Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 23 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health effects of electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Adding of Legal status material to a medical page

This edit added material that should be on the Legal status page.diff This is a medical page and should not be trying to emulate the main Electronic cigarette article. This is bloat. Shall I add a summery of Components, and Culture and society? AlbinoFerret 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is not the main article and does not need a "Legal status section" Since no one has chosen to respond with a policy or guideline why it should be here, its time to remove it unless an on point WP policy or guideline shows why an off topic section should remain. AlbinoFerret 22:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If the text is not relevant to that article then it must be relevant for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed Medical claims that have nothing to do with regulation. Much like here, you are adding off topic information to pages. Find the correct page to place it on. AlbinoFerret 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The "reported" adverse health effects has to do with the regulation debate too. QuackGuru (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That little claim about regulation is on the legal page, it should not be here. AlbinoFerret 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

According to your own edit summary the text are specific adverse effects. According to you they belong in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to place the information that is specific to a pages topic on it, not on others. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The section was left in order for you to move any information that needed to be moved to the prospective pages. It has now been removed as it was off topic and pages dealing with those topics already exist. This is not the main page, nor should it become it. The only summery sections that should go on this page are if specific sections of this page are moved to one of their own. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, you claimed it was off topic here but when I added some text to another page you deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the main page, Legal status and Positions of medical organizations are sub pages of the main Electronic cigarette page not this one. This material is on Electronic cigarette and the sub pages already mentioned. AlbinoFerret 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This section is short and concise and expresses concerns that are fully reasonable for this page. I stand in favor of keeping it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Im not in favour of recreating the main page. Im not in favour of duplicating things all over. There is no consensus for this, if you think there is, start a RFC. If you push a RFC to open the door for this you open the door for a Components section. Lets be plainly clear. This is a summery section for pages that are not daughter pages of this page. It is not a new section, it cant grow into a new page, because these pages already exist. Adding it here is an opportunity for POV pushing. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is utterly relevant for the topic. The legal status ties into what safety concerns there are. I see more pointing towards a consensus to keep the addition, but if you wish you may start an RFC about its removal. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it isnt, Legal status and Positions are not the daughter pages of this page, but of Electronic cigarette. There is no consensus for the section, there never has been since its creation. It is useless duplication. AlbinoFerret 06:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy." Moreover, the review found that some case reports found harms to health brought about by e-cigarettes in many countries, such as the US and in Europe. is "pure health related claims from a page on regulation." What page is on topic then?

According to AlbinoFerret's edit summary the text For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans. is "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature". If the text is about adverse effects then why was text deleted from this page as off topic?

AlbinoFerret has a pattern of deleting sourced text related to safety. Now he claims all text including the text about adverse effects is off topic. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those sections were not broken out from this page, the information exists on those pages. A RFC has been started to see where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 06:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted similar text from another page. because you said it was off topic. So what page is on topic? This page under adverse effects is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are taking edits out of context. The first edit is removing medical information from the Legal page. It shouldnt be there. The second edit happened long before when you were adding medical sections to the main page when there was an ongoing RFC on the matter. The content was replaced a few edits later, by me, and the headers removed. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane review

A Cochrane review about the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes has been published. This needs to be featured prominently in the article. Among the conclusions: "ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs" and "None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use". Mihaister (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a review we need in the article. AlbinoFerret 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article? There is a discussion here on the subject.AlbinoFerret 06:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• NO This page should focus in on its own topic and not duplicate material from the Electronic cigarette article or pages that were broken out from the Electronic cigarette article. The only summery sections it should contain are for sections broken out from it. It should not be a source of duplication. The section never had consensus to be here in the first place. AlbinoFerret 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No it shouldn't That's what the main e-cig article is for.--FergusM1970 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No There shouldn't be duplication of sections however some information will be relevant on multiple daughter pages. SPACKlick (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Just to be clear on your comment. When you say some information may be relevant on multiple pages are you saying that some claims may be usable in different sections on different pages? AlbinoFerret 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text is relevant for this article and when it was added to another page it was deleted. User:CFCF is also in favor of keeping the concise section. This makes no sense to delete the relevant text from this page. So what is actual the reason for wanting to delete it? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this article. This article is about safety. There is another article for legal status. Legal information belongs there. It does not belong here.--FergusM1970 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the discussion of you adding sections that were never part of this page. Fergus did not add the sections, you did. AlbinoFerret 20:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• No This is a daughter article - if we did this, then there would be a very real problem of this article turning into a WP:POVFORK. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 User:FergusM1970 deleted the section from this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737551&oldid=638557066 User:FergusM1970 moved the paragraph to another article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 But then User:FergusM1970 acknowledged "This has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims."

Both of these editors claim the text does not belong in this article but are deleting text from another article they don't want in this or any article. It appears they don't want most of the text in any article. A lot more text was deleted. One of the edit summaries was revealing. I don't think that's meaningful in any way. I'm sure a lot more text will continue to be deleted if past behavior is represented of future behavior. For example, User:FergusM1970 wants to "zap" the "Aerosol" section? User:Softlavender explained "It's not hard to see there's a pattern here" in regard to User:FergusM1970's recent behavior at the electronic cigarette page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Quack, I want to zap it. Its content belongs under various other sections, mostly Toxicology. Regarding the edit comment you highlighted, no, the sentence I removed was not meaningful. It didn't mean anything. It was just a more or less random collection of words, galloping merrily across the page free of worries, cares, syntax or grammar. If you want it back in the article then by all means suggest a form that makes sense; I'm happy to work with you on that. As for the rest of your comment:

1) Yes, I deleted text brought in from another article. That's because, as you have already been told, it belongs in the other article. Not here.

2) Yes, lots more text is going to be deleted. Around 80% of it, I'd say. However the amount of content that will be deleted is virtually nil. I'd suggest you read this, but if it's too complex here's the short version. This:

A study says something. Another study says the same thing. Yet another study says the same thing. This study says the same thing too. Here's another study that says - hooray! - the same thing..

Is much longer and contains more text than this:

Some studies say this.

But it doesn't contain any more information. So yes, I am going to delete vast amounts of text from this article, because right now it is practically unreadable. It is stodgy, repetitive, confusing, internally contradictory and just appallingly badly written. What I am not going to delete is any information.--FergusM1970 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have just had a closer look at your complaint, Quack. I am WP:AGF here and assuming that you are failing to understand my edits, rather than deliberately misrepresenting them, so I will explain. I moved a section on legal issues from this page, where it does not belong, to the legal page. Then I deleted half of it (the reference to the old 2009 FDA cigalike tests) from there because it dealt with purely health issues. You claim that I "don't want the text in any article." Well what's this then? The text you accuse me of "not wanting in any article" is right here, in this article, where it belongs - in the Toxicology section. However now it's in the article once, like it should be, not twice like it was before. Firstly you need to accept that needlessly duplicating content does not make the article better or more informative; it turns it into an unreadable mess. Secondly you need to make sure of your facts before you start throwing accusations around. You've been accused of not following AGF and not being WP:COMPETENT plenty times; this is why.--FergusM1970 06:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 You clearly deleted it from this article. Your edit summary was "Moving to Legal Status article". It was not duplication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 You moved it to another article and then you deleted almost all of it from the other article. The text you deleted from the article article belongs in this article but you claim It's not relevant to this article. You seems to be making two different arguments. You claim it's not relevant to this article but then you claim it was duplication. Maybe you should strike you comment at ANI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh FFS.

Yes, I removed it from this article and moved it to the Legal article. That's because it was about legal issues.

Yes, I deleted most of it from the Legal article. That's because what I deleted wasn't relevant to that article; it's relevant to this one. And it's still in this one, because it was duplicated!

The text that is not relevant to this article is the legal bit. The safety information is relevant to this article.

You clearly cannot understand my edits. Maybe you should stop commenting on things you do not understand.--FergusM1970 07:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The text you claim is "duplicated" is not found in this article because you deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

headdesk It is in the article. It is in the first sentence of the first section following the lede.--FergusM1970 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you claiming the text you deleted is in another section? According to your edit summary you moved it to another article (but you deleted most of it). Right? QuackGuru (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Quack. I am not claiming that it is in another section. I am telling you exactly where it is. Go and look. It's not hard to find. It's right here.--FergusM1970 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 deleted the paragraph and then claimed it is still in the article. That is disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was still in the article, right there in the first sentence of the first section after the lede. At least the information was there. There's no way I was going to leave your whole paragraph, because it was utter gash. From now on it's best you stick to seeking consensus on the talk page then let someone else edit the article. You can't write. You have no idea of how to construct a sentence. The edits you make are often completely incomprehensible. And I know what I'm talking about, because I'm a professional writer.--FergusM1970 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears editors may have been recruiting to Misplaced Pages. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing and has made mass changes to this article. I think we need to restore the deleted text and undo the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have misrpresented the facts. One editor was blocked because he was paid to edit and did not disclose it. He admitted he did so. He did not admit nor is there proof he edited this article for money, or recruited anyone. AlbinoFerret 09:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MastCell and User:JzG. There has been mass changes to this article. A lot of text was deleted by User:FergusM1970. Some assistance may be necessary. I have updated the article and restored the text. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Quack. You have created a useless, unreadable mess of contradictory claims.--FergusM1970 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the above, it smacks of WP:CANVASsing. But fortunately the two editors getting called here are level-headed. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen Since Quack rolled back all of Fergus's edits diff I question the need to call for help and suggest your assessment is probably correct. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have words for what Quack did, but it's a mess. I'm going to remove a few contradictions, but the text needs cleaned up. Again. I wish he'd leave the writing to others because he's shit at it.--FergusM1970 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious wording

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

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

What does that even mean? The "Environmental impact" section is particularly badly affected, to the extent that it's basically unreadable. It looks as if someone took every negative-sounding statement they could and pasted it in there without evaluating what, if anything, it meant.--FergusM1970 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole Environmental impact section is opinion except the battery exchange. Its all tied to one review that made no conclusions but called for more study. Its weight uis very low and the section shouldn’t be in the article at all. Read the section A perfect example of bloat. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example:

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

Huh? That doesn't appear to have any real-world meaning at all. It seems to be based on the belief that an electronic cigarette is a consumable item like an actual cigarette, which with the exception of disposables is not true. It certainly doesn't seem to have any relevance at all to environmental impact. This statement needs to be either made coherent or removed.--FergusM1970 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is an example of a common Original Research that brings information on cigalikes and spreads it across all generations, when the source is clearly about cigalikes. AlbinoFerret 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's weird. I'm currently using a Nemesis and Taifun GT. How can that be defined in "traditional cigarette" equivalence? The nicotine content of the tank? Depends what liquid I'm using and how completely I fill it. Weight? Volume? Cost? It's just silly.--FergusM1970 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So unless someone can offer a compelling reason to keep it I'm going to remove it. NB: "It's sourced" is not a compelling reason. I would like to know what it means and what it adds to the article that would be lacking if it weren't there.--FergusM1970 16:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think looking at the source and seeing if they describe whats tested may be more productive. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just added to the claims that no studies have been done of looked at to come to the conclusions as spelled out in the so called review. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned the section up, removed some duplication (it said three times that no studies had been conducted into the manufacturing impact) and turned it into something that resembles coherent English. I think you're right though; it's just a list of things we don't know and doesn't belong in a Safety article at all. I say we delete it.--FergusM1970 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did some calculations. I've had my Nemesis for just over a year. I'm calling it 380 days. That means, so far, using it has been comparable to smoking 16,374 cigarettes. As it's still in perfect condition I expect it to be in daily use for at least another couple of years, although the Chang review claims e-cigs only last a few weeks. I'm more baffled than ever as to what that sentence actually means and what, if anything, it's supposed to add to the article.--FergusM1970 05:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up the "Ultrafine particles" section too. It turns out that one of the cited sources actually contains quite a lot of information on ultrafine particles, which mysteriously had not been included in the section. Now it has been.--FergusM1970 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

This whole article needs to be completely rewritten. Right now it's just a mess of contradictory statements: "A review said e-cigs are bad. A review said e-cigs are good. A review said we don't know if e-cigs are good or bad. A review said e-cigs might be good or bad." It looks awful and it's just going to confuse readers. I propose that we rearrange the bulk of it as two properly cited sections, one giving the evidence so far and the other containing all the "we don't knows", instead of adding one sentence for each and every review.--FergusM1970 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the Etter commentary. Its not listed as a Review, but commentary. As such its not suitable as a MEDRS source. link to its abstract listing it as commentary. AlbinoFerret 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Further rewriting.

I'm about to start tackling the Toxicology section, with the aim of streamlining it; I intend to use simple, clear statements with multiple cites instead of the current repetitive/confusing mess. However I'm frightened of what lies ahead, because right now the section is huge and dauntingly crap. If anyone wants to join me on this linguistic adventure please, feel free.--FergusM1970 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "Aerosol" section

I have no idea what this section is for. Everything in it could be quite easily fitted in to one of the other sections, and in fact a lot of it's there already. Any objections to moving the information to Toxicology and Adverse effects, then zapping the section?--FergusM1970 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It should really be second hand aerosol, whats in Tox is mainly first hand. AlbinoFerret 23:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the same toxicants in either case. Exhaled vapour just has even less of them than inhaled does. Anyway I'll leave the section for now and just concentrate on sorting it out. If it disappears, as the Environmental section is so close to doing, then it obviously was never meant to be.--FergusM1970 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be seperation between first and second hand exposure. Otherwise the claims get mixed up and it becomes original research. AlbinoFerret 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. Yes, that's much better. Thanks!--FergusM1970 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment