| Revision as of 19:44, 31 July 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits date← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,385,104 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 | ||
| (100 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 == | |||
| == 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) | |||
| ::::NB, the US & UK ASHs are AFAIK unrelated except by name & mission. ] (]) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (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) | |||
| 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 == | ||
| 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 | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Extremely one-sided == | |||
| This article is extremely biased, and does NOT represent all medical organizations. I recommend that the article be more balanced, as well as have statements of funding sources for authors as well as a declaration of possible conflict of interest. This whole article screams of ANTZ (Anti-Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots). Considering that there is an organization of medical professionals in FAVOR of electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction device, this article as it stands is extremely biased. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The article applies ] appropriately; we do not give ] to both sides of an argument, rather we give due ] to those based on reliable sources. In this case, most sources (especially those outside the UK) are skeptical right now about e-cigarettes, so that is why most of the article is presents a skeptical outlook. ] (]) 18:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I disagree. According to the NPOV, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.", and I have links to HUNDREDS of positive peer-reviewed studies, and belong to an organization of hundreds of medical professionals in support of electronic cigarettes. Considering that there are lives in the balance (by scaring would-be quitters into still smoking), it's our civic duty to present both sides. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :This is an article discussing the position of medical organizations. If the vast majority of medical organizations, especially the most prominent ones, are skeptical of e-cigarettes, so will this article. We don't change our rules because of one editor's feelings about "civic duty". ] (]) 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually there is evidence that a) the wind is changing here, and b) there is something of a trans-Atlantic divide, with the UK notably less sceptical that US organizations. For example I have had to revise what is said about the US "Smokefree.gov, a website run by the Tobacco Control Research Branch of the ] to provide information to help quit smoking, stated that ''e-cigarettes have not been shown to be effective in helping people quit smoking''... because the bit in italics no longer appears on the site, though the rest of the sentence does. Presumably it was correctly quoted and referenced before, so that is a change since last November. This is a fast-moving field, and there is a need to date all statements, and review them every so often. There are also statements by specialist medical associations that should be quoted here - they are typically faster to react than government ones. ] (]) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at . ] (]) 01:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Notification'''. I started an ArbCom discussion. See ]. ] (]) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == New source == | |||
| * <ref name=NowakGohlke2015>{{cite journal|last1=Nowak|first1=D.|last2=Gohlke|first2=H.|last3=Hering|first3=T.|last4=Herth|first4=F.|last5=Jany|first5=B.|last6=Raupach|first6=T.|last7=Welte|first7=T.|last8=Loddenkemper|first8=R.|title=Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin e.V. (DGP) zur elektronischen Zigarette (E-Zigarette)|journal=Pneumologie|volume=69|issue=03|year=2015|pages=131–134|issn=0934-8387|doi=10.1055/s-0034-1391491|pmid=25751070}}</ref>{{reflist|close=1}} ] (]) 07:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Outdated WHO Statement(s) == | |||
| Why are we using an to a WHO statement that was withdrawn sometime ago and before being replaced with ? <s>You have to wonder whether the is also now outdated and should also be removed.</s> To clarify, we have <s>three</s> two different position statements from the WHO and only one of them appears to be up to date.] (]) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :"Why are we using" it? Probably because no one has noticed & updated it. See my comments in a section above. We should only use the latest, unless we want to cover the direction of travel, which is interesting. ] (]) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Interesting from our point of view perhaps, I doubt that the average reader is that interested in the direction of travel of opinion over successive statements. I definitely don't think we should be using an unofficial link to a statement that has been withdrawn, not very verifiable apart from anything else. <s>The citation of the 2012 statement says effectively the same thing as the latest one so not sure I see any point in keeping that either.</s>] (]) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::2013 is not old. WHO is one of the most authoritative sources. The WMA is from 2013. That is recent. ] (]) 18:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A statement that has been replaced by a later, and much more comprehensive, statement from the same body should not be used, whatever the date, except to show an evolving position. I have clarified the relation between the two, & I think on this basis it is worth keeping both. ] (]) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes the WHO is one of the most authoritative medical sources. However the statement has been withdrawn completely from the WHO's web site and replaced with an updated one. <s>Likewise the 2012 statement is outdated not due to age, but because it's not the most up to date information.</s> (striking text, sorry didn't realise one of the statements was from the WMA, not the WHO) Why would we want to cite information that the WHO themselves have decided to withdraw from public access and/or replaced with newer information?] (]) 21:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because it is the most one of the most authoritative and it provides additional information for the reader. When there is regulation in the future the source (along with other sources) will be outdated and replaced with newer sources. There's no rush. ] (]) 03:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It isn't "authoritative" now it is withdrawn. The 2014 report is far longer and more detailed. ] (]) 04:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Correct, how can an old outdated report that has been withdrawn and replaced with updated information provide useful information to the reader? It doesn't and if it was intended to then the WHO wouldn't have withdrawn it themselves. They withdrew the report and replaced it with clearly indicating that the information was outdated and therefore irrelevant.] (]) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This page says "The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently reviewing the existing evidence around ENDS and preparing a paper for submission to the meeting of the Parties of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which occurs later this year" | |||
| Thus we are also using the prior one. It does not appear they have come out with a new statement based on the 2014 paper yet. | |||
| Might occur soon as they meet Mar 21st 2015 ] (] · ] · ]) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration committee discussion == | |||
| <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) | |||
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: