Misplaced Pages

Talk:Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beland (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 1 June 2020 (reduce aggressiveness of archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:56, 1 June 2020 by Beland (talk | contribs) (reduce aggressiveness of archiving)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletionThis 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.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

Template:Ecig sanctions

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.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives
Archive 1

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: