Misplaced Pages

Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:16, 23 December 2014 editFergusM1970 (talk | contribs)4,665 edits Choosing what to include: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024 edit undoRrmisra (talk | contribs)57 edits Proposed Editing Plan: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi |date=27 December 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=Health effects of electronic cigarettes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Old prod|nom=S Marshall|nomdate=2022-12-26}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Copied|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes|to=Nicotine}}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days }}
{{Copied|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes|to=Nicotine poisoning}}
{{Copied|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes|to=2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Archives}}


==Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II==
==Adding of Legal status material to a medical page==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer_2024) | assignments = ], ], ], ] | reviewers = ], ], ], ] | start_date = 2024-06-01 | end_date = 2024-08-17 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)</span>
This edit added material that should be on the Legal status page. This is a medical page and should not be trying to emulate the main Electronic cigarette article. This is bloat. Shall I add a summery of Components, and Culture and society? ] 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:This article is not the main article and does not need a "Legal status section" Since no one has chosen to respond with a policy or guideline why it should be here, its time to remove it unless an on point WP policy or guideline shows why an off topic section should remain. ] 22:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


== Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion ==
Current text to begin section: "The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments. A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be determined on the basis of the "reported" adverse health effects."


· ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The section is relevant because "e-cigarette regulation should be determined on the basis of the "reported" adverse health effects." This is safety information. The regulations are about safety and are also related to safety too. ] (]) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


'''1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"? '''
If the text is not relevant to that article then it . ] (]) 11:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
: I removed Medical claims that have nothing to do with regulation. Much like here, you are adding off topic information to pages. Find the correct page to place it on. ] 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::The has to do with the regulation debate too. ] (]) 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::That little claim about regulation is on the legal page, it should not be here. ] 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::::According to your own the text are specific adverse effects. According to you they belong in this article. ] (]) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Please learn to place the information that is specific to a pages topic on it, not on others. ] 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The section was left in order for you to move any information that needed to be moved to the prospective pages. It has now been removed as it was off topic and pages dealing with those topics already exist. This is not the main page, nor should it become it. The only summery sections that should go on this page are if specific sections of this page are moved to one of their own. ] 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:On the contrary, you claimed it was off topic here but when I added some text to another page you deleted it. ] (]) 06:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:
This is not the main page, Legal status and Positions of medical organizations are sub pages of the main Electronic cigarette page not this one. This material is on Electronic cigarette and the sub pages already mentioned. ] 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:This section is short and concise and expresses concerns that are fully reasonable for this page. I stand in favor of keeping it. -- ] ] (]) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::Im not in favour of recreating the main page. Im not in favour of duplicating things all over. There is no consensus for this, if you think there is, start a RFC. If you push a RFC to open the door for this you open the door for a Components section. Lets be plainly clear. This is a summery section for pages that are not daughter pages of this page. It is not a new section, it cant grow into a new page, because these pages already exist. Adding it here is an opportunity for POV pushing. ] 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::It is utterly relevant for the topic. The legal status ties into what safety concerns there are. I see more pointing towards a consensus to keep the addition, but if you wish you may start an RFC about its removal. -- ] ] (]) 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No it isnt, Legal status and Positions are not the daughter pages of this page, but of Electronic cigarette. There is no consensus for the section, there never has been since its creation. It is useless duplication. ] 06:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


# Lead Section:
According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text ''Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy." Moreover, the review found that some ]s found harms to health brought about by e-cigarettes in many countries, such as the US and in Europe.'' is "" What page is on topic then?
##The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
##The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
#Content:
##New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
##Some specific additions include:
###Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
###New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
###Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
##These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
#Tone and Balance:
##The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
##Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
#Sources and References:
##New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
##Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
##Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
#Organization:
##The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
##New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
##Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
#Images and Media:
##While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
##Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
#Overall Impressions:
##The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
##The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
##The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.


'''2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? '''
According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text ''For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans.'' is "". If the text is about adverse effects then why was text deleted from this page as ?


The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.
AlbinoFerret has a pattern of related to safety. Now he claims all text including the text about is off topic. ] (]) 06:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:Those sections were not broken out from this page, the information exists on those pages. A RFC has been started to see where consensus lies. ] 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::You deleted similar text from another page. because you said it was off topic. So what page is on topic? This page under adverse effects is relevant. ] (]) 06:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::You are taking edits out of context. The first edit is removing medical information from the Legal page. It shouldnt be there. The second edit happened long before when you were adding medical sections to the main page when there was an ongoing RFC on the matter. The content was replaced a few edits later, by me, and the headers removed. ] 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


#Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
== Cochrane review ==
##Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
#Add to Other Effects:
##Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
#Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
##Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
#Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
##Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
#Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
##Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
#Current References and Updated Pictures:
##Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.


The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.
A Cochrane review about the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes has been . This needs to be featured prominently in the article. Among the conclusions: "ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs" and "None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use". ] (]) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


'''3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?'''
:Sounds like a review we need in the article. ] 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


''A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? ''


The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.
==Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC ==
{{rfc|sci|media|soc|rfcid=C19AE25}} Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article? There is a discussion on the subject.] 06:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion===
*'''NO''' This page should focus in on its own topic and not duplicate material from the Electronic cigarette article or pages that were broken out from the Electronic cigarette article. The only summery sections it should contain are for sections broken out from it. It should not be a source of duplication. The section never had consensus to be here in the first place. ] 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''No it shouldn't''' That's what the main e-cig article is for.--]<sup>]</sup> 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' There shouldn't be duplication of sections however some information will be relevant on multiple daughter pages. ] (]) 12:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:SPACKlick}} Just to be clear on your comment. When you say some information may be relevant on multiple pages are you saying that some claims may be usable in different sections on different pages? ] 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The text is relevant for this article and when it was added to another page it was deleted. ] is also in . This makes no sense to delete the relevant text from this page. So what is actual the reason for wanting to delete it? ] (]) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::It's ''not'' relevant to this article. This article is about ''safety''. There is another article for legal status. Legal information belongs there. It does not belong here.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::] has been banned for . ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::No I haven't.--]<sup>]</sup> 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
::::That is not relevant to the discussion of you adding sections that were never part of this page. Fergus did not add the sections, you did. ] 20:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' This is a daughter article - if we did this, then there would be a very real problem of this article turning into a ]. --] 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


'''· ] (]) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)'''
===Comments on discussion===


'''1.''' Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".


'''2.''' The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".


'''3b.''' The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 User:FergusM1970 deleted the section from this article.
] (]) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737551&oldid=638557066 User:FergusM1970 moved the paragraph to another article.


1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 But then User:FergusM1970 acknowledged "This has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims."
The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!


2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Both of these editors claim the text does not belong in this article but are deleting text from another article they don't want in this or any article. It appears they don't want most of the text in any article. A lot more text was . One of the edit summaries was revealing. I'm sure a lot more text will continue to be deleted if past behavior is represented of future behavior. For example, User:FergusM1970 wants to "" the "Aerosol" section? ] explained "" in regard to User:FergusM1970's recent behavior at the electronic cigarette page. ] (]) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page.
:Yes Quack, I want to zap it. Its content belongs under various other sections, mostly Toxicology. Regarding the edit comment you highlighted, no, the sentence I removed was not meaningful. It didn't mean anything. It was just a more or less random collection of words, galloping merrily across the page free of worries, cares, syntax or grammar. If you want it back in the article then by all means suggest a form that makes sense; I'm happy to work with you on that. As for the rest of your comment:
The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems.
Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated.
The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail.
Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!


3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style?
:1) Yes, I deleted text brought in from another article. That's because, as you have already been told, it belongs ''in the other article.'' Not here.
Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:2) Yes, lots more text is going to be deleted. Around 80% of it, I'd say. However the amount of ''content'' that will be deleted is virtually nil. I'd suggest you read ], but if it's too complex here's the short version. This:


· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --] (]) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::''A study says something.<sup>1</sup> Another study says the same thing.<sup>2</sup> Yet another study says the same thing.<sup>3</sup> This study says the same thing too.<sup>4</sup> Here's another study that says - hooray! - the same thing..<sup>5</sup>''


Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024
:Is much ''longer'' and contains more text than this:


Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.
::''Some studies say this.<sup>12345</sup>''


Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.
:But it doesn't contain any more ''information''. So yes, I am going to delete vast amounts of text from this article, because right now it is practically unreadable. It is stodgy, repetitive, confusing, internally contradictory and just appallingly badly written. What I am not going to delete is any information.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.
Okay. I have just had a closer look at your complaint, Quack. I am ] here and assuming that you are failing to understand my edits, rather than deliberately misrepresenting them, so I will explain. I moved a section on legal issues from this page, where it does not belong, to the legal page. Then I deleted half of it (the reference to the old 2009 FDA cigalike tests) from there because it dealt with purely health issues. You claim that I "don't want the text in any article." Well what's then? The text you accuse me of "not wanting in any article" is right here, in this article, where it belongs - in the Toxicology section. However now it's in the article ''once'', like it should be, not ''twice'' like it was before. Firstly you need to accept that needlessly duplicating content does not make the article better or more informative; it turns it into an unreadable mess. Secondly you need to make sure of your facts before you start throwing accusations around. You've been accused of not following AGF and not being ] plenty times; this is why.--]<sup>]</sup> 06:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 You clearly deleted it from this article. Your edit summary was "". It was '''not duplication'''.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 You moved it to another article and then you deleted almost all of it from the other article. The text you deleted from the article article belongs in this article but you claim You seems to be making two different arguments. You claim but then you claim it was . Maybe you should strike you comment at . ] (]) 06:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


== Proposed Editing Plan ==
::Oh FFS.
::Yes, I removed it from this article and moved it to the Legal article. That's because it was about legal issues.
::Yes, I deleted most of it from the Legal article. That's because what I deleted wasn't relevant to that article; it's relevant to ''this'' one. And it's still ''in'' this one, because it was ''duplicated''!
::The text that is not relevant to this article is the legal bit. The safety information is relevant to this article.
::You clearly ]. Maybe you should stop commenting on things you do not understand.--]<sup>]</sup> 07:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::The text you claim is "" is not found in this article because you . ] (]) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::<b>headdesk</b> ]. It is in the first sentence of the first section following the lede.--]<sup>]</sup> 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Are you ? According to your edit summary you moved it to another article (but you ). Right? ] (]) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::No, Quack. I am not ''claiming'' that it is in another section. I am ''telling you exactly where it is''. Go and look. It's not hard to find. It's .--]<sup>]</sup> 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::] deleted the paragraph and then claimed it is still in the article. That is disruptive. ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::It was still in the article, right there in the first sentence of the first section after the lede. At least the information was there. There's no way I was going to leave your whole paragraph, because it was utter gash. From now on it's best you stick to seeking consensus on the talk page then let someone else edit the article. You can't write. You have no idea of how to construct a sentence. The edits you make are often completely incomprehensible. And I know what I'm talking about, because I'm a professional writer.--]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


'''Proposed Editing Plan''' - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) ] (]) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
It appears editors may have been recruiting to Misplaced Pages. See . See . See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ ] has been banned for and has made mass changes to this article. I think we need to restore the deleted text and undo the mass changes. ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:You have misrpresented the facts. One editor was blocked because he was paid to edit and did not disclose it. He admitted he did so. He did not admit nor is there proof he edited this article for money, or recruited anyone. ] 09:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

] and ]. There has been mass changes to this article. A lot of text was deleted by ]. Some assistance may be necessary. I have updated the article and restored the text. ] (]) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:::No, Quack. You have created a useless, unreadable mess of contradictory claims.--]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
::I'm not comfortable with the above, it smacks of ]sing. But fortunately the two editors getting called here are level-headed. --] 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{u|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} Since Quack rolled back all of Fergus's edits I question the need to call for help and suggest your assessment is probably correct. ] 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't really have words for what Quack did, but it's a mess. I'm going to remove a few contradictions, but the text needs cleaned up. Again. I wish he'd leave the writing to others because he's shit at it.--]<sup>]</sup> 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

== Dubious wording ==

There's a lot of information in this article that, while sourced, makes no sense. For example:

''"It is unclear in the manner that energy and materials used for production equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use."''

What does that even mean? The "Environmental impact" section is particularly badly affected, to the extent that it's basically unreadable. It looks as if someone took every negative-sounding statement they could and pasted it in there without evaluating what, if anything, it meant.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::The whole Environmental impact section is opinion except the battery exchange. Its all tied to one review that made no conclusions but called for more study. Its weight uis very low and the section shouldn’t be in the article at all. Read the section . ] 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example:

''"It is unclear how many traditional cigarettes are comparable to using one e-cigarette for the average user."''

Huh? That doesn't appear to have any real-world meaning at all. It seems to be based on the belief that an electronic cigarette is a consumable item like an actual cigarette, which with the exception of disposables is not true. It certainly doesn't seem to have any relevance at all to environmental impact. This statement needs to be either made coherent or removed.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:That is an example of a common Original Research that brings information on cigalikes and spreads it across all generations, when the source is clearly about cigalikes. ] 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::It's weird. I'm currently using a Nemesis and Taifun GT. How can that be defined in "traditional cigarette" equivalence? The nicotine content of the tank? Depends what liquid I'm using and how completely I fill it. Weight? Volume? Cost? It's just silly.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::So unless someone can offer a compelling reason to keep it I'm going to remove it. NB: "It's sourced" is not a compelling reason. I would like to know what it means and what it adds to the article that would be lacking if it weren't there.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I think looking at the source and seeing if they describe whats tested may be more productive. ] 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I just added to the claims that no studies have been done of looked at to come to the conclusions as spelled out in the so called review. ] 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I've cleaned the section up, removed some duplication (it said ''three times'' that no studies had been conducted into the manufacturing impact) and turned it into something that resembles coherent English. I think you're right though; it's just a list of things we don't know and doesn't belong in a Safety article at all. I say we delete it.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did some calculations. I've had my Nemesis for just over a year. I'm calling it 380 days. That means, so far, using it has been comparable to smoking 16,374 cigarettes. As it's still in perfect condition I expect it to be in daily use for at least another couple of years, although the Chang review claims e-cigs only last a few weeks. I'm more baffled than ever as to what that sentence actually means and what, if anything, it's supposed to add to the article.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up the "Ultrafine particles" section too. It turns out that one of the cited sources actually contains quite a lot of information on ultrafine particles, which mysteriously had not been included in the section. Now it has been.--]<sup>]</sup> 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

== Proposed rewrite ==

This whole article needs to be completely rewritten. Right now it's just a mess of contradictory statements: "A review said e-cigs are bad. A review said e-cigs are good. A review said we don't know if e-cigs are good or bad. A review said e-cigs ''might'' be good or bad." It looks awful and it's just going to confuse readers. I propose that we rearrange the bulk of it as two properly cited sections, one giving the evidence so far and the other containing all the "we don't knows", instead of adding one sentence for each and every review.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:Good catch on the Etter commentary. Its not listed as a Review, but commentary. As such its not suitable as a MEDRS source. . ] 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

== Further rewriting. ==

I'm about to start tackling the Toxicology section, with the aim of streamlining it; I intend to use simple, clear statements with multiple cites instead of the current repetitive/confusing mess. However I'm frightened of what lies ahead, because right now the section is huge and dauntingly crap. If anyone wants to join me on this linguistic adventure please, feel free.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

== Proposed removal of "Aerosol" section ==

I have no idea what this section is for. Everything in it could be quite easily fitted in to one of the other sections, and in fact a lot of it's there already. Any objections to moving the information to Toxicology and Adverse effects, then zapping the section?--]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

:It should really be second hand aerosol, whats in Tox is mainly first hand. ] 23:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, but it's the same toxicants in either case. Exhaled vapour just has even less of them than inhaled does. Anyway I'll leave the section for now and just concentrate on sorting it out. If it disappears, as the Environmental section is so close to doing, then it obviously was never meant to be.--]<sup>]</sup> 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:::There needs to be seperation between first and second hand exposure. Otherwise the claims get mixed up and it becomes original research. ] 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see what you did. Yes, that's much better. Thanks!--]<sup>]</sup> 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

== Choosing what to include ==

A good article is not written by stuffing in every catchy quote we can find from as many sources as possible. We should be working out what the consensus of reliable sources is and writing that in a clear, readable form then citing appropriately. That way we get content that will tell people something, instead of a list of ten sentences that all say basically the same thing but are cited to different sources. Write it ONCE and add ten cites. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but you know who I mean.--]<sup>]</sup> 23:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
Proposed deletionThis page was proposed for deletion by S Marshall (talk · contribs) on 26 December 2022.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine poisoning. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrmisra, JMonka, Dmirandajuarez, LNariyoshi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FionaMai, Selowe, A.MahmoudiWIKI, Jarynmiguel.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion

· A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"?

Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:

  1. Lead Section:
    1. The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
    2. The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
  2. Content:
    1. New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
    2. Some specific additions include:
      1. Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
      2. New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
      3. Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
    3. These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
  3. Tone and Balance:
    1. The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
    2. Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
  4. Sources and References:
    1. New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
    2. Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
    3. Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
  5. Organization:
    1. The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
    2. New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
    3. Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
  6. Images and Media:
    1. While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
    2. Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
  7. Overall Impressions:
    1. The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
    2. The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
    3. The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.

  1. Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
    1. Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
  2. Add to Other Effects:
    1. Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
  3. Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
    1. Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
  4. Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
    1. Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
  5. Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
    1. Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
  6. Current References and Updated Pictures:
    1. Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.

The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.

3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?

A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.

The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· FionaMai (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.

2. The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.

3b. The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed. FionaMai (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”? The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page. The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems. Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated. The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail. Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!

3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style? Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --Selowe (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024

Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.

Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.

Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.

Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selowe (talkcontribs) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Editing Plan

Proposed Editing Plan - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) Rrmisra (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: