This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 19 December 2014 (→Proposed removal of "Aerosol" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:36, 19 December 2014 by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) (→Proposed removal of "Aerosol" section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
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)
- 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)
- That little claim about regulation is on the legal page, it should not be here. AlbinoFerret 11:46, 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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
 |
|
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)