| Revision as of 23:21, 25 November 2016 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:36, 26 November 2016 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Royal College of General Practitioners: RCGP != RCP.Next edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| Royal College of General Practitioners position probably needs adding. --] 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | Royal College of General Practitioners position probably needs adding. --] 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :There is a statement that says "In April 2016, the Royal College of Physicians released a statement recommending that e-cigarettes..." I do not know what else specifically needs adding. ] (]) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | :There is a statement that says "In April 2016, the Royal College of Physicians released a statement recommending that e-cigarettes..." I do not know what else specifically needs adding. ] (]) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::Those are different colleges QuackGuru - they are not the same. --] 08:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:36, 26 November 2016
 | 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: 35 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 35 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
The UK National Health Service
I think it should be restored. If there is an update then we can use an updated source. QuackGuru (talk) 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- The 2014 NHS statement is outdated and now irrelevant due to the report by PHE.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.JoLincoln (talk) 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? Yobol (talk) 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. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 27 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? Yobol (talk) 21:10, 26 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. --Kim D. Petersen 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. Johnbod (talk) 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. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
12 english health organizations make a statement
Several english health organizations have put out a joint position statement. They are: Public Health England, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Association of Directors of Public Health, British Lung Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Faculty of Public Health, Fresh North East, Public Health Action (PHA), Royal College of Physicians, Royal Society for Public Health, Tobacco Free Futures, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK Health Forum. Seems to be a rather important piece to add. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we should. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did add the joint UK statement to this page and the electronic cigarette page. QuackGuru (talk) 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. --Kim D. Petersen 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: Green, Sharon H.; Ronald Bayer; Amy Fairchild (7 April 2016). "Evidence, Policy, and E-Cigarettes — Will England Reframe the Debate?". The New England Journal of Medicine. 374 (14): 1301–1303. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1601154. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 06:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Use of Some in lede
The source does not support the weasel word "Some". You removed the tag without removing the unsupported claim "Some". Per WP:V policy, the source does not indicate "some". See WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words 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 source did not indicate "some" or "all". QuackGuru (talk) 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. SPACKlick (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. SPACKlick (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. SPACKlick (talk) 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 WP:SYN policy. QuackGuru (talk) 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 here. Now, what about the word some do you feel is misleading regarding the source? SPACKlick (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 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. SPACKlick (talk) 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 not indicate what the sources did not state. QuackGuru (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fully agree we shouldn't indicate things not in the source. Removing a modifier from that sentence implies a wider unanimity of consensus that the source does. Feel free to suggest a modifier more appropriate. SPACKlick (talk) 11:44, 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. SPACKlick (talk) 07:11, 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. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 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 here. Now, what about the word some do you feel is misleading regarding the source? SPACKlick (talk) 06:53, 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. SPACKlick (talk) 06:36, 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. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 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. SPACKlick (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
How about this phrasing? Sizeofint (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is better than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that works fine, better even. SPACKlick (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancernz.org.nz/assets/files/info/Position
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923045623/http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/questionsaboutsmokingtobaccoandhealth/questions-about-smoking-tobacco-and-health-e-cigarettes to http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/questionsaboutsmokingtobaccoandhealth/questions-about-smoking-tobacco-and-health-e-cigarettes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Source says "some"
The 2014 review says "some". QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
International healthcare organizations
International healthcare organizations and national organizations outside the UK have generally been more skeptical of e-cigarettes, and have avoided endorsing or actively discouraged their use. I was unable to find a source to verify the claim.
I replaced it with sourced content for the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of General Practitioners position probably needs adding. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is a statement that says "In April 2016, the Royal College of Physicians released a statement recommending that e-cigarettes..." I do not know what else specifically needs adding. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those are different colleges QuackGuru - they are not the same. --Kim D. Petersen 08:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)