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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:41, 27 December 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Non-medical claims← Previous edit Revision as of 02:42, 27 December 2014 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Non-medical claims: opinion-articles are only reliable for the opinions of the author.Next edit →
Line 177: Line 177:
=== Non-medical claims === === Non-medical claims ===
The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." So far it has not been explained how reviewing the evidence is not a good source. ] (]) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." So far it has not been explained how reviewing the evidence is not a good source. ] (]) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:Opinion articles are only reliable for the opinion of the author. That is basic ] policy. --] 02:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:42, 27 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.
Article policies
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 
WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 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.

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: 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)
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)
No I haven't.--FergusM1970 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes you have. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 24 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)

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)

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=637681446&oldid=637668408 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.

Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't this article about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he claims the text belongs. If User:AlbinoFerret beleived the text belonged in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Health related info doesn't belong on the legal aspects article, nor do legal aspects belong on the medical article, except in very rare cases. These are daughter articles, not articles where you can refight arguments differently (see WP:POVFORK) --Kim D. Petersen 03:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So you agree the health claims belong in this article rather than legal status? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Those 3 diffs did the correct thing imho. If you want to synthesize legal/policy arguments from health arguments, then you need a third party to make the comparison. Otherwise you are doing POV editing. --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown which sentence does not belong in this article. Both editors have shown the text does not belong in legal status. I am going to rewrite some of the text. So that makes this RFC irrelevant anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that the text was rewritten and updated this RFC is no longer applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The RFC will run until its end and we will find where consensus lies. That way we can avoid others doing the same thing or in the future the sections reappearing because the RFC never finished. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I explained this RFC is no longer applicable for the current text and you did not disagree. If you do disagree please show which sentence does not belong in this article. So far you have not shown what is not relevant to this page. The RFC is not referring to any specific "currently rewritten text". So you can't delete any rewritten text based on this RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Choosing what to include

A good article is not written by stuffing in every catchy quote we can find from as many sources as possible. We should be working out what the consensus of reliable sources is and writing that in a clear, readable form then citing appropriately. That way we get content that will tell people something, instead of a list of ten sentences that all say basically the same thing but are cited to different sources. Write it ONCE and add ten cites. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but you know who I mean.--FergusM1970 23:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this be named "Dangers of electronic cigarettes"? (/* me ducks! */ :)

OK, really... Probably both the current name "Safety of ..." as would "Dangers of ..." (or "Risks of ...") are titles with a inherent tendency for one Point of View, wouldn't a title as "Health effects of electronic cigarettes", similar to the existent "Health effects of tobacco", be a more neutral option? And then redirect from the other - Nabla (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This page was at one time a subsection of the Health Effects section of Electronic cigarette. A stub now is in its place and a link to this page is at the top of the section. As a daughter page of the Electronic cigarette article it follows the name it had while on that page. Health Effects will likely sometime in the future have the same thing happen, we dont need two pages with the same name. Dangers would imply that there are proven dangers, at present most if not all of the health information is concerns, speculation, and calling for more study. So Dangers would be premature, perhaps when l;ong term medical studies are done this will change. I hope this helps. AlbinoFerret 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You wrote" Health Effects will likely sometime in the future have the same thing happen..." There is no need to wait. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am glad you agree Quack, lets move Health effects off of Electronic cigarette and to its own page today. AlbinoFerret 12:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Health effects include 1) the medical uses such as harm reduction and smoking cessation 2) the adverse effects / side effects / safety. We should keep it matched with the heading of that name in the e-cig article. Thus moved back until more discussion occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Mist in the lede

User:SPACKlick is okay with "mist" in the lede for the main article. I will go ahead and add it to the lede for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because one editor agrees with it on one page is not consensus to add it to every daughter page of Electronic cigarettes. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It is more than one editor who agrees it can be included. Adding a synonym benefits the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with original research in the lede

The previous wording was sourced and accurate. Now it was replaced with original research and ambiguous text. The part "sometimes" is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not orignal research, mist is not used everwhere in that way, what you have created is OR by suggesting that it is. AlbinoFerret 12:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It is OR when the source does not verify the claim. I am trying to find a source to clarify this matter. I would like to find a source that does say it is used less often but we can't include OR. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What is Cheng reviewing?

Copied from Cheng, from Results:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production, along with associated research needs, are described below."

What exactly did Cheng review and if he didnt review any studies on these topics are not the conclusions drawn on these topics primary research and pure opinion? AlbinoFerret 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a source to verify the claim otherwise it maybe a copyright violation on the talk page. When there is no serious dispute we WP:ASSERT the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The source as you well know is the Cheng article " "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" from Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2). AlbinoFerret 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a serious WP:ASSERT problem at the very least because "review" does not sufficiently identify these statements as strictly the opinion of Cheng. I also question it as a secondary MEDRS source as at least some of the comments in the article are purely the opinions of Chang and not a review of previous studies. Though that will have to be looked at in greater detail. Perhaps the battery recycling program is not. AlbinoFerret 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown what is the serious dispute. There is no need to add a qualifier. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It can't be a review if the above is the case, and joins the McKee source below, as "reviews" that aren't. --Kim D. Petersen 03:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
A review is a review. You haven't shown otherwise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What does it review QG? If there are no studies on it, then it can't be a review, since reviews summarize other studies. --Kim D. Petersen 03:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
"Methods Literature searches were conducted through December 2013. Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes." The source is a review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You are right, it is a review (per PubMed). But all you can use the source for is to show gaps - not conclusions or speculation, since it specifically is a review of what hasn't been examined yet. --Kim D. Petersen 03:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

Officially is not a synonym of Formally. diff it is Original Research to add it. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

McKee is an editorial

The McKee article is an Editorial, clearly listed as such in the article itself at the top. link As an Editorial it is not a WP:MEDRS secondary source and is unusable to make medical claims. I have removed it. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The source said "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." Read under Footnotes: The source said is a "Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed." QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly did your comment here have to do with McKee's article being an editorial and clearly marked as such? We only accept WP:MEDRS reviews for medical info. --Kim D. Petersen 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the source it is "internally peer reviewed." That means it is also a review. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. That is a strange assertion - and one that directly contradicts everything you've said earlier with regards to the McNeill paper. Here is an example - let me quote you:
There is no evidence it is MEDRS compliant. Lots of sources are peer-reviewed in a respected journal and pubmed indexed. You have not made a good case. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
--Kim D. Petersen 02:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
When know the source is "peer-reviewed" you have not made a case it is not MEDRS. The source is also a reliable SECONDARY source for other claims. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
When an article is published as an editorial, and classified as an editorial by PubMed then it is editorial. Where is your evidence that it is a review? Or WP:MEDRS compliant? --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I already made the case and you did not specifically disagree with my specific comments. For example, the source said in the footnotes it is internally peer reviewed. You did not disagree with that specific statement. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You have made no such thing. Peer-review does not WP:MEDRS or a review make - per your own words even. --Kim D. Petersen 03:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I already explained this. Read this again: "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." The source reviewed the current evidence. A review of the evidence is a reliable source. The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Jesus. Learn to read, would you? That is not a secondary source. It's not even a primary source. It's an editorial. An opinion piece. You cannot use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.137 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Quack, your explanation is faulty. McKee is a Editorial, if it comes in so does McNeil which is a better quality source. Even if an editorial says its looking at something, it is not a review, its a pure opinion piece. It has been removed again and will be continued to be removed because it is not a WP:MEDRS source and this is a medical page. There are now three editors against it, even if it were a good source, there is no consensus to add it. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-medical claims

The source is also making non-medical claims. So we can use it also as a secondary source. "Before reviewing the evidence, some context is necessary." So far it has not been explained how reviewing the evidence is not a good source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion articles are only reliable for the opinion of the author. That is basic WP:RS policy. --Kim D. Petersen 02:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories: