Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:48, 6 May 2020

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.

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: 3 months

Template:Ecig sanctions

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 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aremler (article contribs).

CDC images

The images copied from CDC documents are not accessible to visually impaired readers, because they are pictures of text rather than actual text. Typically this type of information is simply incorporated into the article text, and the CDC documents can be cited as a source. -- Beland (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The CDC images should be kept not deleted. No every person likes to read articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes

The concerns of multiple editors at Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_4#Why_two_articles? have not been addressed. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles, especially on nicotine and aerosol, which are outside of the "Adverse effects" section of the safety article. If the current length of both articles is to be maintained, they should be split along a more logical dividing line. But I agree with the editors who commented that both articles currently contain an excessive amount of detail, and if trimmed to an appropriate length would be short enough to merge. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent mass content deletion. Each article is too long to merge together. The article was expanded and it was reverted more than once and a new article was created to retain the content. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_4#Article_length QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What "mass content deletion" are you referring to? -- Beland (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say I previously disagreed with the mass content deletion. The only way I could gain consensus for adding the content was to create a subarticle. Others convinced me the article was too long for the content here. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are four editors (including me) who seem to think that the way article content is currently divided is undesirable. The two remedies proposed so far are rearranging into a different set of subarticles to clarify scope and provide better non-overlapping summaries in the parent article, or to trim down content so it fits in one article. -- Beland (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tag add to list of safety issues

See reason: "Issues listed in table are already covered in other sections; arguments expressed here should be merged into prose sections."

Not everyone reads the text, especially lengthy articles. The table gives readers a quick overview. I don't think it is possible to convert all the content into prose. There are 3 columns. Safety consideration, Supporting arguments, and Opposing arguments. I'd rather keep the table intact instead of losing content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This change would be making the article shorter. The article introduction is supposed to give a quick overview of the subject, and the TOC a way to quickly navigate to more detail on specific concerns. This table is in the middle of the article, so it's likely that a reader only spending a short time skimming the topic wouldn't see it. What table content do you think is impossible to convert to prose? I can't imagine how that's even conceivable, given the table is just snippets of prose arguments. -- Beland (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Excessive detail on 95% controversy

In the "Positives" section, I dropped some details about the controversy over the claim "vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking". (QuackGuru reverted this change.) I think it is enough to say that the group that released the claim were criticized for "having financial ties to the tobacco industry", as I wrote. It is not interesting to the vast majority of readers of this article which people in that group got money from where, or which journals published an infographic explaining the connections. This information should not be in the prose of the article; interested readers should be able to click through to investigative reports and see that it's reputable journals like The Lancet and BMJ through the footnotes. This excessive detail also gives undue weight to this controversy. There are several other statistics about the estimated relative safety reported in the article, which are not described as disputed, which should get about the same amount of coverage. Readers should be able to judge the reliability of each by how Misplaced Pages characterizes it (or if they care, chasing down original sources through footnotes) and not based on how much prose is devoted to disputing the number. -- Beland (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been blocked; I've restored the change. -- Beland (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Start-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages