This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mihaister (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 17 December 2014 (→Cochrane review: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:15, 17 December 2014 by Mihaister (talk | contribs) (→Cochrane review: new 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)
Was the RFC Recommendations Ignored? "Vapor" is WRONG
There was a lengthy RFC on this and yet someone has altered the text once again to the incorrect claim that these devices disperse a vapor. The correct term is aerosol which I had thought was the winning commentary on the last RFC go-around.
Someone with a dog in the race continues to want to use the technically and scientifically incorrect term, almost certainly because he or she is vested in the industry which sells or markets these devices.
Remember, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be encyclopedic and the proper utilization of terms is important (or not) to various degrees. If you don't know (or don't care) what a vapor is as opposed to an aerosol, you should be asking other editors before you alter words, or you should comply with the findings of the RFCs which editors open, discuss, and assume to have been resolved.
This seemingly-endless alteration cycle is not important in the context of the extant article since it's likely anyone doing research understands the difference, yet anyone who reads the article and is not an editor is going to note the fact that the term being applied -- vapor -- is wrong. That looks bad for Misplaced Pages which the editors insisting on making the mistake should consider stop doing. Damotclese (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember WP:AGF and try not to attribute shady motives to those who disagree with you. I am not aligned with the industry at all but believe Vapor is the most common term and most easily understood by general readers, we are not writing for scientists, researchers, or health professionals. The RFC is not closed, hopefully will be soon as a request for closing has been made. Until then, please wait as we all are. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Damotclese is correct. Electronic cigarettes do not emit vapor according to the sources presented. AlbinoFerret wrote "Until then, please wait as we all are." But SPACKlick wasn't waiting. Since SPACKlick did not wait for the RFC to finish the edits should be reverted. There were a series of edits. Some of the edits changed the wording while the RF is still open. This happened at the Electronic cigarette page too. Sidenote: I tagged a word that I think is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Wording
"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but inaccurately referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas". It is more accurate to state it is inaccurately called vapor according to the source.
The source says "...regulation of the e-cigarette should be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." I could not verify word "potential". The source used the word "reported". I removed the misleading text.
Spotted original research. Please read "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes..." The sources says "particles". I removed the misleading text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Point 1) I agree
- Point 2) The source says "However, regulation of the e-cigarette should be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." This is the opinion of the authors on how they think e-cigarette regulation should work and therefore needs to be attributed due to WP:YESPOV. Furthermore it is not a particularly useful sentence from the source - "on the basis of reported adverse health effects" - reported by whom? Directly by the user, or reported by the medical community? The source is not clear on this and we are left in the dark. The wording currently does not particularly represent the source accurately either. I suggest that this sentence is removed, in the mean time it has been improved and attributed.
- Point 3) It doesn't say just "particles" the source says "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke."Levelledout (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Point 2) The review does give examples of the "reported" potential effects to health. Therefore, it is useful to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problems with the section are clear, and I agree with you Levelledout. This is starting to look like a word search without looking at what the source says. AlbinoFerret 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have not responded to my previous comment that the review does give specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Who reported the examples? AlbinoFerret 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have placed the line in the article without consensus.diff AlbinoFerret 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have not provided an objection to including relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Its not relevant to a medical page. It is a Legal section. This is not the main page. AlbinoFerret 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- As obvious by this section you had No consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to your own edit summary, it is health related claims. QuackGuru (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I took out the health claims, leaving the legal claims on the legal page.AlbinoFerret 11:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- You left out high-quality sources that you have not shown was duplication from the legal status article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- They do not fit this article, no matter how high-quality they are. Stick to the topic of each subarticle, and summarize at the top-level article. --Kim D. Petersen 06:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- You left out high-quality sources that you have not shown was duplication from the legal status article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I took out the health claims, leaving the legal claims on the legal page.AlbinoFerret 11:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to your own edit summary, it is health related claims. QuackGuru (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- As obvious by this section you had No consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Its not relevant to a medical page. It is a Legal section. This is not the main page. AlbinoFerret 11:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have not provided an objection to including relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have not responded to my previous comment that the review does give specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How much is enough.
I was just wondering how many studies will there need to be before we can stop saying that there is not enough studies on ecig to know anything about them. The source supporting the claim in the opening of the article is more than a year old and since then more research have been made available.... I'm not saying that I know for a fact that we have enough study to stop saying that but I was nonetheless wondering.TheNorlo (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
most likely it will stay that way regardless of the number of studies until the FDA itself makes a definitive statement.71.1.243.176 (talk) 22:53, 10 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)
Categories: