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 23:55, 14 March 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Discussion on positions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024 edit undoRrmisra (talk | contribs)57 edits →Proposed Editing Plan: new sectionTag: New topic 
(498 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
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 = 2
|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=21 |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==
== RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content? ==
{{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>
{{rfc|sci|rfcid=FAB0CCA}}


== Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion ==
The dispute revolves around material from the ] which was removed and mterial from the ] was removed .


· ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The text from the WLF in our article was "The ] stated that "Researchers find that many e-cigarettes contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives. They also find considerable variations in the amount of nicotine delivered by different brands. None of this information is made available to consumers so they really don’t know what they are ingesting, or how much."; cited to released by the WLF.


'''1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"? '''
The text from the WMA in our article was "In October 2012, the ] stated, "Manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes often claim that use of their products is a safe alternative to smoking, particularly since they do not produce carcinogenic smoke. However, no studies have been conducted to determine that the vapor is not carcinogenic, and there are other potential risks associated with these devices: Appeal to children, especially when flavors like strawberry or chocolate are added to the cartridges."; cited to released by the WMA.


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:
Should these statements be included in the article? ] (]) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


# Lead Section:
===Positions===
##The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
* '''Include statements'''. Both statements are reliably sourced to ] compliant sourcing, specifically ]. Arguments for their removal including assertions that fly in the face of ] which explicitly allows for the use of tertiary sources including medical textbooks. While I would agree that these are not the most ideal MEDRS sources, neither of these statements appear at all controversial in content, and the sourcing is adequate for the purpose. I should also note that it has been argue above that there is a "consensus" that only review articles can be used as sources here. I will note that this declaration of a consensus appears to have been made up whole cloth out of thin air, and no evidence whatsoever of any such consensus has been produced. ] (]) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
##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? '''
* '''Use secondary review ] sources instead'''. Position statements are interesting and valuable to decipher the level of consensus or policy on a specific issue, but they are not medically relevant sources. For that there are secondary sources. Position statements are by their very nature '''tertiary''', and thus per ] (and ]) we should use the underlying secondary sources instead. And we should use the best secondary review ] compliant sources available. For position statements there is a specific article ]. --] 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::KimDabelsteinPetersen, you deleted a number of sources including reviews. So what is your explanation for also deleting the secondary reviews you state should be used instead? ] (]) 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::First, you have no idea whether these statements are secondary or tertiary, as you do not know what data or studies the sources base their statements on. Second, even if they were tertiary sources, however, tertiary sources are not disallowed by ], ] or any other policy or guideline on Misplaced Pages. Removing them repeatedly merely on the basis that they are tertiary sources does not comply with any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. ] (]) 20:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::If it is not tertiary - then they are then primary... which doesn't make it better. Once more: We should <u>use the best secondary review ] compliant papers</u>. If the information in a position statement cannot be found in the secondary review literature - then there really is a problem with using position statements - because then they are purely politically based. There is a specific article for position statements. --] 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::They clearly are not primary as they are using the underlying medical literature as a source (either the primary or secondary literature), making those statements at least secondary in nature. You are trying to make up your own rules on what is allowable per MEDRS. These are position statements by medical organizations and therefore MEDRS compliant. We don't have additional rules that they have to be corroborated by a published review article, and we certainly do not have a restriction to only review articles in MEDRS. Please stop making up your own rules. ] (]) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Are you truly trying to say that we cannot decipher or ''"know what data or studies the sources base their statements on"''?? And then you still want to use it? Erh? Don't you see a problem here? I would assume that they get their positions from the secondary literature, and not just make up stuff that isn't in the medical literature already. --] 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::They could also be basing it off the primary medical literature, making the statements a secondary source. ] (]) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Then we should be able to decipher what secondary sources they are based upon. Position statements are less reliable than secondary review articles under all circumstances. If they are purely based upon primary material, then they even less reliable than secondary review papers. So use: Secondary review material instead - just as consensus has been on electronic cigarette articles all of the time. --] 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::There is no such consensus, and repeatedly declaring such a consensus exists does not make it so. ] (]) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::There most certainly has been such a consensus - no matter how much you argue against it. But consensus can of course change, but please consider the consequences. So far everything has been based upon secondary review material from highranking MedLine indexed journals - are we throwing that requirement away? --] 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::If such a consensus exists, that the only sources allowable for medical content is published review articles, ''please point out the talk page section or RfC which establishes it''. We use MEDRS compliant sourcing for medical content, which includes statements by medical organizations. ] (]) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Use secondary review ] sources''' Formal policy statements that are review quality can also be used. Because formal scientific reports are mentioned on ] which says " formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals". The ] souse that is cited as an example is a <b>(clearly marked as one in the yellow bar at the top as a Press Release)</b> and not a source that should be relied on for medical claims.] 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::] does not have a restriction to only using published journal article reviews. ] (]) 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::<b>Press releases</b> are not appropriate for medical claims. ] 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Where you see a press release, I see a position statement adopted by the general assembly of the organization. ] (]) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::This is a press-release. And it is one of the sources that you argue for in the above. --] 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::There is also no language in that press release saying this was "adopted by the general assembly of the organization". ] 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
* '''These are eligible sources here''' (add: '''so include them''') per ] and our general policy on reliability and weight. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::Eligible certainly. But less useful, and carrying significantly less ] than secondary review literature, which has so far been the consensus position as the threshold for material on electronic cigarette articles. --] 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::You keep saying there is a "consensus" that only review articles are allowed to be used as medical sources. Please point me to the thread or RfC which established such a consensus. Absent this, please stop making up your own "consensus". Thanks. ] (]) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Sigh! Reliable secondary review ] compliant papers, in high quality MedLine indexed journals has so far been the consensus. Can you tell me what is wrong about that previous consensus? Don't you think that we should use the very best material available per ]? --] 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} Actually no, there are many circumstances in which the position statements of major bodies (NHS, NICE, ACS, WHO) offer the strongest source - or at the very least one which should not be omitted. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::That is why we have a whole article ] based upon these sources, and summarize them at ]. Can you tell me why reliable secondary review material isn't enough here? --] 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Where is the talk page section or RfC which establishes that only published review articles can be used? ] (]) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


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.
The question of whether there is a local "consensus" to eliminate position papers as sources for this article is irrelevant, because there is a broader consensus across all of Misplaced Pages that these are ideal sources for this type of content. Have you taken a look at ] recently? It states unambiguously that
{{Quote box
|quote = Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines '''and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies'''.
|source = ]
}}
::The statement is repeated in ]
{{Quote box
|quote = Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, '''and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies'''.
|source = ]
}}
These guidelines reflect broad consensus from editors across all of Misplaced Pages. You cannot create a local exception just because you don't like what "ideal sources" stay about these devices. If you want to change this, you have to get consensus to change both ] and ]. I doubt very much you will be successful. ] (]) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:Cherry picking from ] and ] now? Are you truly saying that WP policy is that we should prefer tertiary sources over secondary, or that position statements are the equivalent of reviews? Have you btw. read ], ] or ] recently? --] 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what you are referring to by "cherrypicking". The term is usually used to refer to picking out a single article that favors a certain POV out of a set of many that express a different opinion. There is only one ] and only one ] and both clearly and unambiguously prohibit this sort of exclusion of ideal sources. I'm sorry you don't like what these sources say. I suggest you find a different strategy for trying to exclude them, as this one will not survive review even if successful locally. ] (]) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Im surprised you want to included press releases. ] 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, that press release links to saying almost the same thing! essentially intended to promote awareness of a paper published the same day, 20 Aug 2014: "Intentions to Smoke Cigarettes Among Never-Smoking US Middle and High School Electronic Cigarette Users: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2011-2013" PMID 25143298. That (large primary) paper compares to "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison", PMID 24680203. That too indicates that youth using e-cigarettes (compared to never-using them) are more likely to later try conventional cigarettes, though the precise details and wording vary.] <small>]</small> 03:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::So we have press releases to promote primary sources? By the way the Chapman review is already in the main e-cig article. ] 04:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:Just abit about tertiary sources:
:{{Quote box
|quote={{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating ], especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.
| source=]
}}
:] might also give a hint here. ] compliant secondary review papers are the best sources we can use. So why would we choose lesser sources? --] 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:Seems to me that for some editors it is not enough with the material that they can find in the <u>best available sources per ]</u> and thus want to ] material that belongs in ] into this article. Tertiary sources, position statements, policy statements etc. are lesser sources than review material! --] 21:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)\
::You can also look at on the ] wich directly addresses press releases. ] 03:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Kim and Albino, what part of "Ideal sources for such content includes... medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies", repeated in both ] and ] is hard to understand? ] (]) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Whats hard to understand is why you want to include press releases. You also seem to be ignoring on the ] and completly ignoring "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, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." ]. Press releases are not even spoken of, and in no way are these formal policy statements. This is that was published in a peer reviewed journal, its in the article as we discuss this. What is trying to be included is lower quality material, fine for the Position page, so it is included, but not to make medical claims on this page. ] 16:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::You are against including formal policy statements too. You tried to delete it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=642107506&oldid=642095256 If it is fine for the Position page then it should be fine for this page too because the Position page also includes medical claims. Even a service announcement may be used. Where does MEDRS say press releases from reputable organisations are unreliable? It appears you are making up your own rules for this e-cig page to exclude any source that is not a review. ] (]) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::You are making another misstatement that has been clairified before, yet you continue in the faulty premise. The source has COI, addressed in the source. Not only did some of the authors recieve funding from the pharmicutuical industry, they sit on the boards of dirctors for pharmicutical companies. It wasnt removed because its a formal policy statement as the next edits prove . I recommend you stop characterising peoples edits falsely as its a clear violation of AGF and may be, and is by me, considered a personal attack. ] 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You wrote above "This is that was published in a peer reviewed journal, its in the article as we discuss this."
:::::::Yet you deleted this source. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=642107506&oldid=642095256
:::::::{{cite journal|last1=Brandon|first1=T. H.|last2=Goniewicz|first2=M. L.|last3=Hanna|first3=N. H.|last4=Hatsukami|first4=D. K.|last5=Herbst|first5=R. S.|last6=Hobin|first6=J. A.|last7=Ostroff|first7=J. S.|last8=Shields|first8=P. G.|last9=Toll|first9=B. A.|last10=Tyne|first10=C. A.|last11=Viswanath|first11=K.|last12=Warren|first12=G. W.|title=Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology|journal=Clinical Cancer Research|url=http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/01/08/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544.full.pdf+html|year=2015|issn=1078-0432|doi=10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544}}
:::::::The next edits shows there is a problem the with . For example, "I don't think it's original research, but it sure seems over-the-top. Perhaps a better description than WP:OR would be WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE (in emphasis), perhaps WP:POINTy, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:ALLEGED, or trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to sneak in an editor's POV rather than simply reporting what well-accepted reliable sources say." according to BarrelProof. See ]. So why do you want to ignore MEDRS and use only secondary reviews when MEDRS allows reviews, statements from respected organisations, and medical textbooks? Claiming that '''only''' reviews are allowed ''is'' disruptive. ] (]) 19:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Your rehashing of the same edit will receive the same response. I really dont care if BarrelProof, like you have applied the wrong reasons for the edit. They are clearly shown in further edits, but you dont look at them, because it doesnt fit with your preconceived rationalizations. The source had, and still has has COI issues including the authors sitting on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies. BarrelProof questioned if the COI was OR, but it isnt because the COI is clearly laid out in the source itself. Your question is misleading and a lie, I have never said <b>formal</b> policy statements by the groups listed in ] cant be used. You want to include <b>press releases</b> which are not even mentioned in the section you keep referring to.] 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::You are clearly against including any statement that is not a formal policy statement from an organisation against MEDRS. You are also against including and you deleted. So why should there be different rules for this e-cig page? ] (]) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::You are clearly trying to use press releases against ].So why should there be different rules for this e-cig page? ] 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::The statement from the World Lung Foundation organization is reliable. The World Lung Foundation stated "A recent study indicated that e-cigarette vapor causes changes at the cellular level in a similar way as traditional cigarettes. As the WHO points out, e-cigarette vapour is not just water vapour as the e-cigarette industry likes to claim..." That indicates the statement by World Lung Foundation is also a secondary source because it reviewed the evidence. I previously explained you deleted other sources that are also reliable. This includes and among others. So why did you delete a number of sources including reviews against MEDRS? ] (]) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. ] 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So the sources are all reliable and you have not given a specific reason to exclude them. ] (]) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I am not going to go into specifics of edits with you in this RFC, because it does no good, its round in circles and right back to "they are reliable" when reasons are given. ] 04:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You confirmed the sources are reliable yet you refuse to explain what is wrong with including relevant information about safety. You are not collaborating. ] (]) 04:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I have discussed this with you to no end, you dont seem to get it, or dont want to hear it. This entire RFC has the position laid out. There are numerous sections on the talk pages on this. Collaboration is a two way street. You dont discuss edits, no discussions on mammoth edit you tried recently, nothing. ] 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You have not given a reason to exclude reliable sources. Claiming "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." without any specific reason is not a valid reason. The statements from the organisations and the text from the reviews are about the safety of e-cigs. Why are you not explaining a specific reason to exclude reliable sources relevant to the topic? Do you understand that claiming "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." is not a good reason to exclude pertinent information? ] (]) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Thanks for proving my point. Even after additional discussions, you circle back to the beginning. If you havent seen the reasons, it isnt because they are not there. I suggest you reread archive 2, and at this point silence on my part does not mean consensus ]. ] 15:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::In reaching consensus we all may learn something: Misplaced Pages only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at the talk page, refusing participation can be perceived as a ], and is not conducive to ]. You are continuing to refuse to explain your deletion of a number of position statements from reputable organisations and a number of reviews. Again, claiming that "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." is not a specific reason to exclude pertinent information. Do you understand? ] (]) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Use high quality reviews, positions statements from respected organizations, and major medical textbooks''' This is what ] says. All three have their place and attempts to exclude any of them are not appropriate. ] (] · ] · ]) 21:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::No one is talking about excluding. The article ] is for this kind of material, and this article is medical information from high quality reviews and major medical textbooks. All of which gets ] in ], of which both articles are subarticles. All of it has its place, and this is not the place for policy or position statements, this is about the underlying secondary review class material. --] 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
* '''Use ]s and meta-analyses''': While there is a case for the inclusion of statements by medical organizations, these should only be sourced to authoritative institutions that issue health guidelines regularly, such as the U.S. ], the U.K. ], or the ]. I don't think the statements of the World Lung Foundation or the World Medical Association are considered to be authoritative, and, as far as I know, none of them issue medical guidelines on a regular basis. The ], in particular, appears to be a relatively new society founded in 2004 and may be of questionable notability (and reliability). Anyone can issues health statements, but not all are widely recognized and even fewer are considered to be authoritative. -] 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
**A1candidate also deleted a number of sources including ''']s'''. So what is the explanation for the blanket reverts? A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts including deleting a number of reviews? ] (]) 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Reliable per ].''' I'm not going to wade into this further for now due to lack of time aside from saying that press releases are plenty fine for policy statements by organizations like this. That's often how reputable medical organizations make their positions known. Press releases are not ok though for trying to assert scientific fact, and that's where you bring in review articles instead. That's a relatively clear distinction that seems like it's being missed here. Whether the source is secondary, tertiary, etc. is irrelevant in this conversation, partly seen in our article that describes when there can be ambiguity between the two as well. Instead, we look for reviews and statements from reputable medical organizations regardless of what degree of source we call them. Above, A1candidate may have a case from a ] perspective on how noteworthy the organization actually is, but at my first glance it seems adequate. ] (]) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thats why we have the page. For those types of statements. This page is a medical page for medical facts. The sources are on the Positions page, but they want to bring them here for medical claims. ] 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Looks like a problem with a ] in having that article. The two really should be the same. However, this RfC is about whether the source in question is reliable in ''this'' article on the safety of e-cigs. It seems to have a decent fit here regardless of what's going on at other articles. If an article is going to be titled safety of e-cigs, then you're going to need to discuss relevant medical organizations perspectives in that article. This article doesn't even have a section summarizing the organization statement page (which is the norm with daughter articles), so it's looking like there is some undue weight in the omission of summarizing the medical organizations. That's mainly why I'm not seeing a legitimate reason not to include it. ] (]) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::The two pages were originally under the Health effects section, It was not my choice to split them off instead of the section itself. It was Doc James who split them like this, at the same time. ] 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''COMMENT''' Claims that "position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" are not "secondary sources" per ] '''are completely and <u>literally</u> incorrect''' per ] which has already been quoted above. Importantly '''Policies and guidelines <u>cannot</u> be changed locally.''' What is a MEDRS-acceptable secondary source, is one, be it here or there. Now, someone ~could~ argue that one or both of ] or the ] are not "nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies". That would be a reasonable argument under WP's policies and guidelines. I have never heard of the ] and based on a quick look wouldn't object to a decision that they are not major. I had never heard of ] but once I looked into it, it is clear that this is the UN of national medical associations (AMA is a member). This is definitely authoritative. ] (]) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::The WMA might be fairly well-known, but says that they're mainly involved in the following non-clinical stuff:
:::*Ethics
:::*Human Rights
:::*Public Health
:::*Health Systems
:::*Advocacy
:::*Campaigns
::In fact, I can't find anything on their website that suggests they issue regular ]s, and I doubt this is the case since the WHO has always been the one doing most of it. In any case, the WMA's list of includes "Tobacco control" as one of their goals. Are their statements regarding E-cigarettes scientifically neutral? Probably not. -] 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Sources are not required to be "neutral", we as Misplaced Pages editors are. Also, if the only reliable medical sources are those who take no position about the obvious detrimental health effects of tobacco smoking, I suspect we will find it very hard to find any sources to use at all. ] (]) 03:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::If there are detrimental health effects of e-cigarettes, they would be mentioned in ]s. Otherwise, there are none. -] 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I think we're cross talking. You mentioned "tobacco control" advocacy as a sign that a source is not "neutral"; my comment is that almost any relevant medical source recognizes that tobacco is detrimental to the health of individuals and would advocate for cessation of tobacco use. To find a source that says tobacco is good for you or not harmful would be a sign of an unreliable medical source. ] (]) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Prevention of patient's tobacco consumption is what most medical organizations aim for. ''Advocacy'' for tabacco control is what the WMA does. -] 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Controlling tobacco use is what every responsible medical organization does. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree that advocating people stop smoking is somehow a disqualifying feature of a medical source. ] (]) 04:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::That's only because you fail to understand two types of advocacy - ''Political advocacy'', which is what the WMA does, and making clinical recommendations, which is what most medical organizations do. -] 04:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh yes, . Cough. ] (]) 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Include, in segregated section''' There should be a section with a summary of significant statements, but kept apart from the purely medical sections. We all know research is scrambling to catch up with the growth of e-cigs, and is as yet unable to say anything about the long-term effects, so such statements are more significant here than for many long-established issues (like tobacco use for example). ] (]) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''The statements are absolutely relevant'''. The sources are '''reliable''' and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The argument for excluding them are we must use reviews for e-cig articles. On the contrary, positions of organizations are also reliable. ] (]) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Include statements''' Agree with Doc James. ] (]) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Include statements''' Per Doc James. The statements are pertinent to the section. ] (]) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Please await the results of the RfC before starting to use this material, otherwise we are not respecting the processes of wikipedia. Status Quo before the RfC was that the material was not included, and to base even more material on this, is premature. --] 10:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Include statements''' per Doc James ] (]) 15:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Use secondary reviews''' If this viewpoint is significant enough then we should have no problems backing it up with secondary reviews that actually systematically analyse the studies that the quotes refer to.] (]) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

* '''Include statements''' This RfC is a farce, these are major reputable organizations, and whether or not they should be included is a non-question. They are absolutely reputable as per ]. -- ] ] (]) 16:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::What does "respectable" have to do with the issue at hand? They are very reliable for the context of ]. But here they are used in a context where we should use secondary MEDRS reviews, which are the most reliable sources for this kind of information. It seems though that editors either do not want to use secondary reviews, or alternatively want to double the effect of secondary sources, by duplicating it from tertiary ones,. --] 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Your concerns are not reflected in the policy. There is nothing in it about context, and we are using position statements by major reputable bodies because they hold strong weight. We do not use them to "double the effect" of a statement, but rather in order to provide proper facts as interpreted by the most influential and authoritative organizations in the world. This entire discussion is merely disruptive and detracts from any possibility of actually improving this article and wastes time that could be spent on other articles. The RfC should be closed as per ]. -- ] ] (]) 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::There is no policy that states that just because something is reliable that it then '''must''' be included. In fact editing is the process of sorting out what sources should and shouldn't be used, and what weight is attached to them. In this case there is significantly more weight put on secondary MEDRS reviews, which also are the most reliable of MEDRS sources - sources in the category of position statements are tertiary material for medical and safety information, and thus should per ] be used to find secondary sources, not as sources themselves. Why use less reliable material, that only repeats what we can already find in more reliable material? Can you answer me that? --] 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Health professionals consider the statements of major health bodies as inherently the most reliable, and so does Misplaced Pages. Data that contradicts the statements is valuable but it should be stated as carrying less weight, not more. -- ] ] (]) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Oh well if you say that's true then it must be. Of course. ] (]) 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
:Of course. And can we move forward now? ] (]) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::If you think it's such a farce then you should get it struck out at AN, no point in keep complaining about it here.] (]) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Reference statements but don't necessarily quote them in full'''. There are so many statements that have been and will be released on the topic from medical associations that I'd rather keep the text of them at ]. I suggest summarizing the main points of important statements. For example, "In October 2012, the ] issued a position statement criticizing the lack of proof that e-cigarettes are not carcinogenic, and the appeal of flavored products to children." <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

*'''Include statements''' per Doc James and others. The fact that there are currently a few articles on e-cigs and/or their safety on wiki does not mean that relevant information should be excluded from any of those articles if it applies to the subject matter of the article's title. ] (]) 06:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

===Discussion on positions===

There '''never''' was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing ] to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See ]. Also see ] for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. Claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against ]. This RfC has apparently turned into ]. User:AlbinoFerret also deleted other sources including a . After User:AlbinoFerret could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate. The inappropriate content smacked ]. See ]. ], ], and ] appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See ]. User:AlbinoFerret last edit to the safety page deleted even more sources including a . So what is your reason to make a back to an old version while deleting a number of sources including reviews? User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your . See ].

Let's review according to the start of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews or formal policy statements written in a peer-reviewed journal but they are reliable according to ]. This confirms that there is a long standing ''']''' to include other reliable sources rather than just reviews or formal policy statements. ] (]) 17:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
: The World Lung Foundation, in particular, appears to be a relatively new society founded in 2004 and may be of questionable notability (and reliability). Anyone can issue health statements, but not all are widely recognized and even fewer are considered to be authoritative. -] 21:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::Founded in 2004 about ten years ago does not mean it is questionable. Where in ] supports your argument that a source founded about 10 years ago may be unreliable? ] (]) 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::It is found in the phrase "reputable major medical and scientific bodies". -] 22:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::::It is a reputable organisation according to the . ] (]) 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Reputable for providing "assistance to governments and non-government organizations", but not reputable for issuing ]s. -] 22:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Since the World Lung Foundation is a it is reliable for the medical claims.] (]) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Which part of this article indicates that it is reliable or reputable? -] 23:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Here is another ref. "WLF is one of five coordinating partners of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, which focuses on low and middle income countries, where more than two-thirds of the world’s smokers live." ] (]) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::What you've just showed me is a job offer in a ] blog. Can I consider that an indicator of reliability or notability? No. -] 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::We are not using a WordPress blog. We are using a statement made by the World Lung Foundation that has a to help prevent and manage lung disease. ] (]) 23:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Being a member of the GHWA simply means that the WLF does a lot of good work in developing countries. It does not automatically make it an authoritative organization for medical guidelines. -] 23:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Since they do a lot of good work in developing countries regarding tobacco control it makes them an expert on the topic. See "Essentially e-cigarette companies are selling nicotine addiction," said Dr. Neil Schluger, chief scientific officer for the World Lung Foundation, which advocates for tobacco control." ] (]) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No. Reliability does not depend on the amount of good work one does. -] 20:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::They do a lot of good work around the world on the topic of tobacco control, which makes them a major organisation. ] (]) 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Where do these sources indicate that it is a major organization? -] 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The American Cancer Society and World Lung Foundation jointly released the ''The Tobacco Atlas'', third edition, which is currently available worldwide in several languages. That is as major as it gets on tobacco control. ] (]) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

==Mammoth edit adding position statements==
Quack added a ton, all without discussing any of it. He added position statements, which are still being discussed as additions in the above RFC. ] 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::After I removed it, quack reverted it. There is no discussion of such a mammoth change to the article. ] 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::There is a discussion for the positions. See ]. The consensus so far is to include them. ] (]) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Since the RFC is only days old, it is way to soon to draw conclusions. Large changes should be discussed before making the edits. Not just that some sources but specifically whats to be added. 17,450 characters isnt just large, its huge. Making it all at one time is another problem, discuss changes first and in manageable pieces. ] 13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Clearly the whole point in having an RFC is to determine consensus. But what QG is saying is that even though the RFC is nowhere near finished they can determine the consensus themselves. Therefore there's no need for an uninvolved editor to come in, close the RFC and determine consensus because QG can just do it themselves. Not only that they can perform yet another massive edit on that basis. Rigghttt.... ] (]) 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::This is a tempest in a teapot. You guys are getting buried in your attempt to override major Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines via a local RFc, and even if you had succeeded you'd have been reversed in administrative review. Maybe best to save your ammo for a fight in which you have a defensible position and are not massively outnumbered. ] (]) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Of course. The RFC has its uses but overriding major Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines is not one of them. It would nice to move forward here. ] (]) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Actually I haven't even really looked at the RFC in detail. All I have noticed is that a particular editor, not for the first time, comes along and makes a massive edit and then gives the reason above to justify it which is not a valid one. The edit as usual contains highly contentious, vague, partisan statements. Sourcing guidelines are not the be-all-and-end-all of Misplaced Pages and even the sourcing guidelines themselves state that compliance does not guarantee inclusion. Regardless of sourcing, neutrality has to respected and consensus has to be sought. You can't trump those things either. So no actually, I don't think its justified to ignore an ongoing RFC merely because something complies with one particular guideline.] (]) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By reverting the entire edit you are attributing ], and are improperly removing viable content because you disapprove of including a minor portion of it. There is nothing that stands against making major edits, and studies have been provided that show that most Misplaced Pages content is made through major edits. -- ] ] (]) 23:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Where is the discussion of the edits? And quite a bit of this mammoth edit is referencing the sources that are under discussion at the RfC. And since it is quite obvious from the fact that it gets reverted that the edits are controversial. It is indeed ] to keep inserting it against consensus and in the face of a running RfC. I would suggest that editors try to add/discuss individual additions that are not part of the running RfC - instead of doing massive insertions that they know that there isn't consensus for! --] 23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::I agree, smaller edits should be brought up in discussion and then the discussion can lead to an edit. These mammoth edits are hard to break apart. Quack did this in secret, without any discussion and dumping it in all at once. He had more than enough opportunity to bring the edits up in pieces seeing how he started building on Feb 10th. ] 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::You misunderstand when you use the term secret. The sole reason for the ] is for experimenting without disturbing main space content, and using it is not per se contentious as you seem to assume. If you believe any of the individual statements are subject to the RfC you should take them up appropriately, instead of blanket deleting major additions. -- ] ] (]) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::No,, this wasnt just experimenting. 16 days of building on edits without discussion is a real problem when you are planning on making a mammoth edit. This wasnt perfecting the way it looks in a few hours and then adding a little bit to the article. This was just adding, and adding day after day without discussing it with any editor and then dumping 16,414 characters into the article. You cant put lipstick on that pig. ] 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::The size of the edit is irrelevant, bring up your concerns instead of deleting because "it's too large". -- ] ] (]) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::The size is irrelevant? I dont think so, its about 1/4th of the present articles size. ] deals with this, its policy to discuss major changes to the article. 16,414 characters is more than the definition of a major change. It isnt just because its to large, its just good practice to discuss edits. Making them smaller to make discussions easer is the best way to get inclusion, unless you want to discuss this for a long time because of a lack of focus. But specific edits still have not been brought forth.] 13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}The size of the edit is irrelevant as an argument against it, at least as long as no individual concerns have been raised. Start by actually commenting on what you disagree with in the edit if you wish to dispute it. -- ] ] (]) 21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:The size does matter per ], it was never discussed. The edit also contains position statements, they are not suitable for making medical claims. ] 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::Your making vague objections that position statements are unreliable but in the RfC most editors disagree with you. ] (]) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The RFC is far from over, it is only days old, and so far is at no consensus. ] 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

===Removal of mammoth edit===
QuackGuru added about 19k characters of edits without discussion, including one 16k character edit. What is the consensus for keeping the edit? It is against ] and should have been discussed. ] 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:Like I said. There plenty of discussion for the positions. See ]. The consensus has resulted in ]. ] (]) 17:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::The edits themselves were never discussed. A majority of the sources were never discussed, and none were discussed before adding them. ] 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::If you're aware of an unreliable source, please identify it. That would help improve the page. ] (]) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources? Not "liking" material is not justification for removal. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::It isnt just not liking the material. There are issues with some of the sources, currently the subject of a RFC. There are also NPOV issues. There is a ] issue in that a mammoth edit was done without any discussion or consensus. ] 22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::According to the ] discussion there are no issues with the sources per ]. ] (]) 22:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your and there is a clear consensus for the ]. ] (]) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::This is the discussion. ], so why did you delete including reviews against MEDRS? ] (]) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

== "by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected" ==


#Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
In all of the 13 references to the MEDRS review, why is there no representation of this sentence? "Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes." ] (]) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
##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.
:"A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco." It is in the article. ] (]) 22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
#Add to Other Effects:
::"Risk ... is likely small" doesn't correctly reflect "by far less harmful". Nor is there any representation of "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch." ] (]) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
##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.
:::The part "is likely small" is summarising a different part of the source. The part "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch" is probably a better fit for ]. I will try to summarise the part "by far less harmful" in the body. ] (]) 17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
#Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
:::I'm done with adding the part "by far less harmful" to my sandbox. I rewrote the text and added in-text attribution. ] (]) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
##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.
Sure we have a range of sources that take different perspectives. A summary is "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes"
#Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
Safety needs to be considered on both a population and an individual basis. If e-cigs renormalize smoking and end up increasing the use of traditional cigs they cause harm.
##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.
If a single individual switches from tradition cigs to e-cigs it results in benefit. If a non smoker starts e-cigs it will result in harm. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
#Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
:So speculation (nonsmokers ''might'') override real things (much less harm)? --] 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
##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.
::We have high quality refs that say both which is why we summarize as we have. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
#Current References and Updated Pictures:
::::"High quality" speculation is still just speculation.--] (]) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
##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.
:::No, the sources with which you agree are summarized accurately, and you are trying to keep the sources with which you disagree from being summarized correctly. Has it occurred to you that someone in your position should be held to a higher standard of impartiality than ordinary editors? ] (]) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


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.
==Intro needs a big trim and tidy==
Regardless of all the other issues, this article is marred by a very poor intro. The main fault is that its chock full of heavily ref'd arguments back and forth - when it should be a simple summary of the contents of the body. Keep the detail and refs down there. I intend to have a look at tidying it up when the protection is lifted. ] (]) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:I feel it's important we keep the references, just because it is so contentious of a topic (see ]). As for cutting it down, please do! -- ] ] (]) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:For these types of articles the refs should stay in the lede per ]. ], you don't have to wait for unprotection. Please edit my sandbox. The lede should stay at four paragraphs according to ] for this article. ] (]) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:], this is ] and does not summarise the body. For example, "Electronic cigarettes were first been developed in 2003" is not about safety. The part "The safety of electronic cigarettes is an ongoing area of debate." is unsourced. ] (]) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::Chill out. I'm working on getting some wording together and doing this in ''my'' userspace/sandbox because that's convenient. Although you can clearly see that area, I don't think it's helpful for you or anyone else to comment on it while it's underway, because it will ''undoubtedly'' be initially far worse that the current lead. Thanks for the offer, but I also don't think it makes much sense for me to edit in your area. ] (]) 19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::], I trimmed the . ] (]) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Anyone can edit the QuackGurusandbox to trim the lede. ] (]) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::Refs are key and should not be trimmed. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


'''3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?'''
:::I strongly agree with ].
:::This is the fifth time I have been summoned to this article by a RfC. When I first saw it the article was poor, and it continues to get worse. It is very long and unclear, containing no information accessible to the ordinary reader, who may well have an valid interest in the subject. It appears to be written, not for ordinary readers, not even for ordinary doctors, but for specialists in the field. I wish it could be much shorter, and say something like this:
::::"Electronic cigarettes are a danger to health because they administer nicotine, a toxic and addictive substance which can cause &lt;&nbsp;list of diseases, with references&nbsp;&gt;. However, those who are addicted to nicotine may prefer them to tobacco-based cigarettes, which as well as nicotine also administer tar and &lt;&nbsp;list of other chemicals, with references&nbsp;&gt;, which can cause lung cancer and &lt;&nbsp;list of other diseases, with references&nbsp;&gt;."
:::I realise this is never going to happen.] (]) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::::I also agree that the lede needs a lot of work. Its overly difficult to read and complex. Per ] the lede should be easy to read and have the major controversies, but it should be more neutral that the edit you suggest. ] 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::No, the lede does not need a lot of work. You have not pointed out what is the specific issue. The lede should be four paragraphs per ] for this lengthy article. ] (]) 18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Yes 4 paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (ignoring whether or not the article should be trimmed) but that is {{TQ|a general guideline—but not absolute rule}}. It should also provide an '''accessible''' overview per ], Assess material based on relative importance to the subject of the article per ] and also should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. The real issue with it is that it is badly written. I would also say that there is some weight issue in the distribution of information. It's poorly written and like the whole article suffers from repetition and bloat. ] (]) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


''A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? ''
::::User:Maproom, the source says "Consequently, safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine, which has the potential to cause addiction and other adverse events." For the lede I kept the wording concise. The lede now says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use." ] (]) 03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|QuackGuru}} Please point out in the source where it says people are exposed to potentially lethal doses from e-cigarette use. ] 03:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::I tweaked the wording. It now says "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine." ] (]) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::"There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially ] ]." Ref to: Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.
- Unfortunately I can see nothing in Cheng to justify "potentially lethal" at all, as two others have now pointed out. ] (]) 03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks, neither could I, but it was possible I had missed it so I asked. ] 03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::The source says "...safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to ''harmful'' and ''potentially harmful'' constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine...". ] (]) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Seriously, you thought it was ok to jump from "harmful" to "lethal"? ] (]) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::I changed it to "toxic" and you changed it to "harmful". Thanks. ] (]) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::The question is, why did you change it to "potentially lethal" in the first place? Because that fails ] and looks a lot like POV pushing, doesn't it?--] (]) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


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.
:I think the real question is, can anyone phrase "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users..." in English? maybe "Some have safety concerns over users being exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" or "there are safety concerns over..." or "There are potential dangers from..." Because it's currently worded really unreadably. ] (]) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::That ''is'' awkward, isn't it. Hrm. Perhaps "concerns the product isn't safe" or "concerns the product presents risks to"? Better yet, put it in an active voice: "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from"? ] (]) 21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The wording was recently changed. See "E-cigarette users are exposed to potentially harmful nicotine." ] (]) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: I don't think that adresses the point at all. "Exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" is very different from "Experts are concerned about several potential risks from the product" I like Cloudjpk's "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from" but it will need a ref for health and safety experts (experts could be changed for proffessionals, bodies etc as apt for ref) ] (]) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::We should not include an ] violation in the lede when there is no serious dispute. The specific details are in the body anyhow. ] (]) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (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)
== The source says toxicants ==


'''· ] (]) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)'''
The source says "The levels of toxicants..." A synonym for toxicants ''is'' chemical constituents. ] (]) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (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.
::Strongly disagree. There is no scientific definition of what a "chemical constituent" even is (as everything is made of chemicals), let alone agreement that "chemical constituents" is a synonym for toxicant. ] (]) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents". Then they explain about the "toxicants". I'd rather use a neutral word rather than poisons. ] (]) 02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, it may be in the source, but its incorrect. I'd challenge you to name a non-chemical constituent of any material or object. ] (]) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::I will change the word since it is an issue. ] (]) 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks! ] (]) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents" but the specific text says "toxicants". I went ahead and changed the word. ] (]) 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


'''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.
On a semi related note, where in the source can I find that using e-cigarettes exposes people to lethel doses of nicotine as this claim says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use." ] 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:Claiming that e-cig use exposes people to lethal doses of nicotine is just stupid. It definitely should not be in the article.--] (]) 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
== Another new study ==


1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”?
Dual use of e-cigs and cigarettes increases chances of smoking cessation by up to 320%. The is stacking up. When is this shambles of an article going to start reflecting it?--] (]) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
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!
: You need to give it time for the evidence to filter through to secondary sources. There are several interesting meta-analyses expected later this year. I think the first step in de-shambles~ing the article would be writing what is already there in clearer language. ] (]) 11:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I agree. We don't need to mention every single study, even if it doesn't say anything worthwhile. The whole environmental impact section needs to go for example, because it doesn't say anything about environmental impact. Given what's actually known it should really be a pretty short article.--] (]) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I disagree with deleting entire relevant paragraphs. I just added a more concise paragraph about nicotine and expanded the page a bit. ] (]) 01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
::::The last thing this article needs is expanding. What it needs is a drastic pruning to get rid of all the he said/she said rubbish. Just because a study exists does not mean its conclusions - especially if they boil down to "We don't know" - are worthy of including in the article. Please stop adding trivia.--] (]) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
== Proposed removal of Environmental Impact section ==
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?
This section adds nothing to the article. It's basically just speculation, as shown by the endless repetition of "no studies have been conducted into...". I propose that we remove it until some actual research has been done.--] (]) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
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)


*'''Support''' - This section says nothing. It's 100% speculation and the reference itself admits it isn't based on any research, so it's not a secondary source.--] (]) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC) · Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --] (]) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)


Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024
*'''Oppose''' {{cite journal|last1=Chang|first1=H.|title=Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes|journal=Tobacco Control|volume=23|issue=Supplement 2|year=2014|pages=ii54–ii58|issn=0964-4563|doi=10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480|pmc=3995274|pmid=24732165}} The source is reliable. I . ] (]) 21:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter if it's reliable, because it doesn't actually say anything. Hard to get more trivial than that.--] (]) 23:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


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.
*'''Support''' - Per InfiniteBratwurst -] 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


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.
*'''Oppose''' The requirement for discussion is that high quality secondary sources exist. "Known unknowns" are notable. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::This isn't a secondary source, high quality or otherwise. Secondary sources are reviews of primary sources, not random speculation.--] (]) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (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.
*'''Oppose''' Agree with Doc James. ] (]) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (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-->
*'''Oppose''' per Doc James. The concerns are from quality secondary sources, they should not be downplayed because they are unsubstantiated when they make no secret of it. -- ] ] (]) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::Where is the secondary source? There cannot be one without ''primary'' sources, which Cheng himself admits do not exist.--] (]) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::I counted . ] (]) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::None of which support the claims you made in the article, because those are all "No research has been conducted into..." That section adds nothing and should be removed until there is some research.--] (]) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Every sentence reflects the ] using reliable ] reviews. ] (]) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Every sentence starts "No research has been conducted into..." or "Nothing is known about...". Therefore this is not a secondary source. The section says nothing. I think you have ] issues with it.--] (]) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
*It is too long and should be the last section of all. That's if we think that "Environmental Impact" is actually a "safety" issue at all. I suspect that we don't so treat it for other products. ] (]) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


== Notice == == 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) ] (]) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at . ] (]) 01:47, 13 March 2015 (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 (talk • contribs) 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: