610:) 3576:) 3517:) 3479:) 3460:) 3381:) 3337:) 3323:) 3310:, 3281:) 3261:) 3232:) 3160:) 3144:) 3129:) 3111:) 3099:) 3078:) 3062:) 3041:, 3037:, 3015:68 2970:) 2944:) 2908:) 2888:68 2856:) 2837:68 2819:) 2801:68 2774:is 2758:68 2740:) 2732:. 2687:) 2640:) 2632:) 2612:) 2597:) 2580:) 2566:) 2547:) 2528:) 2505:) 2487:) 2483:· 2479:· 2461:) 2440:) 2436:· 2432:· 2414:) 2396:) 2392:· 2388:· 2336:) 2293:68 2259:do 2219:) 2181:) 2166:) 2143:68 2127:, 2113:) 2098:) 2079:68 2056:) 2045:re 2041:) 1961:) 1940:. 1932:, 1915:) 1897:) 1875:32 1856:) 1834:) 1785:) 1744:) 1725:68 1683:) 1669:) 1639:) 1604:) 1579:) 1562:) 1542:, 1507:) 1479:) 1459:be 1446:) 1413:) 1387:) 1352:) 1338:) 1319:) 1267:) 1238:) 1223:. 1219:) 1204:) 1187:) 1160:) 1156:· 1152:· 1130:) 1114:, 1089:) 1051:) 1028:) 1008:) 991:) 964:) 942:) 920:) 899:) 865:) 842:) 825:) 804:) 786:) 780:🍌 764:) 734:J. 655:) 624:J. 585:) 558:) 550:. 515:) 497:) 461:) 453:* 435:) 414:) 386:) 351:) 326:) 284:) 265:68 245:) 220:68 197:) 176:) 172:· 168:· 134:) 130:· 126:· 114:? 94:→ 64:← 5787:( 5752:( 5699:( 5553:( 5344:( 5202:( 4808:( 4794:( 4762:( 4747:( 4722:( 4701:( 4671:( 4628:( 4606:: 4602:@ 4591:( 4562:( 4541:( 4523:( 4508:( 4491:( 4462:( 4443:: 4439:@ 4424:( 4395:( 4376:( 4361:( 4323:( 4288:( 4250:: 4246:@ 4220:( 4106:( 4091:( 4046:( 4032:( 4003:( 3986:( 3963:( 3927:( 3904:( 3889:( 3874:( 3820:( 3806:( 3789:( 3759:( 3744:( 3692:( 3660:( 3640:( 3606:( 3572:( 3513:( 3490:: 3486:@ 3475:( 3456:( 3411:. 3394:) 3390:( 3377:( 3333:( 3319:( 3277:( 3257:( 3236:) 3228:( 3220:( 3156:( 3140:( 3125:( 3107:( 3095:( 3074:( 3058:( 2966:( 2940:( 2904:( 2852:( 2815:( 2736:( 2683:( 2636:( 2608:( 2593:( 2576:( 2562:( 2543:( 2524:( 2501:( 2475:( 2457:( 2428:( 2410:( 2384:( 2332:( 2215:( 2177:( 2162:( 2109:( 2094:( 2052:( 2037:( 1993:) 1988:( 1957:( 1911:( 1893:( 1889:- 1852:( 1830:( 1781:( 1740:( 1679:( 1665:( 1635:( 1600:( 1575:( 1558:( 1532:) 1528:( 1503:( 1475:( 1442:( 1409:( 1383:( 1348:( 1334:( 1315:( 1263:( 1234:( 1215:( 1200:( 1183:( 1148:( 1126:( 1085:( 1047:( 1024:( 1004:( 987:( 960:( 938:( 916:( 895:( 861:( 838:( 821:( 800:( 782:( 760:( 651:( 600:: 596:@ 581:( 554:( 511:( 493:( 457:( 431:( 410:( 380:( 347:( 322:( 280:( 241:( 193:( 164:( 122:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index