Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 335: Line 335:


Does anyone know how to find and link to the original articles? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to find and link to the original articles? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:Sure {{U|QuackGuru}}, here's the first version of both archived by the Wayback Machine:
:{{cite web |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151004030055/https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/e-cigarettes-and-lung-health.html |url=https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/e-cigarettes-and-lung-health.html |archivedate=2015-10-04 |publisher=American Lung Association |year=2015 |title=E-cigarettes and Lung Health}}
:{{cite web |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151204074154/http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/myths-and-facts-about-e-cigs.html |url=http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/myths-and-facts-about-e-cigs.html |archivedate=2015-12-04 |publisher=American Lung Association |year=2015 |title=Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes}}
:I just visited https://archive.org/ and entered the urls you provided into the box at top of screen. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian&nbsp;'''J.'''&nbsp;Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 23:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:54, 5 June 2019

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    RfC about organizing the sections

    Methylphenidate
    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Contacted a toxoicology/clinical pharmacology expert from Int Med, and attached his response, with my opinion too under discussion. Ian Furst (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal article needed

    I am trying to get hold of the full text of PMID 29268618. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment redacted since I’m not really supposed to link to that website. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Seppi; that was easy. Had by student editing once again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as an update: see Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera for the issues raised so far (copyright violations and sourcing biomedical claims to primary sources). I've not had what I would consider a positive response so far, and I've not had time to examine all of the medical articles affected by this course (among those listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera #Groups and assignments), so if anybody has a little time to scan some of those articles for the issues mentioned and add their opinions, I'd be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Diannaa:, is this group's work already on your list of pages to check for copyvio concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I work from the list of https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en, not from lists of participants in school groups. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There work should get run like all the rest of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing article: Gee's Linctus

    Gee's Linctus is mentioned in two articles: Laudanum and Over-the-counter drug. Laudanum says, '"Gee's Linctus" is also available from most UK pharmacies, especially the Independent stores'. Over-the-counter drug says, 'Frequently, customers buying larger-than-usual doses of [P] medicines (such as DXM, promethazine, codeine or Gee's linctus) will be queried, due to the possibility of abuse'. I don't think either statement is true.

    WP:OR. I first remember Gee's Linctus from the mid 1950s, when I may have been 6 or 7. I lost my voice. My best friend's mother, who was a pharmacist, gave me a teaspoonful, and it came back as if by magic. I feel pretty sure that it was available OTC as a cough remedy and expectorant into the 1960s. It then became restricted: I recall in the late 1960s or early 1970s being accosted outside a chemist's shop by a bedraggled young woman who asked me to buy a bottle for her (she had the money; I declined). I'm not sure if it's available nowadays even on prescription, or even if it's still in the British Pharmacopoeia.

    I think it contained tincture of opium. You can see the problem.

    I know nothing about Dr Gee or his formulation. It may have been a UK variant of paregoric. This might be an interesting research project for someone. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not in BNF, but I did find a BMJ paper from 1959 stating it contained 0.65mg anhydrous morphine.[2] Rxlist.com lists paregoric as a alternative name, although the dose and formulation looks different to that listed in the BMJ source. Little pob (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just talked to a pharmacist at my local Boots, who confirmed that it is no longer available and hasn't been for years. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be the official label. It looks like it went prescription-only before disappearing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blimey, I remember as a child (in the '70s) whenever I had a cough my mother would say it was time for the Gee's Linctus and dose me good & proper. And speaking to Mrs Alexbrn just now, she confirms at boarding school (also in the '70s) it would be liberally administered by Matron. It wasn't very nice. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is one of the 1000s of cough medicines. Will redirect there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination of Portal:Health for deletion

    A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

    The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

    Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    is now closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Health--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza

    RfC on Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Pizza_image. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quack, two months ago, in closing a different RFC that also discussed this same image, User:Sunrise told you not to start RFCs on that page when you could just have a plain old discussion. And today, you opened two new RFCs on that page. Please don't do that. Please actually try to talk to the editors watching that page before starting an RFC. If a normal discussion can solve it, then you will waste less of everyone else's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A possible Science/STEM User Group

    There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    T.Shafee(Evo&Evo), yes very valuable to the wikiprojects, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Statin denialism

    Some eyes needed at Talk:Statin#"Statin Denialism". I think this issue can be presented in an NPOV & WEIGHT kind of way, but I don't think we're getting it right yet. JFW | T@lk 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cripes. For a high-profile article, this is surprisingly crappy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Doctor who?

    I'm not sure if MOS / MEDMOS, etc has anything to say about usage of (doctor) as a dab term for a BLP. It seems to me that such usage makes an implicit claim to notability as a medical practitioner, with the potential to mislead the general public: cf Talk:David Bull (doctor) (TV doctor and politician).

    86.190.132.158 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that MEDMOS addresses this at all, but Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation might have some advice. The most important thing is that it's different from all of the other David Bulls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks WAID. After posting I realized that WP:NCPDAB is the relevant general guideline for dab terms (the page has now been renamed to [[David Bull (politician)]]). Fwiw, the more general concern behind my original post here was that a loosely used dab term such as (doctor) may have the potential to seriously mislead readers by inappropriately framing a subject's notability (e.g. by implying that a Bachelor of Medicine graduate without any full clinical qualification is actually a notable physician). 86.190.132.158 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to reduce links to PubMed Central

    Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RfC_on_linking_title_to_PMC proposes to make the links to PMC less visible. Nemo 10:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a question about how {{cite journal}} should behave. Namely, if the citation template doesn't have a URL, but it does have a PMC id (which means that it has a link to a free-as-in-beer copy of the full article at PubMed Central), should the article title be linked to the free PMC copy, or be left unlinked?
    Including the link might result in more people reading the source; omitting it will likely have the opposite effect. Editors who already know what those strings of unexplained id numbers at the end of the citation do seem to be assuming that this is general knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Buzzwords

    These four articles:

    are the only ones tagged by WPMED and for containing an excessive number of buzzwords. If you are looking for a potentially satisfying copyediting task, please consider cleaning up one of these today. It's just a matter of finding buzzwords in the article, and making them buzz off. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Burnout

    The news media seem to have suddenly noticed that the WHO has assigned an ICD-11 code number to the idea of Occupational burnout (just like it did in ICD-10). The same chapter has codes for "my dog died when I was a kid" and "there are no schools around here". Please be on the lookout for well-meaning people who forget that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reliably informed that ICD-12 will have a code for the condition of 'forgetting that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease"'. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably it will go in the same chapter with 'life-disrupting frustration with all these ever-changing codes'. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That chapter is due to be implemented no later than 2020 in ICD-24. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hot Zone that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Vaccine hesitancy

    A new account posted this article-like post. I suspected a possible copyviolation but a quick search didn't show me an obvious match. It may also be a complex edit request and is interesting, eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    it's not clear what changes they want to be made...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Med articles with no references

    Hello! In my amblings through Category:All articles lacking sources, I've stumbled upon a number of articles on medical topics that are completely unsourced. I suspect that some of these could be easily sourced, while others may be best merged/redirected elsewhere. If someone with more know-how than me could take a look, that would be great. The ones I've found so far are pasted below (I tried to limit to medical topics. Let me know if you're interested in medical personnel or medical schools...). Any help would be much appreciated! Feel free to remove items from the list or strike them through if you address them to avoid duplicating our efforts. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead Processing Plan Occupational Safety/Environmental Health Discussion at Doe Run Company

    There is a discussion over at Doe Run Company that might interest people in this wikiproject about the safety, health, and environmental impacts of lead processing facilities. -Furicorn (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    this reference[3] should be replaced w/ MEDRS ref for the text it supports in the above article "Exposure to these toxic heavy metals is associated with kidney failure, cancer, and other problems "...IMO(one of several problems)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be largely about this unsourced edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Meningohydroencephalocoele

    Hello WT:MED! Can meningohydroencephalocoele be merged into meningocele, or should it stay as its own article? If it should stay separate, should it be listed on one of these two navboxes - {{Congenital malformations and deformations of nervous system}}/{{Congenital malformations and deformations of musculoskeletal system}}? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Meningocele redirects to spina bifida[4](Neural_tube_defect may be a better merge for Meningohydroencephalocoele[5]...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    H&E stain page

    Retina(stained w/ H&E)

    I have been working on some pages that I think are part of the WikiProject Medicine, so I thought I should post something here and say hello. I'm basically finished "re-writing" the WP page on Haematoxylin. Currently, I have made some progress (I hope) on the H&E stain page (I have not worked on the "mode of action" section for H&E, but I hope to get to that). I made a few changes on the Histology page, although much work is still needed there. I would be happy to get any feedback especially if people see errors in what I have added, or if I have been too "bold" in my edits. Waughd (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    per Talk:Haematoxylin should post at Wikiproject(s) Chemicals & Molecular and Cell Biology(H&E stain article looks fine)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Waughd: The haematoxylin page is visually fantastic, both look well referenced. nice work. Ian Furst (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Furst: Thanks! If you see parts that need more work, please let me know. Waughd (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Waughd: Nothing critical. For me, the gallery of examples would have been helpful as a student and spoke to me. Seeing how different tissues stain with H&E. If anything, I'd just add more examples. Possibly show the differences between normal, low-grade ca, and high-grade ca mitotic figures as it's visually impressive. Ian Furst (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Dorothea Derrier

    I am working on a draft as linked above. I need someone to confirm the medical terms used, as some of them I am not sure of, i.e. period in question is 1801-1835, most of the sources are written in German and thus must be translated. If someone could take a look, it would be most appreciated. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about an anatomically intersexed person in the early 19th century. Most of the translation needs are therefore related to anatomy. Perhaps an editor such as User:Drahreg01, User:Redlinux or User:Partynia could help with this request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks WhatamIdoing! Yes, that is the issue. Lots of anatomical descriptions and I just want to make sure I did not link something inappropriately. SusunW (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If you would ask for translation of certain terms in certain contexts, I could help. But I'm not able to review the entire text. Sorry, --Drahreg01 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Drahreg01 Thank you. Please see the talk page of the article. I truly appreciate your willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

    Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

    • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
    • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
    • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

    Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

    From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

    Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Deletion discussion on Google Glass app

    Hi everyone,

    The following deletion discussion has been relisted to get more input from the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass breastfeeding app trial (2nd nomination). If you have time to comment, that would be great. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for a quick second opinion (and a rant about nutrition articles)

    Can anyone see any reason to save the trainwreck of a pseudoarticle at Thermogenics? It's a genuine (albeit niche) topic, but the current mess of dictionary definitions, unsourced commentary, and a long aside about a completely unrelated use of the term in geology, is IMO worse than nothing. I'm inclined either to remove the medical aspect altogether and leave it as a geology article, or delete it altogether, unless anyone feels like improving it (I don't intend improving it myself; my interest in bodybuilders self-medicating with dubious nutritional supplements is nil); this is one of those cases where having a poor quality article is worse than having no article at all.

    (At some point, someone who understands nutrition really needs to go through Category:Dietary supplements ruthlessly deleting the drivel. A lack of oversight, coupled with a steady flow of enthusiasts for various crank fads and a handful of outright spammers, have created the perfect environment for a big stack of questionably sourced fluff like Rejuvelac, Slow Cow and Hematogen to fester.) ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with turning it into a geology article is that it doesn't seem to be a common use (or any use) term in geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the geology part which should not have been there Talk:Thermogenics. I realize that doesn't help with "what" the page is, other than it is not strictly a geological term that should have a WP page. Waughd (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to get an article out of draft space and ready for review

    I was wondering if someone would be able to read my article and give any feedback so that it doesn't get put back into draftspace

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MitoQ

    Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice would be to stop trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Per WP:MEDRS most of this draft is based on unreliable/unsuitable sources. You also have a problem per WP:PROMONAME. Alexbrn (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I able to ask what makes it sound like a promotion? I am using only peer reviewed articles and none are primary resources so I am not quite sure how it is unsuitable. Will look into changing the username if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source cited isn't even MEDLINE indexed. The second hardly mentions MitoQ and where it does notes concerns about toxicity, which the draft article strangely omits to mention. With your COI you are not in a position to be writing any of this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MitoPower, we usually want review articles, not peer-reviewed original articles. That means sources such as PMID 30116495, PMID 30505656, PMID 30820778, etc., rather than sources like this article in Nature. There are more than a dozen MEDLINE-indexed review articles that have mentioned this particular compound during just the last few years.
    In the bigger picture, it might make more sense for Wikipedia to have an article about mitochondrial-targeting antioxidants, rather than separate articles for all of the possible subjects. I suppose that it depends on whether you see the subject primarily as a matter of "science" or of "business": from the scientific perspective, the class is more important than the individual examples; from the business perspective, two equally effective compounds could have very different commercial outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that. Stupid question, but is there a way that we know that the article is MEDLINE-indexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Would need to move to the generic name for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mitoquinone mesylate, perhaps? There are several possible names, but that's easy to handle if/when the article moves to mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDLINE-indexed reviews. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=MitoQ+review QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Video game addiction article

    Given the latest developments on the topic of video game addiction, Video game addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could benefit from the edits of one or more editors here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sulfur soap

    This new article about a medicinal soap could use review by medical experts. Thank you! Peacock (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blanked it and redirected to Sulfur#Pharmaceuticals. Most of it was off topic and what wasn't was unreliable/undue or spam. Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Peacock (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Electric smoking system

    See Talk:Electric smoking system#Aerosol and smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketing of electronic cigarettes

    See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Proposal. Is the page a POV Fork? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic cigarette

    See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Nicotine and Passive vaping sections. Should both sections be deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardcastle syndrome

    I started an article on Hardcastle syndrome, a rare genetic disorder associated with cancer in the long bones. The attention of other editors would be appreciated (which is my way of admitting that the article is still a relatively weak stub). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Orpha.net entry might lead you to more sources, and the OMIM page is a MEDRS-compliant secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Papanicolaou stain

    I been working on the Papanicolaou stain page trying to add references and generally clean it up. I tried to make it clear that this was not the page for the Pap test or Pap smear and that this page is about the stain which helps a pathologist make a diagnosis, and not test that give a certain result. There are still a few references missing in the "results" section (although I have removed some unsourced things). I'm hoping to have some other folks take a look at it and make any changes they feel appropriate. I wasn't planning to work on this page, but I felt that I should add some references; then I began to have a "you touch it, you buy it" feeling. There are certainly a few rough areas. Waughd (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Original 2015 articles are gone

    Original Title: E-cigarettes and Lung Health

    "Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes". American Lung Association. 2015.

    Original Title: Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes

    Does anyone know how to find and link to the original articles? QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure QuackGuru, here's the first version of both archived by the Wayback Machine:
    "E-cigarettes and Lung Health". American Lung Association. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-10-04.
    "Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes". American Lung Association. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-12-04.
    I just visited https://archive.org/ and entered the urls you provided into the box at top of screen. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=900479837"