| Revision as of 08:05, 4 February 2015 editMihaister (talk | contribs)579 edits →Report by California Department of Public Health: *facepalm*← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,248,685 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 | ||
| (137 intermediate revisions by 24 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= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{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 == | |||
| == New position by smoking cessation manager in the UK == | |||
| I think this qualifies for inclusion in this article: --] (]) 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Which major medical organization's position statement are you proposing to add? ] (]) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::As discussed in the linked article: Leicester Stop Smoking Service, Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health (UK). ] (]) 23:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see no indication that Leicester Stop Smoking Service is a major medical organization that deserves to be mentioned. Cancer Research UK's position is already noted in the article. If we include ASH (borderline in my view), we'd have to use official position statements rather than white papers produced for ASH, and include both UK and US versions as there appears to be a difference in empahsis from positions statements released by both. ] (]) 04:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see that service qualifying as a significant medical organization. And we'd need a better source than a letter to the editor from a pharmacist who attended a conference anyway. <code>]]</code> 05:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Statement by UK Office of National Statistics == | |||
| should probably be discussed both here and in the main article ]. ] (]) 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a position statement by a medical organization, but material published by a medical organization (much like CDC MMWR are published). This material isn't appropriate here. ] (]) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Statement by UK Office of National Statistics == | |||
| should probably be discussed both here and in the main article ]. ] (]) 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a position statement by a medical organization, but material published by a medical organization (much like CDC MMWR are published). This material isn't appropriate here. ] (]) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (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. | |||
| == Report by California Department of Public Health == | |||
| The California Department of Public Health is the lead agency in California for detection, treatment, prevention and surveillance of public health and environmental issues. $3.5 billion budget. Provides public health services, evaluation, and research. The Department recently issued a report on e-cigarettes: | |||
| == Germany == | |||
| <ref>{{cite web | url=http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf | title=State Health Officer’s Report on E-Cigarettes: A Community Health Threat | publisher = California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program | date = January 2015 | accessdate=30 January 2015 }}</ref> | |||
| 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--> | |||
| Would this be most suitable as a position statement here, or on the related e-cigarette pages? Thanks! ] (]) 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It is neither a position statement, nor is it really from a medical organization - but rather from a political office. It may or may not be the Californian position, in which case it may influence the Californian law, and then belong on the legal page. But it doesn't belong here. --] 23:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm inclined to agree that it's not a position statement. However it's hardly from a political office, nor the California position. It is a public health evaluation from a major public health department. | |||
| ::Where it belongs is the question. I'm interested in editors' views. ] (]) 23:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks fine to me. "California Department of Public Health" is a medical organization. ] (] · ] · ]) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Doc James}} So we are not doing scientific positions? But also political positions? Have you read/seen the "report"? It just amazes me what constitutes "medical science" these days, if it matches up with accepted views. --] 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sad indeed. Before being fired for gross incompetence and causing the biggest US measles outbreak this century, Ron Chapman blasts off a disturbing evidence-free diatribe against vaping and you call it "position from illustrious medical organization" ] (]) 08:05, 4 February 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: