| Revision as of 14:31, 31 May 2020 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Content issues: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:02, 31 May 2020 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| See "The safety of electronic cigarettes is uncertain." This sentence was the first sentence in the lede. It is no longer in the lede. I propose starting with removing the unsourced content from the lede. ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | See "The safety of electronic cigarettes is uncertain." This sentence was the first sentence in the lede. It is no longer in the lede. I propose starting with removing the unsourced content from the lede. ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
| === 2018 review has not been retracted === | |||
| Please see "An article which claimed to show that the effect of using e-cigarettes on the odds of myocardial infarction approached what was found with traditional cigarette smoking. has since been retracted." | |||
| The 2018 review called "E-Cigarettes: Use, Effects on Smoking, Risks, and Policy Implications" has . ] (]) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === Images === | === Images === | ||
Revision as of 17:02, 31 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
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).
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)
- All the content that was recently trimmed or deleted from this article is enough content to start a separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:48, 30 May 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)
- 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)
- What "mass content deletion" are you referring to? -- Beland (talk) 23:06, 8 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)
- Sourced content was replaced with unsourced content. See "Tobacco manufactures vigorously promote the use of alternatives to traditional cigarettes with supposedly safer tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, as a way to lower the harms of tobacco." This was sourced and it was removed. It was replaced with "Electronic cigarettes have been proposed as a healthier alternative for people who otherwise cannot or choose not to quit smoking, even if complete abstinence from inhaled nicotine products is healthiest." that is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Content issues
@QuackGuru: With due respect to your concerns, during the discussion that lead to your three-month block, a major theme in the complaints was "ownership" over articles, expressed as reverting or discussing a large number of changes made by other editors, starting what the administrators felt was an overly large number of discussions, and alienating other editors with continual arguing. Would it be possible to pick maybe the most important of the below topics on which to continue discussion, and accept the rest as the work of other editors to improve the article? -- Beland (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I will allow you to pick any that you think is of concern or you can close the discussion if you think there is no serious concern. No editor is required to response. Would it help if I don't edit this article for 6 months or a year? QuackGuru (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Lede
Please see the previous lede compared to the current lede. There is promotional disputed language such as "In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Physicians states that "The hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."" and "This estimate of 5% risk was recently affirmed in a 2018 review." The body contains content that disputes the 5% risk claim. See one of the sources used in the article.
See "The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of the United States argue that e-cigarettes are not without risk, but compared to combustible tobacco cigarettes, they contain fewer toxicants." It is not needed to state "The National they contain fewer toxicants.Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine of the United States argue...". This weakens the claim or is too wordy. The part "...but compared to combustible tobacco cigarettes, they contain fewer toxicants." is repetitive. See later in the lede: "The majority of toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke are absent in e-cigarette vapor. E-cigarette vapor contains lower concentrations of potentially toxic chemicals than with cigarette smoke." The previous wording was "However, e-cigarette use with or without nicotine cannot be considered harmless."
See "The relationship of between vaping and conventional smoking is an area of active study and debate, including the relative health risk, whether electronic cigarettes should be promoted to people who cannot or who would otherwise choose to quit smoking, and whether or not the availability of electronic cigarettes is recruiting more people into nicotine addiction than if they were not available." This content in the lede is unsourced. The previous lede only contained sourced content. I don't think it was an improvement to replace sourced content with unsourced content in the lede.
See "The safety of electronic cigarettes is uncertain." This sentence was the first sentence in the lede. It is no longer in the lede. I propose starting with removing the unsourced content from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Images
A few images have been deleted from the article such as this image. I think they added value to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Unknowns
A lot of the unknowns that were in the article seemed to have be expunged. The known unknowns are notable. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_2#Proposed_removal_of_Environmental_Impact_section QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Content deleted
A lot of relevant on-topic content was deleted from the article. For example, see "Reviews on the safety of electronic cigarettes, evaluating roughly the same studies, have reached significantly different conclusions. Broad-ranging statements regarding their safety cannot be reached because of the vast differences of devices and e-liquids available. A consensus has not been established for the effects as well as the benefits related to their use. Due to various methodological issues, severe conflicts of interest, and inconsistent research, no definite conclusions can be determined regarding the safety of e-cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as a harmless alternative to traditional cigarettes." These are not redundant claims. QuackGuru (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Environmental Impact section
Before it was removed from this article it was trimmed here and here. Consensus was against keeping the Environmental Impact section in the electronic cigarette article. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_15#Perfect_Example_of_Bloat. Consensus was also against removing it from this article. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_2#Proposed_removal_of_Environmental_Impact_section. QuackGuru (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories: