So someone should explain to me why (hypothetical example here) the article titled "The dangers of inhaling nicotine" and the article titled "The dangers of vaping" should have the exact same language in them.
e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help
- Thread starter Wallace_Frampton
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So someone should explain to me why (hypothetical example here) the article titled "The dangers of inhaling nicotine" and the article titled "The dangers of vaping" should have the exact same language in them.
I am a devoted contributor to Wikiepdia (at least in my scientific field). I should say it is a well balanced entity and should be treated with respect. Just do not try to force your view, you may want to start with discussion page, or you may be severly edited (and for best: Wiki is not a place for perceptional preferences).
When you say "entity" do you mean the specific article on e-cigarettes, or do you mean the "entity" of Wikipedia overall?
If "B", as a presumed Vaper, what is your reaction to the part of the article that says that Vaping "simulates the feeling of smoking" and also, what about the difference in definition of an e-cigarette in the "Harm Reduction" article (which I like) and the definition of an e-cigarette in the "e-cigarette", which I don't like.
And also, what about this study that claims to show that Vaping Devices produce as much or more carcinogenic compounds as smoking, but conveniently leaves off the detail that they had to modify the device in order to do it, and the "toxic" "vapor" that was produced was something that no sane person would ever want to breath. (My metaphor on that, btw, is that it's like rerouting the exhaust directly into the passenger compartment of a car, and then claiming that driving cars can cause you to die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I thought that was better than my previous "stove tops cause cancer by burning hamburgers" metaphor.)
And finally, what do you mean when you use the word "devoted"? I interpret that as a "love" of the encyclopedia, but not necessarily an expression of expertise or experience. I'm a devoted follower of the female anatomy, but that doesn't mean I ever see much of it. How long have you been editing? Are you interested in working on the e-cigarette article?
Okay, so crazy time here. What happens when some wizard discovers that he can nicotine "fog" an entire dance club, such as a rave. And maybe with something that's not nicotine. I'm just trying to convey to you here, that the idea that Vaping Devices are "foggers" has stuck and I'm rewiring my whole brain around the idea. It's causing me some trouble with the Wikipedia thing, because it's based on the idea that the sole purpose for Vaping is an alternative to smoking and everything about Vaping is in contrast to smoking, but the more I think about it, and the more I learn, the more radically different the two activities become. Even here, on this forum, populated by experts that know more about it than I ever will, I see indicators of smoking here and smoking there and sometimes I feel like breaking out my bottle of white-out and correcting some of the things I see.
I understand behaviorally, most people here are going to be here after starting and then leaving smoking, but technologically, this is an asthma inhaler that delivers nicotine. No fire, no burning, no smoke, no carcinogens, no bad smell, no social ostracization ("get that thing the hell away from the baby!"), etc.. Saw a dude vaping at Home Depot once, but thought it was a pipe at first. Thought about calling a Manager or something. Then realized what it was. "Good Job, dude" I thought, then smelled a bit of vaper and it was like juicy froot bubble gum.
It's like night and day. I'm wired (like everyone else) to react in a hostile manner to smoking, and the more vaping is smoking, the greater the likelihood that there will be a hostile reaction to it. From an advocacy perspective, vaping needs to break with smoking to the greatest extent possible. At least that is where I am now. Please feel free to correct, tweak or realign me on this, as necessary.
Many reporters go to wikipedia first when they do a story on something, like e-cigarettes. In many respects, wikipedia is not just "mass media" as one op-ed piece I read earlier today said (it's the 10th most trafficked site on the internet), it's "uber mass-media", meaning "over", like the pointy end of the pyramid and CNN, Fox, MSLSD, local stations, newspapers, online news sites below it. And "it" flows downhill. So, if there is even the smallest bit of (let's say) "inflection" in the Wikipedia article, that inflection is going to be replicated and distributed millions of times, over and over again.
I used the word "inflected" to differentiate a difference so subtle that it falls below the radar of "bias", or "inaccuracy". One prime example I have right now is this idea that (characterized here) "Vaping is just like smoking, except it doesn't have the risk of cancer, smell, cost, etc..." and another "Vaping simulates the feeling (or experience) of smoking." A hard-wired connection to smoking. So, in latent semantic analysis, the mind goes: Vaping, smoking, cancer and then the article goes Vaping, smoking cancer, and then a little bit later in the article it goes Vaping, cancer.
Pretty soon, Vaping = cancer.
Sure I'm exaggerating, but to illustrate the subtle point. It happens at a subliminal level, and so when crackpot studies about the cancer risks of vaping devices cranked all the way to "11" deliver toxic vapor (and continuous dry hits), no one questions the official study. "Everyone" knows that vaping is almost cancer already, so it's no surprise that some scientist somewhere has confirmed it. It just validates what everyone already knew from the very beginning.
I'll leave with this:
When you control the language (of the debate, or the discussion), you control the outcome (of the debate, or discussion). This seemingly innocent "confusion" about conflating smoking and vaping, and this single-minded determination to never mention one without the other, may or may not be "innocent". I'm aware of the international conspiracy. The only way of taking it on, is by taking it on.
I'll add: Part of the "language" is the grammar, the syntax, the order of the words, not necessarily the words themselves, nor the linear fashion in which they are arranged. There is great power in having certain words (and the ideas they convey) higher in the article and other words (and ideas) lower, and it is not difficult for a trained and aware person to subtley poison the sentence to distract the reeder from what meaning is conveyed. It's a way of disrupting the flow of brain to the data.
I notice these things. I care about these things. These things are important. Online, in text, sometimes people appear stupid because they are stupid, and other times they are evil geniuses trying to do their evil deeds right in front of you, while pretending to be Forrest Gump.
Last edited:
1:
Some wizard can put nicotine or something other than nicotine in the fog fluid, sure.
Can't imagine why they might want to, but sure they could.
2: the e-cig is just an application of new technology.
The new technology is the lithium battery which allows for the miniaturization of a fog machine.
The application is a simulation of smoking but without the tar and smoke particles which are the main health problems.
To be quite honest, I cannot confirm or deny either of it. I am no scientist.
It is my understanding that at low temperatures no formaldehyde is produced and that towards the higher end of the temperature spectrum there may be 'some' formadeldehyde production happening which would largely be irrelevant from a harm perspective. The major concern is certainly the dry hit conditions.
@Wallace_Frampton - Dr Farsalinos' E-cigarette research site might be helpful (E-cigarette Research), particularly this entry
If Vaping advocates are going to continue to use this acronym (Anti-Nicotine Tobacco Zealots), someone should add it to the Urban Dictionary (at least, there may be other places online to add it to also), as there is no online reference defining this acronym that I could find. I started to, but Urban Dictionary wanted me to log in using a gmail or facebook account, and I don't allow any site to loot my contacts for any reason, ever. And, as I thought about it afterwards, there's some reasons to NOT use this acronym, the phrase it represents, and the meaning behind the phrase. If one if going to demonize the opposition to a movement, I think it's best to define what the "message" is, and then stay "on message" consistently and not water-down the opposition by using alternative and contradictory descriptions who "they" are. And also it's not my place to do this, so instead I'm posting this as a general opinion for others to consider and choose to act upon, or not, as they see fit.
You've summarized my concerns and questions perfectly. I asked this earlier in the thread; whether or not the toxicity of vaping is more "analog" or more "digital":
Current State of This Question: "Does toxicity rise gradually as temperature rises gradually, or is it a hard "OFF" until a certain temperature is reached, and then it's "ON"?"
Obviously all of this goes back to the fundamental question of "How Safe is Vaping?". Will the User/Vaper be aware of the toxic nature of the vapor/gas (which? in a "dry hit"?) they are inhaling, or is/can it be toxic when the Vaping Device is NOT in a "dry hit" condition? Is it possible that a User/Vaper will be inhaling vapor that is toxic without knowing it?
The study that claims that Vaping can be equally toxic as cigarette smoking makes no effort to differentiate between the artificially created laboratory conditions and real-life circumstances.
ANTZ : anti-nicotine and tobacco zealots. Generally, persons employed within the tobacco control industry, and typically funded by the pharmaceutical industry (either directly or indirectly). Zealots are blind to the facts, and these particular ones hate the tobacco industry so much that many have lost sight of the original aim of tobacco control, which was probably to reduce the burden of disease and death caused by smoking. They have changed into a movement that seeks to ban any form of consumer nicotine product and are the public voice of opposition to THR; which, perversely, means that in practice they work to protect the status quo and therefore to protect cigarette sales. None appear able to see the obvious, which is that they are now working for big tobacco and big pharma to maintain death and disease at its current levels. Pharma (principally) recognises its debt to their dumb proponents by funding them directly if they will accept the money, or indirectly if they won't (via the universities and organisations they work for).
Origin: ANTZ was derived by Kristin @CASAA from the common usage within the e-cigarette community of the slang term 'the antis'.
E-Cigarette Terminology
i found multiple references.
regards
mike
They need to do a better job of SEO-ing that Acronym then. Something like less than 2% of Browsers/Google Users ever look past page 1 in any search results. Which makes the use of the term look fringe-y and crank-y, outside mainstream, tinfoil hat, local use and local culture only, etc...
Here are my results:
you need to do a better job of modifying your search terms.
"ANTZ e-cig"
regards
mike
I'm a representative sample of people that are not part of the Vaping Culture. If I didn't get it, the 90+% of the people I represent aren't going to get it either. The question is whether or not the advocates within the Vaping Community are going to passively expect people to put extra effort into learning their terminology, and then absorb the resultant consequences when they do not (they will not). Or, are they going to put some effort into making that information more easily available and further the social/political/etc... objectives they want to accomplish? The list of reasons to not do something is infinite.
No one sets-up an online e-store, puts great effort into making their product available for sale and when their results show up on page 2, blame the customers for failing to find them. That's not "marketing", that's called "going out of business", and also "failure". Instead what they do is take advantage of opportunities that are available to them, and improve their search results to the greatest extent possible.
I went back and took a look at the search results and noticed something about #6.
While it might be difficult to compete with IMDB and the other "big name" references to the movie, the fact that a blog listing from some no-name site from September of 2012 shows up on page 1, position #6 indicates to me that the below-the-fold results are weak. Google loves lists, definitions, etc... and in general will always place them high in search results. Page 1 results are attainable, and it would be preferable to have those results come from a non-biased source (not a e-cigarette forum, or advocacy site). JACKPOT would be getting this acronym on Wikipedia itself. Note I have no role in any of this, and I've already made my sentiments on the use of this acronym known, however if it's going to be used, it can be used in a better, and more effective manner. I'm just dropping the information and opinion here for consideration. People can accept and/or "do" something with it as they choose, or not.
Last edited:
well in that case i will have to defer to you.
after all your the professional researcher.
regards
mike
I understand what you mean, but I don't feel you.
If you 'win' the lede you add a veneer of respectability to an otherwise horribly biased entry. Vaping is the new witch hunt in the scientific tobacco control industry. Big Tobacco and to a large extent Big Pharma are very threatened by this technology and have media blitzed against it. Add that to various levels of government who have already spent future money from the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement who are now waking up and realizing as more people begin vaping the money that they counted on to pay the bonds may not be there and you will begin to realize how powerful the anti vape community is.
But since you asked nicely I will tell you the terms I prefer.
Vaping instead of smoking and vapor instead of smoke.
Vaporizer instead of e-cigarette, it may be electronic but has no resemblance to a cigarette.
E-liquid instead of e-juice, juices are extracted from fruits and vegetables; liquids are made in labs.
Percentages instead of mg/ml. 0.6% nicotine instead of 6mg nicotine.
EDIT: Please ECFers, respect @Wallace_Frampton and what they are trying to do. If it works it helps us, if it doesn't it costs us nothing but a little bit of time. Sometimes you just have to tilt at windmills.
Last edited:
As long as the coil is wet, the temperature remains at or close to the boiling point temperature of the liquid.
Once the coil goes dry, the coil temperature can rise dramatically and stuff starts to burn.
It's like having a pot of soup on the stove.
The water in the mix evaporates off, and when all the water is gone, stuff starts to burn.
I don't really know the history of "ANTZ" but have always assumed the name Stanton Glantz had something to do with it - but perhaps I'm wrong ..... ??
The persistence in chaining e-cigarettes to smoking is the primary reason why all the anti-vaping FUD is given default credibility and must be disproven. The "body" of anti-cigarette information/propaganda is so massive that as soon as vaping it tied to cigarettes, it axiomatically inherits the entirety of it. The battle to influence the opinions of people starts off at -10 squares back, the moment people read "vaping" and thing "cigarettes".
It's not a question of "truth", it's a question of prioritizing those truths. Which truth is more important than the next truth. If you had to make a list of "10 Truths about Vaping", what order would you arrange them in? Alphabetical? Order of what is most relevant to health and safety? Order of what is most contentious/disputed? Or order of what furthers the social/political agenda of the pro-vaping advocacy/community.
Pick One:
List #1:
A: 10 Scary Things About Vaping
B: Cigarettes and Vaping: Exactly the Same
C: Vaping: Not as Bad as Cigarettes
D: Which is Worse: Cigarettes or Vaping?
E: Which is Better: Cigarettes or Vaping?
F: Recent Study Indicates Vaping is Better than Smoking
G: Vaping: New Lithium Battery Technology Allows Nicotine Delivery in a Safe and More Enjoyable Manner
List #2
A: Vaping: New Lithium Battery Technology Allows Nicotine Delivery in a Safe and More Enjoyable Manner
B: Recent Study Indicates Vaping is Better than Smoking
C: Which is Better: Cigarettes or Vaping?
D: Which is Worse: Cigarettes or Vaping?
E: Vaping: Not as Bad as Cigarettes
F: Cigarettes and Vaping: Exactly the Same
G: 10 Scary Things About Vaping
Pay attention to the internal hierarchy and the standard by which it was created. It's a choice. People can think about these ideas, and make a choice, or they can allow the choice to be made for them. Someone is going to make the choice. I'm saying that the choice should be made by the people in who's interests it is to do so (vs. letting their adversaries make the choices for them).
Bonus point to those that catch the transition from "C" to "D".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
