| Revision as of 10:50, 28 August 2016 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Use of Some in lede← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 23 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,262,470 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 | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Old AfD multi | date = 17 November 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes}} | {{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 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = 1 | |counter = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(180d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{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) | |||
| :The 2014 NHS statement is outdated and now irrelevant due to the report by PHE. When the NHS issues a new statement, then it should be included. Please be advised that the NHS is ran by PHE so the PHE report will be what the NHS will eventually follow anyways.] (]) 20:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not clear to me that PHE directly oversees/regulates the NHS; rather, what limited information I could find suggests they work together but have different functions in the government. Do you have any sources that unambiguously state that PHE policies override NHS decisions/policies? ] (]) 21:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::No they don't, but they do generally work pretty closely together. I agree the existing text should be restored pending a new statement, but I expect there will be a new statement somewhere down the line. The NHS's patient information blog, and a blog by the Cabinet Secretary (Head of the civil service) have both covered it in a way that suggested they were all on the same page. Actual prescription may be politically difficult though, I'm guessing. ] (]) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That NHS page isn't a position statement. Why are we linking to some random stop smoking page here? That page might not even be updated if the NHS has a different position. I thought this was about position statements? The NHS seems to rely on that page on ASH's opinion, and not their own. I'm curious if the NHS even has positions/position statements since it (afaik) is a warm hands service and not a research service. --] 22:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::They won't I think be slow in updating the page when they reach a new conclusion. They are not a research service, and NICE generally draw the conclusions from research for them, but the NHS run the smoking cessation services, & if e-cigs are ever to be prescribed in the UK, as the PHE report suggested, they will be the ones doing that for most UK patients. The NHS changed their position last year to be supportive of ceasing smokers (?) using e-cigs, rather than discouraging, but still don't recommend or prescribe them. It's interesting that they link to the ASH 14 page PDF, which is far more bullish about e-cigs - no "''may'' be safer" than cigarettes. ] (]) 03:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Archiving == | |||
| The archiving of this page has been far too sudden. Blanking the page is not normal on WP. Please ask on the talk page before doing this again, QG. Clearing out the page just encourages people to raise the same issues again and again. ] (]) 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 12 english health organizations make a statement == | |||
| Several english health organizations have put out a . They are: ], ] (ASH), Association of Directors of Public Health, ], ], ], Fresh North East, Public Health Action (PHA), ], ], Tobacco Free Futures, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK Health Forum. Seems to be a rather important piece to add. --] 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, we should. ] (]) 03:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did add the joint UK statement to this page and the electronic cigarette page. ] (]) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == And (puff!) disappeared the 5% of the risk into a negative.... == | |||
| We now state the NHS' position as if it was a negative, instead of presenting a clear picture of what they are really saying: Which is that e-cigs carry much less risk than cigs, and that the risk is ~5% compared to cigs. Did anyone notice? The reason for its disappearence? Apparently it is repetitive.. despite the NHS not being quoted for this anywhere. --] 08:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A summary of how the British and American policies differ and why == | |||
| A new article, available online in full view, is: {{cite journal |last1=Green |first1=Sharon H. |author2=Ronald Bayer |author3=Amy Fairchild |title=Evidence, Policy, and E-Cigarettes — Will England Reframe the Debate? |url=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1601154 |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |date=7 April 2016 |volume=374 |issue=14 |pages=1301–1303 |doi=10.1056/NEJMp1601154}} | |||
| ] (]) 06:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141107150929/http://www.cancernz.org.nz/assets/files/info/Position%20Statements/2011/E-cigarette_Position%20statementFINALJul13.pdf to http://www.cancernz.org.nz/assets/files/info/Position%20Statements/2011/E-cigarette_Position%20statementFINALJul13.pdf | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=true}} | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 06:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of Some in lede == | |||
| The source does not support the weasel word "Some". You removed the tag . Per ] policy, the source does not indicate "some". See ]: "]s are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The previous text as well as the did not indicate "some" or "all". ] (]) 20:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : Moved this from my talk page to the appropriate page. The previous text indicates all by its phrasing. "Doctors say running is good for cardiovascular health" indicates, unanimity or majority consensus. The source indicates that a portion have hesitated in recommending but not that it is the vast consensus and so presenting it as consensus misrepresents the source. It is not weasel words it is a more accurate paraphrasing of the content of the source. ] (]) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::The source states "Public health experts are concerned about emerging research showing that e-cigarettes could renormalize and undermine tobacco control and smoking cessation efforts." The source does not claim it was "some" public health experts. The previous text did not indicate all because the word all was not used. The source makes other claims but that is not what is being sourced. Verification was not provided for "Some" public health experts. The part about the recommendations from the Heart and Stroke Foundation is not relevant to the current text in question because that is not what is being verified. If you think "some" public health experts is sourced then please provide the exact quote from the source to verify the claim. ] (]) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::The tag was removed without providing verification. The edit summary "Source is example of one without indicating unanimous consent. Verified." does not verify the claim. ] (]) 05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Removed from context and in its location in the article the lack of modifier implies a unanimous or overwhelming position. The original source doesn't. It talks about growing fears suggesting a developing position. Reading comprehension isn't your thing Quack, leave the fine details of the wording to people who can read English. ] (]) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The part about fears is not about the sentence in question. I specifically asked for verification. Please provide an exact quote from the source to verify the claim. ] (]) 06:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That's not how english works Quack. The meaning is taken from the whole. The source says "There is also growing fear that e-cigarettes could renormalize smoking, and those with nicotine could promote dual usage and perpetuate nicotine addiction instead of encouraging full cessation, thus undermining tobacco control efforts." Among the rest of what it is saying it is clear it is not aiming for a unanimous claim. ] (]) 06:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We are verifying the claim specifically for "public health experts". | |||
| :::::::We are verifying: "Public health experts are concerned about emerging research showing that e-cigarettes could renormalize and undermine tobacco control and smoking cessation efforts." | |||
| :::::::The source says "There is also growing fear", but that is not about the "public health experts". We cannot confound different claims together per ] policy. ] (]) 06:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: That section is discussing the opinions of the health community Quack. Stop being obtuse. Also, look around at other sources to see if this is a contentious claim. Hey look, a 3 second google finds sources showing public health experts who don't think renormalisation is an issue . Now, what about the word some do you feel is misleading regarding the source? ] (]) 06:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We are not talking about a section. We are about only one sentence that is only about the "public health experts". Other content from the source did not verify the claim. Looking around at other sources do not verify the claim. ] (]) 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: My comment clearly referred to SECTION OF THE SOURCE. You have repeatedly failed to comprehend basic English this evening Quack so there's no point discussing with you further. You cannot use the existing source to make a claim of universal concern or even consensus concern about renormalisation. It can only be used to make a claim for some experts concern. ] (]) 07:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The section of the source about the fear is not explicitly about the "public health experts". There is one sentence from the source that is clearly relevant to this discussion. See "Public health experts are concerned about emerging research showing that e-cigarettes could renormalize and undermine tobacco control and smoking cessation efforts." There is no mention of "some". | |||
| :::::::::::The source also says "There is also growing fear that e-cigarettes could renormalize smoking, and those with nicotine could promote dual usage and perpetuate nicotine addiction instead of encouraging full cessation, thus undermining tobacco control efforts." The phrase "There is also growing fear" is not the opinion of the "public health experts" and even if it were the opinion of the "public health experts" it still does not verify the word "some". | |||
| :::::::::::The article says "''Some'' public health experts are concerned that e-cigarettes could renormalize smoking, weaken measures to control tobacco, and serve as a gateway for smoking among youth." | |||
| :::::::::::The other ref to verify the last part of the sentence says "Public health experts also are concerned that e-cigarettes will undo decades of progress in public health by re-normalizing smoking in public and act as a gateway to cigarette use among youth." There is no mention of "''some''" to verify this specific part of the sentence. Both sources do not indicate whether it was some or all or most. Therefore, we should . ] (]) 10:42, 28 August 2016 (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: