Talk:Vaporizer (cannabis)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What the Volcano is for

Surely it needs to be mentioned that these are widely used for vaporizing cannabis. 24.8.141.123 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Corn cob pipes are also used for that purpose, but is that one of its primary purposes? Unless so, I think it may safely be omitted. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The Volcano is a vapouriser sold primarily for the purpose of consuming marijuana. This is an encyclopædia wherein we describe reality. It is not an American head shop where we have to pretend the pipes are for "healthful tobacco use only", pretend the vapourisers are for "aromatherapy", and be careful to call the bongs "water pipes". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the reversions of the Volcano Vaporizer page, I question several changes.

-Removal of the Molecular Gastronomy reference: Evidently, the device has been widely adopted by the food service industry. Here are several independent references to support this (although they are not germane to include on the Volcano Vaporizer WIKIPEDIA page): http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/08/22/315575/new-science-cooking-equipment.html :::http://www.chow.com/stories/10417

http://www.rimag.com/article/CA6556364.html

-Strict Adherence to the "Marijuana" reference: It is more ACCURATE to describe the device as appropriate for "Herb" use, rather than "Marijuana" use for several reasons:

The machine is compatible with any plant material or liquid extract, and it is used for purposes other than marijuana delivery.

The machine has multiple temperature settings that are inappropriate for marijuana use.

The subsequent references within the WIKIPEDIA entry to "plant material" and "herbal medication" expand the previous narrow definition. If semantics is an issue, the definition of "Herb" would include examples such as "Cannabis;" whereas the definition of "Cannabis" would be defined as an "Herb."

-Adherence to the term "Inhalation":

The vapor the machine creates is used for ambient delivery (aromatherapy), flavoring (molecular gastronomy), or inhalation (herb). The term "application" or "to apply" is more accurate than "inhalation" or "to inhale".

All of these contentions are well supported. Please evaluate the Volcano Vaporizer at Mr. Grant Achatz's Chicago restaurant, Alinea, or Mr. Kevin Sousa's Philly restaurant, Alchemy. They use the machine to vaporize herbs such as mace and nutmeg at a low temperature setting to flavor food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7t0EPGKpdM

http://www.popcitymedia.com/features/31vizdt.aspx

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06302/733336-46.stm

It is clear that the recent reversion does not lead to a more complete or accurate definition of "Volcano Vaporizer". The previous revisions provided a clearer, broader definition. RidingLessons (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your commments. I've edited the article again to broaden the application information, using the best parts from the specific and general application information to give the clearest and most integratively accurate description of what this device is and how it is used. There's a new section on its use as a kitchen tool, replete with three of the four refs you furnished here in this discussion; I'm not certain what makes you think your refs were not appropriate or suitable — they are both. I tried to add an external link to the official site, but evidently it is blacklisted by Wikipedia for reasons of spam. This should probably be questioned via the relevant channels. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scheinwerfermann, just checked the page again today and must say I am not at all satisfied with the crippled article. A lot of valuable information is missing e.g. temperature table. Furthermore a general description of the purpose /set up /operation of the machine provides a better understanding. Right now I must say it is a worse article than it was 26 June 2008. I suggest to use the former version. Kind Regards Esender1 (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Esender1

Esender1, the temperature table doesn't belong in this article. It might belong in aromatherapy, but it is not relevant to the Volcano per se. This and the setup, use, and care instructions don't belong here, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and the fact that you happen to like a particular piece of information not germane to the topic does not justify its inclusion in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

With your strict philosophy, honestly, you should probably remove the rules from the Go page. Wikipedia isn't a manual, afterall, and the rules there are definite manual material. Anyways, I could find hundreds of thousands of things wrong with Wikipedia entries, but most of the information isn't redundant and is relevant to the subject, so people tend to keep the information or add to it. I don't see how removing the entries from previous revisions improves the validity or quality of this page. As a matter of fact, it reduces both. I've read all previous revisions and all that they seemed to need was a little less bias. --75.27.158.69 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Unless you can prove that the primary use of this vaporizer is to consume cannabis, then we cannot imply such. For the record, most of what I have seen in internet postings refers to vaporizing non-cannabis herbs and other aroma-generating materials in it; there is an astounding lack of first-hand statements of anyone having used it to consume cannabis, and those claims that are made of having done so are usually made anonymously or under pseudonyms, which makes their credibility dubious at best. I'm sorry, but I cannot consent to the disregard of Wikipedia policy that is exemplified in the demand that such unverified claims of cannabis be included here. This is an encyclopedia, not a site for propagating questionable rumors of this sort. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

75.27.158.69, What you are calling a "strict philosophy" is not mine, it is Wikipedia's. If you disagree with an aspect of WP:NOT, by all means take it up on the talk page. Aldrich Hanssen, you're quite correct that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability. I have added reliable support for the assertion of fact that the Volcano, like other vapourisers, is sold for cannabis use. Contrary to your statement here, there is no shortage of suitable evidence to support the assertion. Pretending otherwise is tantamount to censorship; we don't do that here. Also, please keep in mind that whether you are sorry or not is irrelevant; your consent is not required for anyone else's edits to Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet another confusing digression of a previously established point. Let's assist to define the subject and create a concise reference. Clarity is not achieved through the burden of loose citations. Afterall, Google says there are 32,000 credible sources to cite.RidingLessons (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5 cannabis references is overdoing it

Why pile on 5 cannabis references?. That's a bit much. There's nothing "cloak and dagger" here, when edits are done in this manner it appears more like POV than trying to provide encyclopedic information. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The 5 links to cannabis "studies" are still there at bottom of article-that provides this type of info without diminishing the quality of the lead paragraph. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that five refs for a single assertion is rather more than necessary; generally one ref suffices. However, there are a few contributors to this article who for one reason or another seem to be trying very hard to keep any mention of cannabis, no matter how factual and supported, out of this article. In accordance with Wikipedia's basic requirements for factual support of assertions, the refs were provided to support a factual assertion that had been challenged, not to push a point of view. You're correct that one of the refs was already present as a study link, so I've removed that ref; the other four remain.

I have also removed the word "marketed" (qua sold) from the lead paragraph, so that we can stop chasing our tails debating what the manufacturer nominally vs. actually intends the device to be used for. The syntactic structure of the paragraph is undamaged with this removal, and this may help alleviate some of the uneasy reaction certain contributors seem to be having to the mention of cannabis.

Please remember that removing valid references and/or supported, topical assertions from a Wikipedia article can be considered vandalism. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but it's something to keep in mind for your future contributions. It may bother you that the article states one of the main uses of the Volcano is for cannabis consumption, but that is a well-supported assertion of documented fact. As such, it cannot legitimately be removed from the article. The quality of the lead paragraph was diminished by omitting, removing, and/or eliding one of the principal uses of the subject of the article — not by incorporating that verified information and supporting it with reliable sources. I'm sure an administrator could help you understand why the verified, directly-relevant information in question must remain in the article, if you're still having trouble understanding. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove POV as needed. User Scheinwerfermann has quite a history of trying to focus on marijuana in this article. Mike P ^{(wots all this, then?)} 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you'll remain vigilant against POV, which doesn't belong in any Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure eight days worth of periodic attention to this article qualifies as "quite a history", but we'll leave that in the eye of the beholder. :-) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tidy the list of references and placement of notations WP:CITE (mid sentence footnotes read poorly). The first four citations are neither credible nor encyclopedic. It would be more informative and concise to refer to the scientific citations to back up the assertion that the Volcano Vaporizer is used for cannabis (as demonstrated by the academic studies). The current laundry list looks like an advertisement.RidingLessons (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a poor article. It doesn't have releveant information, and the first four citations are not credible (as noted above). For Cannabis the reference should be UCSD's ongoing medical marijuana research project. Other uses should be emphasized over Cannabis because that is the professional and accurate approach for a new and unknown product such as the Volcano. It appears that all uses for the product may not have been even exploitd yet due to the newness of the product. Referencing cannabis drug mags is not only inaccurate, but it is unprofesional and may lead to repercusssions for the Company. It is therefore a vindictive and damaging approach. Not to mention the fact that it is a narrow minded and unnecessarily restrictive. The reason that those cannabis articles appear in those magazines/sites is because of the attention from medical marijuana, and not the other way around. Other viable uses appear obvious. Tobacco, smoking cessation, incense, other herbs, aromatherpy diffusion, potpourri, food, or (legal) drug delivery are all plausible uses of the device. If you want to know what it wa made for, you could always call the inventor and ask. And jsut because he made it for that, it doen;t mean "that's it". It's a device, not an end use. Just because it "took off" in the market with medical marijuana is no reason to then assume that is all it is. With Scheinwerfermann's logic, one ould pose the arguement that Microsoft Word is a computer program that is used to right articles about Cannabis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.131.253 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Volcano is not a new product, and the Cannabis magazine references are fine according to the relevant Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not censored; we do not bowdlerise accurate descriptions of products simply because of an editor's unease that inclusion of a verified fact could have "repercussions" for the maker. The article is neither unprofessional nor vindictive, it is simply factual. That is what we're here to do: assemble a factual encyclopædia. It is regrettable that US drug laws are so draconian as to foment the sort of paranoia displayed in 76.103.131.253's worry about saying the C-word, especially given how totally ineffective the war on drugs has been, but — again — Wikipedia is an international encyclopædia. We write articles without the kind of nudge-nudge, wink-wink euphemisms and glosses one must employ when talking about cannabis in the United States.

Please keep in mind that removal of sound, valid references and supported assertions constitutes vandalism, and whoever may commit such vandalism will be referred for administrative action. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We need at least 10-15 independent sources from peer-reviewed periodicals with a combined readership exceeding 500,000 per month before I'll be satisfied about the veracity of the supposed cannabis-Volcano Vaporizer connection. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're not being tongue-in-cheek here — it's a little difficult to tell — then it looks like your personal standards of veracity may be quite a bit more stringent than those to which we actually adhere in building this encyclopædia. Nothing wrong with that; the whole point of Wikipedia protocol is to make each article as credible as possible. But in the end, V, RS, and NPOV (amongst others) are the standards we stick to, and each reader of an article — including you — gets to decide the degree to which s/he believes what s/he's read. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that on Wikipedia, we also have mob rule which supersedes policy (policy is merely descriptive of how our mobs generally rule, not prescriptive of how they should rule). If I can get enough people to support reaching a certain consensus, then that's what it ends up being. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Too right, unfortunately. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And I doubt you will be able to find enough users to support your assertions. Frankly I find the argument that has gone on about this article bizarre. The Volcano Vaporizer is actively sold, advertised, and reviewed in or on marijuana related magazines and websites, most notably High Times. I'm fairly confident, though I would have to look through back issues, that the Volcano in fact has been FEATURED on the cover of High Times atleast once, if not more. Its use in medical studies for the delivery of medical marijuana is irrefutable, and the recommendation of it for such a purpose by doctors is also apparent. In fact thats why the tests were done; to gauge what method was the safest for the ingestion of raw cannabis.

While its impossible, without an interview with either the designer(s) to figure out what the exact intent of the product was, its safe to presume by the companies active marketing and promotion in the cannabis subculture, that they designed it with ATLEAST that use in mind. SiberioS (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2