| Revision as of 19:24, 26 August 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →The UK National Health Service: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,263,491 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WPMED}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (89 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Old AfD multi | date = 17 November 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= | |||
| {{Ecig sanctions}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}} | ||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old(180d) | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = Talk:Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| ⚫ | |archive = Talk:Positions of medical organizations |
||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age= |
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=180 |units=days}} | ||
| == On the apparent article slant == | |||
| == Arbitration committee discussion == | |||
| It's pretty obvious why the CDCs "vaping" illness has been brought into this article. But you're gonna need a better rationale on not clarifying the distinction between e-cigarettes and THC vaping. And it's not overly becoming of an encyclopedia to assist in conflating the terminology. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| <small><em>(Notice cross posted to: ], ], ], ], ], ] & ]. Please focus any discussion on the ]</em></small><p> | |||
| There is an ] pending related to this family of topics. ] (]) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Now that the CDC has admitted that the primary cause aren't nicotine products, why is it all of a sudden not documentation-worthy? You can clearly come up with a neat euphemism to sugarcoat the CDCs "new findings" and "research breakthrough" - as if it wasn't clear 3 months / 30 deaths ago. | |||
| == Public Health England Report August 2015 == | |||
| == Germany == | |||
| I saw the PHE report today, don't have time to add it but it's relevant. ] (]) 10:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Link copied from the the main EC talk: E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products". Press release, with links to the review ] (]) 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) - indeed this is important, but it's 111 pages! The key findings are at the start. ] (]) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are a couple of recent round-ups of UK statements at and - both Guardian. ] (]) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| What's the thought process behind featuring the 2013 article on cigalikes/ego-class devices? And why cherrypick concerns from halfway in, instead of the actual conclusions? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| "In 2015 ] released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95 per cent safer than smoking.<ref name=McNeill2015>{{cite web|last1=McNeill|first1=A, SC|title=E - cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454516/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England.pdf|website=www.gov.uk|publisher=Public Health England|accessdate=19 August 2015|location=UK|date=2015}}</ref>"{{reflist|close=1}} Editors can add it to this page. For the main page the current evidence has not changed among reviews. ] (]) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The source does verify this == | |||
| "Over the past few months, however, several reports have suggested that EC may pose more risks than previously thought." See page 76. The . ] (]) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read on - the report then criticises them one by one, and says they do not alter the 2014 95% figure as the best current estimate. But the 95% figure is certainly an estimate, and to use it obviously conveys that there is some remaining risk - the 5% left. I don't really think this needs spelling out. ] (]) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The UK National Health Service == | |||
| I think it should be restored. If there is an update then we can use an updated source. ] (]) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Positions of medical organizations on 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
On the apparent article slant
It's pretty obvious why the CDCs "vaping" illness has been brought into this article. But you're gonna need a better rationale on not clarifying the distinction between e-cigarettes and THC vaping. And it's not overly becoming of an encyclopedia to assist in conflating the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.13.108 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that the CDC has admitted that the primary cause aren't nicotine products, why is it all of a sudden not documentation-worthy? You can clearly come up with a neat euphemism to sugarcoat the CDCs "new findings" and "research breakthrough" - as if it wasn't clear 3 months / 30 deaths ago.
Germany
What's the thought process behind featuring the 2013 article on cigalikes/ego-class devices? And why cherrypick concerns from halfway in, instead of the actual conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.13.108 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Categories: