Talk:Effects of blue light technology

Carbonshade Citation spam
I am about to remove a citation spam reference to Carbonshade. The citation is to an article which itself cites commercial material. The article itself doesn't represent the glasses as being unique. For reference the removed paragraph reads. (''only Carbonshade glasses block near 100% of all wavelengths that suppress melatonin production...")

The corresponding edit is here. The edit was made from a city 20 minutes away from where the company is located. I decided to remove the whole paragraph related to that edit as it seemed to be mostly a pretext to drop the name.

--un_brice (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with High-energy visible light
These two articles have too much overlap to really be considered appropriately separate (they appear to have been written independently rather than being WP:CFORKs.) jps (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

there is a good reason for this. both are advertising catch phrases used by Essilor. I suspect these pages were created by an advertising firm or employees. I would also request that users check to see if they appear in their google results as targeted advertising and use the google report form if they believe it violates their domestic laws regarding the registration of medical devices. Specifically I had ads linking to articles promoting them as preventing macular degeneration, the legality of which is further elaborated on in the Effects of blue light technology article. The articles were previously very similar so i would assume they were copypasta. Verify references (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to the existing section at High-energy visible light. No need for the same content to be duplicated in a separate article named Effects of blue light technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Placeholder comment. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with the merge However the addition of an "also known as" added to High-energy visible light. - EasyCyclone (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What seems to have started out as a page on ophthalmology (looking at the lede of High-energy visible light) has now expanded in scope to include a range of different biological actions. I suggest that this should now be recognised in the title, moving the page to something like Biological effects of high-energy visible light. Effects of blue light technology has had a similar broadening of scope, and hence the name change also facilitates the merge. Some additional subheadings to separate topics will also be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading citations and doubtful claims about circadian rhythm
Some of the citations in the text do not corroborate the specific claims to which they are attached. For example, the first sentence says ".. it is not regarded as a cause of eye disease, eye strain, or disruptions to circadian rhythm". This is directly contradicted by the referenced report. The report says "The influence of light on the circadian rhythm is dependent on [..] 4) spectrum of the light stimulus [..] (page 34, section 6.8.1). It also says that "experiments have shown that, overall, circadian rhythms are more affected by short wavelength light". Therefore, the linked source directly contradicts the claim made in the article. I have removed the words "disruptions to circadian rhythm" from the first sentence. Given that the source directly contradicts the text, we should also remove the very last paragraph which makes the same claim. However, given the many other quality problems in this article, I don't feel confident to make this change, so I've only changed the introduction. --LukeRedwood (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)