| Revision as of 21:28, 17 October 2014 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Sourced text was replaced with original research at the Electronic cigarette page: go to the real discussion please.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:37, 18 October 2014 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I removed the original research and replaced it with sources text. I clearly explained it in my the problems with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then an editor blindly reverted back in and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to before the blind revert was made. I hope editors will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the . Blindly in a revert is very disruptive. Another editor blindly reverted back in the and other problems. ] (]) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | I removed the original research and replaced it with sources text. I clearly explained it in my the problems with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then an editor blindly reverted back in and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to before the blind revert was made. I hope editors will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the . Blindly in a revert is very disruptive. Another editor blindly reverted back in the and other problems. ] (]) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::The person who is not collaborating is ''you''.--]<sup>]</sup> 23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Canvassing talk page lurkers as well? Nice. To those i'd say that they should join the above discussion at ] --] 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | :Canvassing talk page lurkers as well? Nice. To those i'd say that they should join the above discussion at ] --] 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:37, 18 October 2014
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru. |
Sourced text was replaced with original research at the Electronic cigarette page
Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (6 September 2013). "Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students – United States, 2011–2012". MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 62 (35): 729–30. PMID 24005229.
The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."
Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.
"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution, the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects." Original research ans misleading text.
"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution. As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected. A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes." Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Second-hand aerosol.
I removed the original research and replaced it with sources text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problems with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then an editor blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Blindly replacing sourced text with original research in a revert is very disruptive. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- The person who is not collaborating is you.--FergusM1970 23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Canvassing talk page lurkers as well? Nice. To those i'd say that they should join the above discussion at WT:MED#Electronic cigarettes --Kim D. Petersen 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)