Talk:2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajameson1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article says that it is only linked to cannabis vapes but many articles show links to tobacco vapes including CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html Somatt (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Images should be smaller and go on the right. Lead is a bit too long. Consider having an image in the lead section. Add external links if possible. Otherwise, looks good..

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming

Should be "United States and Canada", based on Health Canada statement https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2019/10/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-on-vaping-in-canada.html also a growing number of cases across the country, including at least one person on life support (Sept 18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/vaping-respiratory-illness-london-1.5288065 - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The outbreak is US-centric. There is only a handful of cases in Canada. A handful of cases is not an outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-objective content in article

There is a whole section in this article encouraging the reader to become an activist - this is content fit for a blog not wikpedia

Mfernflower (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Smoking causes severe lung problems. Vaping may also cause severe lung problems. Readers can decide for themselves. Every section is neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything encouraging the reader to become an activist (which section did you mean? Maybe I missed something?), but the images seem to be rather deliberately "in your face". They should be thumbnailed and put right (left only if they get too crowded on the right side), rather than being huge and centered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What I see in the "Patients" section at the moment is personal testimonials or anecdotes about two or three individuals, nearly all in their own words. How is that encyclopedic? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal/rework of the offending content is needed and can be attempted but I assume it will result in edit warring from QuackGuru Mfernflower (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree on the "Patients" section; the "testimonial" style does seem a bit much. And let's not assume bad faith; we're discussing it here so we can decide what to do next. I think the "Patients" section could be removed altogether; we already have the aggregate statistics, which are a great deal more encyclopedic than a few anecdotes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've at least cleaned up the sections that consisted mostly or solely of images or media files. That's...really not how we write articles, by just dumping media and statistics at the reader like that. Rather, we use reliable sources to interpret and explain the raw data. So far as the "Patients" section, I note that it does link to a case about an actual lawsuit filed, about which some sources do exist. It seems that describing the lawsuit would be more relevant than a few patients' anecdotal stories, and I'd suggest having some material in regards to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Describing the lawsuit where a person died before the outbreak is not more relevant. It is related to the topic but is it off-topic to include content about the lawsuit. Having aggregate statistics is just numbers. Having commentary from patients is more meaningful because it gives detailed commentary from actual patients rather than just the numbers. Some of the images deleted can be restored to specific sections rather than having them in separate sections. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Testimonials are not allowed on wikipedia regardless of good intent per wp:soap and wp:nothere - Why aren't you adding testimonials to the Vioxx page for example? It seems like you explicitly target tobacco products for some personal reason - Science is about looking at the numbers Mfernflower (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay to include some information in regards to patients, certainly. And there may be particular cases which reliable sources note as being particularly impactful or noteworthy, and in that case, it may be entirely appropriate to provide detail in the article about that case. But it should be provided in more of a dispassionate, "just the facts ma'am" style (here's what happened, here's why that was of particular significance), rather than the newsy, testimonial style currently used. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And I did mean to address as well that the entire "Comments" section (I've never seen such a main header before) almost invites that whole thing becoming a quote farm, which it currently is. That section would be better worked into a "Reactions" or "Aftermath" section, and more prose and less quotation used in it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that textual is better and thank you for the cleanup - but the current text still contains puffery and testimonials - again not acceptable practices involving science!!! Mfernflower (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, our articles are an iterative process of improvement, so let's not be too harsh on them at any given point in the process, nor on those who worked with them. What would you see as the next thing to be worked on? Like I said, I think the "Comments" section ought to be reworked more into prose, and perhaps more as a "Reactions" or "Aftermath", essentially cataloging the effects that the incident had. (That of course will require updating as it is still somewhat a dynamic situation, but this would not be the first time that's occurred with an article.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Making it less like a news article and more like a wikipedia one Mfernflower (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I've pared back some information that seemed extraneous, added some missing details such as case and individual names, and otherwise done work to make the prose less awkward. I still think we probably ought to rework more quotes into prose, and it still does seem we might have some extraneous bits that could be trimmed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

He is still threatening to revert things for no reason however Mfernflower (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Still looks very much a WP:SOAP to me. Although some info may be of encyclopedic value, the way it's written seem inappropriate to me. --Signimu (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Not replaceable with a free image

We don't have another image to replace this image. Other images don't replace this image. I have restored it but reduced the size. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Prose can replace that image. The information it gives is that the patient was seriously ill, and has publicly announced her desire to begin an anti-vaping campaign. That single sentence can convey, in freely-licensed text, the same information the photograph does. Also, the article already contains free images, and replaceability is per article subject, not per aspect of the subject. Therefore, the photograph fails WP:NFCC, both #1 (it is replaceable by other article images and by free-licensed text), and #8 (given the failure of #1, it serves only a decorative purpose). We can certainly discuss incorporation of the other images, but NFCC is non-negotiable and that one is not permitted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

For an article specifically about the patients I think it meets fair use. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It would meet fair use here. Our nonfree content criteria are deliberately a great deal stricter than fair use. It would be replaceable by prose at such a hypothetical article same as it would here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC: #1 it is not replaceable by others images, and #8 it serves to enhance our readers understanding of the article topic. Words can't explain everything. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with failed verification content

This edit added content not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

These sources does not mention the outbreak and does not appear verify the claim. The previous source does verify the content and does mention the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed all GottsJordt2019 references and replaced them with the proper clinical reports for the uk and japan - please do not revert things without thinking them out thoroughly Mfernflower (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I also removed a small chunk of redundant text - please kindy remember that no one editor owns an article! Mfernflower (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note I just corrected a mistake on my part Mfernflower (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacing a "review" with poor sources that failed verification is not an improvement. Europe covers the UK. The section title does not need to include the UK. Content including France was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of those references note hospital admissions for vaping-related illness, in the UK and Japan respectively, which is the claim they support. So, I do not agree that they fail verification. I'm curious, however, why the Japan case is relevant in that particular section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Both sources do not verify "similar cases" to the outbreak. The sources were from before the outbreak occurred. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read the current Europe and UK section before reverting or flagging Mfernflower (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That is, at most, slightly imprecise article wording, not verification failure. The cited sources do mention very similar cases, and note that they occurred in Europe and Japan. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The current wording I just added should fix things - the japan source was a mindless mistake Mfernflower (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Where does each source mention these are similar to the outbreak? Both sources are from before the outbreak occurred and therefore off-topic. The cited sources do mention they were very similar cases to the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See "Cases of toxicity have been reported in the UK medical literature before the outbreak began." Where does the source verify "before the outbreak began"? Once the inaccurate/failed verification content is removed it would not be relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You cannot look into the future - If I reword it to "before the year 2019" would you be okay with that? Mfernflower (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I explained above it would be off-topic once the policy violation is removed. We have a better source which is a 2019 review and it does verify "similar cases". The previous source is on-topic and does discuss the outbreak. The proposed wording is vague while the previous content provided more detailed content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it as off topic but as supplemental information to the main description - no need to cite a massive review Mfernflower (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The review directly cites the outbreak and it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. The current wording weakened the claim compared with the previous wording. There has not been a good explanation to delete a review and replace it with case studies. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel you are nitpicking but I will differ any more prose comments to Seraphimblade Mfernflower (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

After reading WP:MEDRS for a while I have concluded that with the new wording I added - citing the big review would be needed - Please read the new text before taking any action! Mfernflower (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See "A 2019 review found that cases of toxicity have been reported in the UK before 2019." This weakens the claim compared to the previous wording. "A 2019 review found" and "before 2019" is not needed. "cases of toxicity" is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Patients section is getting too long

Could we all agree to limit it to three cases? Wikipedia isn't a news aggregator for good reasons Mfernflower (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be like saying should we limit the United States section or other sections to three responses. There is no need to cap off the content. If it is too long then a subarticle would be created. I don't think it is too long. Do you have a suggestion for a new title for a potential new subarticle? QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I just don't think citing news pages is the only way of doing things - Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and I suspect as more case reports hit the media you will just grow the section out ad nauseam. - Perhaps only have like 3 in the main article and then link to a case aggregator page (Perhaps something like "Notable media reports of the 2019 vaping lung disease outbreak")? Mfernflower (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The part "notable media reports" is too vague. It would be a content fork to start a new subarticle right now. There's not enough content. For example, see the pod mod article. It is an obvious content fork. For content about the different generations there is the Construction of electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume as more media reports come in this portion of the article will continue to grow? Mind you that having more than a few case reports is not how things are done anywhere else on wikipedia! 16:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:TOO SOON to start a new subarticle at the moment. If a few more cases emerge then a new article could be started soon. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should start a new article, but I also think that section is getting overly long. I think we need to focus more on facts, data, and analysis, and less on "tear-jerker" type anecdotes. It needs trimming or removal, not splitting into a separate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As it is getting too long sure start a new article. No harm really... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think having more than 4 or so media cases warrants having a new article. But again the question in my head is: should wikipedia be used, in essence to aggregate news? Do remember that science does not use anecdotes and media reports as input! Mfernflower (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with DocJames Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus for a new article. I trimmed the number of cases in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again the question is my mind is should Wikipedia be used to aggregate news articles? What's the policy and or precedent for that? 03:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru, there is not a consensus for a new article. Three people have floated the idea; two have objected. That is not a consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See "As it is getting too long sure start a new article. No harm really..." per Doc James

See "I think having more than 4 or so media cases warrants having a new article." per Mfernflower

See "Agree with DocJames" per Cloudjpk

I think there is no more room for more responses from patients. Therefore, a new article is required for additional patient responses. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, why exactly are we aggregating media reports? It's very unscientific and to me feels like an appeal to emotion Mfernflower (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am really starting to suspect that QuackGuru has an undisclosed COI Mfernflower (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI or WP:Open a COIN. Thank you. It is a salient topic and as each month passes there will probably be more lawsuits and more people speaking out after they are sent home from the hospital, or even worse die. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

COI is COI regardless of the intent - Even the most pure of heart can still have a COI Mfernflower (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When the patient lawsuits go to trial there will obviously be more media coverage. This article can't handle all the press coverage and expanding content. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe - we don't need to report on the media? - I have also posted about this whole debacle on the COI noticeboard Mfernflower (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And now I am getting threatened with a ban from him on the COI board

Do you think once the lawsuits go to trial there will be room to add even more content to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We have the article Ebola virus cases in the United States Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop deleting relevant content

Repeated deletions of relevant sourced content [1] are not improving the page. If you have a problem with the content, please take to Talk here. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

While it is "sourced content", it is not encyclopedic. The context and qualification makes it clear that he is just guessing, not making the claim based upon any kind of data. While we do indeed report from sources, we also choose what we report from sources. A "kinda, sorta, maybe" figure, even presented as such by the person who's saying it, is not in any way helpful to anyone reading the article. Also, the article is too full of quotes anyway; we should be focusing more on paraphrasing sources that actually interpret the data. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please cite where the source characterizes his estimate as a mere guess. Thank you.

You're also welcome to furnish a better source. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The exact quote from the source is: He estimates that probably “75-80%” of black-market vapes use some form of cutting agent. "Estimates that probably" is synonymous with "guess". If he actually had data in hand to make that statement, it wouldn't call it an "estimate", qualify it with "probably", and even then provide a range rather than a number. (Source: [2]). So yes, the source says it's a guess. Not in exactly those words, but that's quibbling on semantics, and I'm not going to do that. It is clear, from what the source itself says, that it is a guess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

About 75-80% of illicit vapes use some type of diluent agent and as high as 70% contain Vitamin E acetate. Both are rough estimates and both compliment each other. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Rough estimates" based upon what aside from spitballing by one CEO? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this meet the criterion for original research? Mfernflower (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

One rough estimate is from the CEO of CannaSafe and the other is from Drew Jones of Mr Extractor. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content is not original research. QuackGuru (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content not always means good content Mfernflower (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I give up (WP:DISENGAGE)

I cannot stand to edit any more in the E-Cig topic area - both ANI and the COI investigators said this whole debacle should to go to arbitration (ANI saying a consensus is not needed to file an arb claim) and as such will no longer edit in this area until arb is underway Mfernflower (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaping-associated lung injuries can be attributed to vitamin E acetate, CDC says

I am just getting things started. I don't have the time to dig up the best sources, etc.. Including WP:MEDRS, etc..

• Vaping-associated lung injuries can be attributed to vitamin E acetate, CDC says. By Nicole Wetsman. Dec 20, 2019. The Verge. "She stressed, though, that there may be more than one chemical causing these injuries. Not every patient with EVALI reported using THC-containing products, and not every tested product associated with an injury contained vitamin E acetate."

• Template:Electronic cigarettes - see the many subarticles. Together they discuss the many chemicals added to e-cigs, and the toxic effects of many of them. That show/hide template should be at the top of all the subarticles. Or as a sidebar box.

By the way, Vitamin E acetate is not found in nature. As always, one needs to dig down to the references used in the articles below.

• Ingredient Watch List: Tocopheryl Acetate, the Potentially Irritating Form of Vitamin E.

"This ingredient is basically a form of vitamin E created in the laboratory. Manufacturers take natural vitamin E and add acetic acid to it."

Various concerns and side effects are listed in the article.

Chemical of the Day - Q&A - Tocopherol vs. Tocopheryl Acetate. 26 April 2011. From the article (emphasis added):

the finished products can contain traces of hydroquinone. ... The best form of vitamin E when considering contamination concerns, is vacuum-distilled. ... researchers found that tocopherol acetate alone caused tumors to form when injected, but tocopherol alone did not.

See the "depigmentation" section of the hydroquinone article for its toxic effects. -- Timeshifter (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification content restored

Source does not verify "of CBD oils"[3] and vitamin E is explained in detail in other sections. QuackGuru (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Were you talking about this one? The article text in question is: ...of CBD oils, which are currently being tested for Vitamin-E Acetate. The cited reference ([4]) explicitly states this: Pauwaert's CBD oil is now being tested for vitamin E, according to HLN. How on Earth does that "fail verification" when the source directly and explicitly confirms it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Pauwaert's doctors point to his e-cig use, or e-cig fillings, as the most likely cause of death."[5]

See previous sourced content" "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping.[55]"

See SYN violation and misleading content: "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping of CBD oils, which are currently being tested for Vitamin-E Acetate.[55]"

Source does not confirm he was vaping "of CBD oils" and it is not "currently being" tested as of December 2019.

What about the mess you did to the other content? You reverted back to an old version before there was a close. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not making a bit of sense. The article explicitly does confirm his vaping of CBD oils, and that they are being tested (or at least were in November; I'd be good with changing "currently" to "were tested" or the like). I even gave you the exact quote from the source that confirms that. As to the rest, the "mess" was to wholesale dump the other article in here, rather than the merge done previously, where the other article was appropriately trimmed prior to merging. It needs cut down to an appropriate length for part of a section, and the previous edits by Beland did that quite well, I think. Given that Beland's proposal was accepted at AfD, I think it makes sense to go with that version. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See "Pauwaert's CBD oil is now being tested for vitamin E, according to HLN."[6] That does not explicitly state he was vaping CBD oils. QuackGuru (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You literally just quoted the part which discussed his CBD oils. You are still making no sense at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See current wording: "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping of CBD oils,..." The source does not verify the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping CBD. It only verifies vaping not vaping with CBD. See "Pauwaert's doctors point to his e-cig use, or e-cig fillings, as the most likely cause of death."[7] The sentence can be tweaked to avoid the SYN violation. The part about the CBD oils can be separated into another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The content was rewritten without the SYN violation. See "His doctors believe the cause of death was probably a result of his vaping.[56] Pauwaert's CBD oils he also used were tested for vitamin E at the Saint-Luc Hospital in November 2019.[55]" Ref 55 is a new source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've got no objection to that wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Undo merge proposal

This RfC was superseded by Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 30#Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak.

Cunard (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we undo the merge and restore the previous article? QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support undoing merge. QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose.

I disagree with undoing the merge. I disagree with the ill-considered BOLD WP:SPINOUT to Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak, created with the edit:
00:23, 25 October 2019 QuackGuru (talk · contribs) 21,276 bytes +21,276 (Copied content from 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products. )

At best, that SPINOUT was OK as a BOLD edit in WP:BRD. It is clearly opposed. The AfD established clearly that there was no consensus for the SPINOUT. It was not a good SPINOUT. It should not be re-attempted without clear and explicit consensus established here, on this talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments on proposal to undo merge

Most editors opposed the merge and there is enough content for a separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• As this article gets bigger yes would be good to split out. We have Ebola virus cases in the United States for example (for 11 cases of disease). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

yes agree it would be good to splitOzzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• The U.S. Ebola cases were much smaller in number, such that they can all be described here. Each also got national press attention and had political implications in specific state in a way that the individual vaping cases have not. It's also unclear to me that all the detail that's currently in that article is actually needed; most seems to have been added as news coverage was actually happening, and probably suffers from a lot of recentism. -- Beland (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue. If you disagree with the close of an AfD, that's settled thataway. I agree with the merge though; the other bit was excess, unencyclopedic detail that belongs in a newspaper, not encyclopedia. If there's too much of that here, it should be trimmed, not split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You disagreed with the merge according to your edit. You also restored failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • QG, enough with throwing "failed verification" around, and I'm not going with that tactic. What do you think failed verification, and why do you think so? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass content deletion

I think the content should not be deleted. The edit reverted back to an old version and deleted subsequent improvements. If it is too long we don't delete. We keep the content or start another article. If anyone supports deleting the content then that suggests a split is warranted. QuackGuru (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade unclear what you tried to do here?[8]

You restored back to statistics as they were in November of 2019... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you restored those (to which I don't object), but you also put in a tremendously excessive amount of detail. If we're going to list individual cases, we should list a few of the most notable examples, not a laundry list of all of them. That was also the issue with the previous split; it was excessive, unencyclopedic detail. It needs to be trimmed down to include a few, maybe 2-4, representative ones, not all of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is too long for this article then why not a split? I will continue to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have about 14 individual cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If it gets to around 20 everyone will be demanding a split. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the "split" was already rejected at AfD. We don't need a laundry list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The split was not rejected at AFD. More editors supporting keeping the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would make sense to split it into a different article if kept, but what Seraphimblade and I and others are objecting to is the inclusion of large quantities of such detailed content. We are arguing the article simply should not continue to be expanded in this direction. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if we had enough people willing to do it, we don't want to have a list of every single person who it has ever been reported in a reliable source has had a given disease, and link to that from the article on that disease. That's not an encyclopedia anymore, that's a deep data dive hardly anyone would be interested in reading. Readers interested in getting high-level summary information about disease outbreaks would have that information lost in the clutter of unimportant information. Anyone interested in collecting patient stories would be better served doing a search of newspapers and news web sites. Anyone looking for actually statistically meaningful information would be better served by looking at government-reported numbers or academic journal articles, rather than getting a list of people who happened to be reported in the local news. In this case, I think advice of WP:PRIMARY — avoid writing articles based mostly on primary sources — should be heeded. -- Beland (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That, and AfD is not a vote. What matters is not the raw numbers of editors taking a position, but the strength of arguments, as interpreted by the closer of the discussion. If the close is upheld at DRV, that will mean that the AfD result stands, and that result was rejection of a split. I also agree with Beland entirely—this level of detail is too much for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps describing a few of the most notable cases would serve as useful examples, but we'd be looking for representative examples, not an exhaustive list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade and Beland. Listing individual people who happened to get sick is not encyclopedic. Encyclopedic content sounds a lot more like "n people, with a median age of 19, got sick" than "Alice, Bob, Carol, and Dick all vaped drugs". If you want to make a full list of everyone who can be documented as affected, then please get your own WP:WEBHOST. Also, could I encourage you to Wikipedia:Don't be evil? Most of the people named in the longer version were teens or young adults. Just imagine what it will be like for these kids to apply for university admission or jobs with the top Google hit for their first and last names being Wikipedia talking about how they nearly died because they were vaping (mostly) THC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

So I think what we should do at this point is try to determine which cases are the most noteworthy and representative, and see if we can trim down to those. Also, the quality of the prose in that section is pretty poor, so I think once we've gotten it trimmed to a manageable level, we can work on improving that. My thoughts would be the double-transplant patient, and the one who was photographed with the sign and became somewhat the "face" of the issue. We also may want to include more in general in regards to the lawsuits over it, though that may belong in a separate section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You want to trim rather than delete them all. That suggests you believe the individual cases are encyclopedic. You want it "trimmed to a manageable level". Then a split is required when it is too long for this article. It makes no sense you support the merge and then turn around and want to delete a significant part of the merge. I did trim it to three cases for the patients section and started a subarticle. The civil lawsuits section had only one previously. Now it has 4. If anyone else wants to "trim" rather than "delete" we should start thinking again about undoing the merge. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the merge will be reversed is already at DRV, and will be decided there. If the merge stands, that doesn't mean trimming won't be required here. Part of normal editing is trimming; that is not analogous to "deletion". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we're talking about trimming from the encyclopedia as a whole, not just making sure there is a trimmed-down summary of a full-length subarticle with untrimmed content on individual cases. Just because one or three cases are included in the article doesn't mean that all of them should be. Sometimes having a concrete example is useful for illustrating a concept, but that doesn't mean that more than one example is needed. Sometimes individual cases are useful to include because they illustrate something important about the progress of the epidemic, but that doesn't mean that otherwise unremarkable cases are useful to include. -- Beland (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There is enough content for a separate article if the content is trimmed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

After trimming the list of people who don't meet notability per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:MEDCASE, there are only four paragraphs left about lawsuits, which strongly overlap the lawsuit section in this article. -- Beland (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Map is useless

What is the point of having a US map showing every single state highlighted? "Confirmed or probable cases have been reported in" literally every area of the map; the map is now useless. Time to remove it. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Most readers only spend of few minutes overlooking a Wikipedia article. Images like this one are useful. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An image that doesn't convey any information is worse than not having an image, since that time would be better spent looking at some other image or text. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, there's a map of deaths by U.S. state and territory which is much more useful to draw attention to. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The CDC has a more detailed map. The CDC map could replace this map. It is useful because is show all 50 states were affected by the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't need a map to show that; it's much more concise to say that in words, which should be done in the intro regardless. As compared to a situation where only some states are affected, in which case it's more concise (or at least a lot easier to digest) in map form. -- Beland (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I see you restored the map with the edit summary "not everyone reads Wikipedia articles". If people aren't here to read articles, there's no point in having an encyclopedia. Information should be conveyed using the best medium for that information; sometimes that's text, sometimes that's graphics. There does not seem to be consensus to include this map. The legend on the other map could be changed to indicate hospitalizations have occurred in the states that haven't reported deaths. Or a more useful map would report the number of hospitalizations (perhaps per capita) for each state. -- Beland (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Most people spending little time reading articles, so there's a point to keeping the image. The CDC has a map. If you don't like this one then you could replace it rather than delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Two editors want it removed and one wants it kept; it should be removed unless others weigh in to support. -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor who started this thread has not commented about the recent posts. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You can ask that editor if they have changed their opinion, if you like. I am going to presume that they have not and remove the map. -- Beland (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Map is useful

There is a new map with reported cases for each state and so on. This level of detail is not found in the body of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That's much more informative! Why didn't we just switch to that instead of arguing about the old map? -- Beland (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The case count is not over. It is going to have to be re-uploaded later. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic content

The content about Juul is off-topic.[9] QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert lost changes

@QuackGuru: This revert seems to have lost some helpful changes by Citation Bot to add page numbers etc., and possibly helpful changes by other editors. -- Beland (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

These seem to have been since restored. -- Beland (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Add CDC report about cause of illness

CDC just released this report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6902e2.htm?s_cid=mm6902e2_w

I don't have time right now, but its content should be added to the article. Among the main facts is that the vast majority of those with lung illness consumed THC cartidges from informal sources, 82% and 78% respectively.

KristofferR (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Predicting the future in a scary way

@QuackGuru: You have repeatedly restored this sentence to the article: "This indicates that this has the possibility to be a more pervasive phenomenon." This is a speculative claim that makes a prediction about future knowledge. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Moreover, this claim is from September 2019, and does not seem to have materialized (which is why speculative claims are generally not allowed) for reasons which are now better understood. -- Beland (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There is underreporting and it is sourced to a review. It is not making a prediction. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Being referenced does not mean that the claim isn't speculative. I guess it doesn't come right out and say that Vitamin E-related vaping lung illness is actually a pervasive international rather than a US-centric problem, it's saying that question has been raised by the noted case. For medical conditions, Wikipedia generally has a high standard for preliminary hypotheses which are unsubstantiated by empirical data. The inference being made here hasn't turned out to be the case, for reasons explained in the Reuters article. Wikipedia should report on current data about actual prevalence, not what it might or might not turn out to be later. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Similar cases of vaping-associated lung injury were reported in Japan before the US outbreak occurred.[7] This indicates that this has the possibility to be a more pervasive phenomenon.[7] However, the prevalence of lung injuries in various countries is unknown as of September 2019.[7]" There is no preliminary hypotheses. It states since it has occurred before it is possible it may be more pervasive. It turned out to be true since it occurred in Canada and previous overlooked cases have been reported in other countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is no hypothesis being proposed, how could it be true? Isn't the preliminary hypothesis that undetected vaping injuries are pervasive? -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There was underreporting and it was more pervasive than originally reported. People were getting sick and doctors did not connect it to vaping. QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If it has already been determined to be more pervasive than previously thought, then shouldn't we just report on how pervasive it is now known to be? The claim makes it sound like it is more pervasive than it is currently thought. -- Beland (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't know how pervasive it really is because of underreporting in various countries. It does not sound more pervasive than currently thought because the next sentence states: "However, the prevalence of lung injuries in various countries is unknown as of September 2019.[7]" QuackGuru (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If it's uncertain, we should just report it's uncertain and not possibly higher than previously though, since it was also previously uncertain. -- Beland (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources does not verify it is uncertain. The source verifies it is unknown and there is a possibility it could be more pervasive. It could be more pervasive because the lung injuries were not being reported and were being overlooked. Doctors were aware of people vaping but did not think vaping was causing the health problems. For example, see "Before ending up in the hospital, doctors were unable to tell her the reason she felt sick even though she told them she was vaping, she said.[119]" QuackGuru (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I could argue the semantics of this if you like, but such nit-picking is quite frustrating, and I feel like any argument that could possibly be made to preserve the existing text is being made, even if it contradicts previous arguments made to the same ends. I'd like to work together more constructively to reach a consensus. To start out with, given the sources cited and the claims being made, do you understand why I raised the objection that this claim is speculative, even if you don't agree with the objection? -- Beland (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not speculation. It is a rough estimate based on the evidence. Doctors ignored the warning signs. Cases were underreported for years. Before the outbreak people were dying and getting sick. It was not attributed to vaping. Now that cases are being encouraged to be reported in the US this is the new normal: hospitalizations and death. See WP:NOTCRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." The content is not unverifiable. It is well sourced to a recent review. No other review has been presented that contradicts this view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So then why would I raise an objection on the grounds that it's speculative? -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." That's for unverifiable speculation. Even if it were speculation, verifiable speculation is not against the rules. Your point is moot. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't wish to wikilawyer; the point is not to follow the exact wording of some rules, it's to giver readers reliable information. The standard for medical information is generally a lot higher than other types of information. -- Beland (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is now similar to other content in the article. See "Prevalence of lung disease attributable to vaping is likely under reported as cases brought to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are some of the most severe.[18]" QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reading through what's presented here: This indicates that this has the possibility to be a more pervasive phenomenon.[7] However, the prevalence of lung injuries in various countries is unknown as of September 2019.[7] Prevalence of lung disease attributable to vaping is likely under reported as cases brought to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are some of the most severe.[18] That's a textbook case of weasel wording. If a reliable source says it is underreported for some reason, then we can put that in the article. But right now, that's a bunch of scary sounding assertions, full of "maybe could kinda possibly be." QG, you objected to that with vitamin E acetate, even though it's now come out that the issues are very likely caused by that. We can't do it one way for one thing and another way for something different, so at least pick one standard of certainty you'd like to apply to everything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Check the edit history for who added the current wording about vitamin E. See the lede about vitamin E. for example, "The CDC stated that the chemical vitamin E acetate is a very strong culprit of concern in the lung illnesses related to THC-based vaping products, but did not rule out other chemicals as possible causes.[notes 2][11]" I do not object to content about vitamin E being in the lede for this article. You said "That's a textbook case of weasel wording." Is there anything inaccurate about the content that you think can be improved? The reason it contain weasel words is because the wording is supported by each review. Same with the wording about vitamin E. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This boggles my mind a bit. If you find writing in a source that Wikipedia considers unacceptable for writing in its own voice - weasel words, strong point of view, casual tone - why would it be OK to import that practice and use it to write in Wikipedia's voice? That would effectively make Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, tone, and everything else meaningless. Writing with say, a strong opinion, can only be included if it's attributed in the text to the original author, and handled carefully so as not to make the encyclopedia article sound opinionated. WP:WEASEL says the way to handle weasel phrasing, if it must be included because it is a reasonable summary, is the same - clearly attribute it to the original author, which QuackGuru's phrasing does not. -- Beland (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed (twice) "This indicates that this has the possibility to be a more pervasive phenomenon." to "The author of one paper, published in September 2019, wrote that this suggested the phenomenon could be more widespread than the United States." in order to make clear both what is being predicted and when the prediction was made. It would be misleading to say that this paper is predicting a possibility based on what we know in February 2020; it was based on what was known no later than September 2019. I also found the phrase "more pervasive" to be an unsatisfactory summary, because it sounds like it's talking about frequency, when actually I think it's just saying more cases will probably be found in more countries. Based on what we know in February 2020, more cases have been found in other countries, but not nearly to the same degree as in the United States. I'd still say this shouldn't have been added back in September because with breaking news events Wikipedia should report on actualities and not possibilities (I'm remembering writing Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Breaking news; though this outbreak is slower-moving than a shooting, many possibilities still end up being wrong). But now, it is just rather uninteresting that this one author made this prediction back in September; in February 2020 we can actually just say how many cases have since been found in what countries, given the increase in awareness of this problem and active surveillance. So I think we should just drop this sentence entirely. -- Beland (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a review rather than a news article that is making a statement that it could be more widespread than what is being reported. I think it's simply stating that not every case is being reported in every country. That's non-controversial and interesting. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether it's a review article or a newspaper article, the concerns about being dated, weasel-worded, and speculative are the same, and given two editors still have those concerns, I'm dropping this text for now. If we want to talk about under-reporting outside the US, we should find reliable sources that address that directly, like we got the CDC source for the US, though it's unclear Seraphimblade supports even that. (It's since been moved to the US section and so isn't in an already-shaky context anymore.) -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim "the prevalence of lung injuries in various countries is unknown as of September 2019" now seems to be out of date. We have good information on deaths and hospitalizations in Canada, for example. Now that the main cause of the outbreak is known, it also appears that the reason no or few cases have been reported from most countries is that the additives that caused the outbreak were not generally used in products sold there. Under-reporting may cause less-severe lung injuries to not appear in statistics in any country, but in February 2020 it seems we can now usefully report on the relative frequency of deaths and hospitalizations in the last few months. -- Beland (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275 The paper is referring to other cases in the UK and Japan. It is not about strictly cases involving the outbreak or additives. It was referring to e-cigarette use in general. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say lung injuries unrelated to the outbreak are off-topic for this article, but would be good to note on Vaping-associated pulmonary injury. -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Turns out that article actually had more information on lung injury cases in general, and I've updated this article from it and as a result dropped this claim. -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of update section tag

@QuackGuru: Please don't remove the {{update section}} tag from the International section. Some of the claims there are from September 2019, which was at the peak of the outbreak and the beginning of scientific investigation. It's unreasonable to assume that there isn't more updated information available about the number of cases in more countries. The tag is there to indicate that sources need to be found and read. -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't find sources that don't exist. By the next update if sources are not presented the tag should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Next update of what? Such tags should not be removed unless someone actually tries to find sources; if such a search comes up empty, then it's certainly reasonable to remove the tag and leave a note explaining why. Just leaving out-of-date information around to confuse readers could be quite harmful, in this case with possible medical consequences. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it turns out there was more recent information already elsewhere in the article, so I'm not sure why you are saying that such sources don't exist. The section needed to be split up anyway, so the tag is no longer applicable. -- Beland (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Beland are you stating that "September 2019" is out of date? Rather than tag, if you have found more recent sources than add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the section in question no longer exists. But to answer your question, yes, authorities have been issuing reports quite frequently as the outbreak is ongoing; at this point I would expect any confirmed cases from the entirety of 2019 to have been reported publicly in high-income countries. -- Beland (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Regarding your comments at WP:AN/I: The section that had the update tag I requested not be removed was the International section. I found updated information already elsewhere in the article when I refactored that section, and I removed that tag myself when the section went away. Separately, I happened to notice that the Canada section is reporting that probable cases were under investigation in October. I'm sure these investigations have long since completed and been reported publicly, and that we can now say with higher reliability whether the frequency of occurrence there is higher or lower than the article currently says. There is a significant public health question as to what degree the outbreak is occurring in Canada. We have apparently been getting weekly or monthly updates from the United States; current stats are from January 21, 2020. This is a fast-moving issue; September is near the peak of the outbreak in the United States, and a lot more is known now. At some point the U.S. CDC started reporting only confirmed cases, and a suspected agent has been identified. I would expect numbers from Canada to be available through the end of December 2019 by now. I'm currently in the middle of a massive page merge in Christianity-related articles, I've fallen behind on my spell-checking project, and there are much worse problems on one of this article's subarticles, so I don't really have time at the moment to do more than a surface cleaning and tagging. I may be able to get to it in a few weeks or months, but I expect with all the information coming out and all the attention this topic is getting, if this is left tagged then another editor will get to it sooner. -- Beland (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A quick Google News search found this article which reports 16 probable or confirmed cases in Canada. It doesn't give a timeframe, and doesn't separate out confirmed vs. probable. Perhaps being intimately familiar with the Canadian medical system you can track down which agency these numbers are coming from so we can get reliable details, but I have to run to dinner. -- Beland (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Or even better the Canadian government itself [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tada! Does that seem like a reasonable request now? -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the Canadian government source. More content could be added from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James, it would doubtless be helpful to the AE folks if you would update Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Doc James accordingly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Pauwaert's CBD oils he also used were tested for vitamin E at the Saint-Luc Hospital in November 2019.[60][needs update]" I am unable to update the content without a source. I removed the tag and added instead his death in under investigation and other content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in a casual search, even in non-English online media, though there may be a report somewhere. It feels a bit weird for Wikipedia not to report the results of the Vitamin E test given how much time has passed, but at least the current phrasing is reasonable. -- Beland (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

When the investigation is completed they may provide information about the vitamin E. If they don't then we may have to consider deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Update required

The CDC and the US FDA have made progress in the outbreak research. I'll try to work on a draft to update the article with one edit rather than make several edits. I'm busy at the moment. In a few days when I have time I will update the entire article rather than a few numbers. A tag at the top of the article is *not* required. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Cases in the article unrelated to the outbreak

There are several cases noted in the article which don't seem to have anything to do with the 2019-20 outbreak. They occurred years before the outbreak (if 2019-2020 in the title is accurate), and involve different chemicals, and different symptoms like allergic reactions. In one or two cases it's not clear that vaping was at all related to the death, for example one patient who died of a heart attack who also vaped, and there's no further explanation given connecting the two, either individually or statistically. Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes would seem to be a better place for any events that do not match either the timeframe or suspected causative agents. Including those here implies more of a relationship than is supported by sources. -- Beland (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We have List of Ebola patients and Ebola virus cases in the United States. This is background information related to the outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what this objection has to do with the Ebola articles. How is someone who vapes having a heart attack related to this outbreak any more than any other vaping-related health concern listed in those articles? How is someone having an allergic reaction to a vaping chemical more related to this outbreak than the other health issues? -- Beland (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Ebola patients does not have cases from one outbreak or epidemic. This article is not limited to just the recent cases. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you expect an article titled List of Ebola patients to be scoped to a specific outbreak, and why wouldn't you expect an article titled "2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak" to be scoped to that specific outbreak? -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the cited source on the heart attack case said the death was unrelated to vaping, so it should never have been included in a vaping article at all. Since there was not a coherent objection, I moved the other cases to 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak but put a "Background" section in this article explaining the extent of non-outbreak lung injury cases, mentioning only the first similar one individually. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I have a feeling there are many, many lawsuits being filed against vaping product manufacturers and retailers, by both injured people and goverments; the section on them may need to be cleaned up to only mention the big ones, and otherwise report numbers. -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

I deleted a couple of lines in the lawsuit section that just restated article headlines giving a play by play of a trial in the moment, seemed unnecessary. This article has a lot of other issues, particularly the Canada section where it says "This case has not been confirmed, as September 27, 2019" and the citation is an article about the case being confirmed 2601:401:180:E1E0:84B2:3FC1:4A4E:9BD7 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak → 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak
• 2019–2020 New Zealand measles outbreak → 2019–20 New Zealand measles outbreak
• 2019–2020 measles outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo → 2019–20 measles outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

– Per similarly titled articles, e.g. 2019–20 Philippines polio outbreak, 2019–20 locust infestation, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 2019–20 Lebanese protests, 2019–20 Iraqi protests, etc., I think the "2020" in these article titles are redundant and should be shortened. Love of Corey (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:DATERANGE. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@JackFromReedsburg: Would you like to give specifics about MOS:DATERANGE, especially in light of my quotes from it just below? Nurg (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS:DATERANGE says "the range's end year is usually given in full" and "non-abbreviated years are generally preferred" and I see no particular reason why these cases should be among the exceptions. The cases of shortened dates mentioned by Love of Corey are actually in the minority! A glance at Category:2010s disease outbreaks shows that writing years in full is usual, in line with the MOS. Nurg (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nurg. The accepted use for "2019–20" as per MOS:DATERANGE is much narrower – it should generally only be used for things like sports seasons and TV seasons. These don't qualify. It's not that these should be moved, it's that the other "similarly titled articles" should all be moved to "2019–2020". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral Given that MOS:DATERANGE is cited above as rationales for both support and oppose, I cannot help but note that it does allow this as proposed (“ two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years”). But even with consecutive years, the four digit style appears more common. Schwede66 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer the unambiguous/spelled-out version, except when the two years are about an athletic season. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the shortened format is explicitly allowed in the MOS for the case of two consecutive years in the same century, it is not required, and generally using non-abbreviated years is preferred. If the situation were reversed I still probably wouldn't support the move as both styles are acceptable, although the direction of the proposal to move from non-abbreviated years to abbreviated years definitely influences my opinion. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vitamin E acetate, squalane, squalene, MCT oil

I don't have time to find the best WP:MEDRS sources, but here is some important news:

• Tainted vapes recalled as Oregon regulators plan wider ban. By David Downs. December 16, 2020. Leafly. From article:

A class of chemicals—vitamin E acetate, squalane, squalene, MCT oil—found in certain “botanically derived terpene” products like True Terpenes’ Viscosity are linked to: lipophilic pneumonia lung abnormalities like so-called “ground-glass opacities” in X-rays lung tissue damage, resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) Why? Because burning vitamin E acetate can make phosgene, a chemical warfare agent that slowly melts lung tissue. Heating squalane and squalene to a modest 464℉ releases acetic acid, formic acid, and acetone, experts told the OLCC.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid 19 Like Symptoms

Why does no one see that the symptoms of this disease are similar to Covid 19? Isn't it very interesting?

Sort of interesting, but highly doubtful. CutePeach (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Dank Vapes

Why is this article linking to an ecommerce store for Dank Vapes instead of a page explaining what they are? CutePeach (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of vaping bans

Removed "Prominent proponents of smoking bans are not in favor of criminalizing tobacco either, but rather allowing consumers to have the choice to choose whatever products they desire." Don't see how this isn't self-contradicyory, and it's not in the linked article. Abeg92contribs 11:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)