Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:46, 2 December 2014

Medicine List‑class Low‑importance

This 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness List‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey

Electronic cigarettes are on sale at http://www.elektroniksigaramarkalari.com/ As there is no citation in the article for laws restricting their sale I am changing the text to say they are legal. If you revert to illegal please cite the law. How do I change the color on the map please? Jzlcdh (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the picture with the information from Turkey, the map was self made which I have put on Wikicommons. 159753 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Austria

The refrence does not seem to match the statement. A translation of the page suggests that it only covers one product, and not another. It also mentions containing nicotine. Are we sure that e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine are medical devices in Austria? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced material

This text was deleted by Cloudjpk with no explanation, besides a link to a talk page discussion in another article.

Public health experts point out that electronic cigarettes use has been growing rapidly and that no proof of serious health risks has emerged, warning that misguided regulatory action could interfere with a safe substitute for smoking.

References

1. Bates, Clive (10 September 2014). "Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers". The Pharmaceutical Journal. online. Retrieved 25 September 2014. Evidence conflicts with the view that electronic cigarettes are undermining tobacco control or 'renormalising' smoking, and they may be contributing to a reduction in smoking prevalence through increased success at quitting smoking.
2. McNeill, Ann; Etter, JF. "A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes". Addiction. online. doi:10.1111/add.12730. Retrieved 15 September 2014. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading

I would appreciate an explanation on the deletion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure! The extensive discussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this establishes there is no consensus for the cited McNeill item as a reliable source. Bates is even simpler; he has no scientific or public health credentials. Either reliable sources must be found to source, or these views must be cited as views, not as public health expertise. I have no problem with the latter; it seems useful to summarize the views of those opposed to regulation. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Please re-add and change the wording and attribute the views to those that held them rather than claiming that they are "health experts". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Cloudjpk (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! Let me know if I missed anything. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bates may well have no academic credentials in public health, but, as the former director of ASH, he could very well be considered an expert in public health, in particular when it comes to tobacco topics. See here his CV. On the other hand, the McNeill et al. authors are well-known experts in the field. Thus the current wording in the article is misleading and should be reverted to the factual, verifiable, and complete characterization of "Public health experts". Mihaister (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, do not agree. The extensive dicussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this deals with use of the cited McNeill item and does not require repeating here. Bates is an advocate, not a scientist. Public health expertise has recognized credentials; he does not have them. All the same, I am happy to represent their views and have done so and indeed find the inclusion of such views useful in documenting opponents' reasons. To characterize the items cited as expert violates NPOV. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:BLP when referring to living persons. With regards to Clive Bates here is his CV - make of it what you want. --Kim D. Petersen 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

An alternative is to fully attribute the POV and add a few words on their credentials, as in, "SoandSo, a former ASH director and SoandSo, an xyz expert, assert that.... ". - Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(Full disclosure, I am a vaper and stopped smoking a year ago thanks to e-cigarettes after several decades of tobacco smoking, now vaping on a sophisticated vaporizer.) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(congratulations!) Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with full attribution as suggested above by User:Cwobeel. What I don't agree with is the current characterization in the text as "opponents". That's a textbook example of WP:WEASEL and is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Mihaister (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The point of including the views is to give the reasons of those who oppose regulation. It would be hard to find a more neutral or more accurate term than "Opponents of regulation". What term do you suggest? Cloudjpk (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that by attributing and avoiding characterizations we can let the readers draw their own conclusions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That works for me! Cloudjpk (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that these sources are reviews. There is WP:CON that the McNeil source is unreliable. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical section. There was no consensus in that discussion on McNiel, thats why it couldnt be used to address the errors in Grana on the E-cigarette article. Its not being used for that purpose, but addressing regulation. For that purpose its a reliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown that any of these sources are reliable and there was no consensus to use the the McNeil source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable for the way they are used. This is not a medical page or section. They dont need to be MEDRS reviews, but McNiel is a MEDRS source. It is also attributed to them. At this point you need consensus to remove it since its been there at least two months. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You think they don't need to be reviews. In turn, I can infer that you think they are primary sources. That is a no-no. You can't ignore that the previous discussion showed that McNeil is unreliable. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have explained it to you but you dont hear it WP:IDHT. This is a non medical page, in a non medical section. It doesnt need to be a WP:MEDRS source because its not a medical page and its a non medical usage. It can be a a medical primary source or it could be a newspaper article. Its giving attribution to the people who made the conclusions. The sources are good enough for the way they are used. AlbinoFerret 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• List-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• List-Class Health and fitness articles
• Low-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• List-Class pharmacology articles
• Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles