|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicotine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Electronic cigarette topic area, including this article.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nicotine.|
|Nicotine has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 16, 2004.|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes.|
Snus Cancer Risk
The long-term use of nicotine in the form of snus incurs a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco smoking and is not associated with cancer.
A quick search reveals no credible information to support this claim, and quite a bit to refute it. The validity of the attached citation is already in question. Should it be removed? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
WHERE SHOULD WIKI HAVE INFO IN FDA's new Nicotine Steering Committee?
Many words to see 28 are restored. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of this article are already addressing the issues with nicotine as reported in government studies, and this steering committee is looking at it's use not as a Tobacco Product, but as Nicotine, used in therapeutic ways. Below is what I believe should be the next piece of information readers find before looking at the pure science. Shouldn't readers have access to the most current discourse occuring on the this specific subject?
If I'm wrong, and it should be placed elsewhere- make a suggestion as to what page. BUT JUST TO BE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: If wiki is opening this science article dealing with nicotine's chemical composition and what it affects with 'editorial' formed by opinions and theories as some read PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF... studies that may be flawed or weighted including questions of merit that are substantiated and ignoring other concerns (bad example: who is helping youth gain access to age restricted products) any reference to youth here beyond the detrimental effects that nicotine has on a developing mind should be removed as not important to the page's topic, just as the minimal information on the Nicotine Steering Committee has been removed. All or none editors. You shouldn't discuss nicotine poisoning without further information. Neutrality. The poisonings are almost exclusively children under the age of 5 according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. The reader should be made aware that nicotine is a poison and should be handled with care, especially when children are present because AAPCC numbers show us that year after year. Gateway Drug theory is primary another youth related issue. Citation 22 would benefit from the inclusion of this FDA entity. Maybe not. I could be wrong.
The 5th paragraph offered to readers deleted by user:quackguru as not being well summarized and not belonging on this page: Simply putting this on talk before I dare UNDO a change. I'd like to gain more helpful guidance on how to improve the proposed content and it's placement from others.
- "In September 2017 the FDA created the Nicotine Steering Committee to primarily focus on the use of therapeutic nicotine for combustible tobacco product cessation. They held their first meeting in January 2018."
If I understand Wiki properly, it would be wrong to summarize the contents of their 1st January 2018 meeting which is found in citation, for wiki is not a news vehicle. A citation of the formation of this new entity and a link to the transcript/webcast of their meeting might be helpful to a person researching nicotine... PERHAPS NOT EXACTLY HERE- BUT SOMEWHERE IN ONE OF THE MANY WIKI ARTICLES that links here.
Isn't it also wrong to discuss nicotine use recreationally for only it's stimulating properties, when it's antidepressant and short-term memory boosting effects are other "off use benefits" people opt for in addition to cessation use.
This is all to be taken lightly, and yet, seriously. What is the purpose of this article and does the current format support that purpose exclusively? Are links balanced with helpful tools for the reader. If the American Cancer Society has taken the position that nicotine from e cigarettes, when used without combustibles, is appropriate Tobacco Harm Reduction... shouldn't this page link to THR too. Linkely the reader is curious about Nicotine for a reason. Shouldn't a link to the American Lung Association be here as well... or do such things only belong on CIGARETTE pages? IDK.
Now smile please. These are just questions brought before you to offer eyes on a page you aren't used to seeing through. The fact that Nicotine is being used in studies for Alzheimer's as a remedy to a problem is incredible but true. I think we need to help separate nicotine from the perceived vial thing has ravaged our population with combustible use of the product... the tar and chemical from that are not what is in nicorette gum and patches. Unfortueately the latest HINTS data (Health Information National Trends Study) on Nicotine demonstrates a huge misconception. <ref><?http://www.journalnow.com/business/study-finds-majority-of-adults-erroneously-link-nicotine-to-cancer/article_d249b427-3993-5c35-a044-bc6334617f07.html> PhilEdits (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Smoking cessation is the main article for that, and there are many alternatives in Category:Smoking cessation - U.S. government and smoking cessation in particular. Isn't this clear from the article? For actual therapeutic use I suppose here, but WP:MEDRS should be read carefully. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- The content on the FDA's new Nicotine Steering Committee is insignificant and there is no article suitable for that yet. They have not done anything yet. Have they made any major announcement? Not yet. The source called "Study finds majority of adults erroneously link nicotine to cancer" is not a review.
- If you want a WP:MEDRS compliant review related to cancer I got many for you. See "Further, it has been demonstrated that nicotine, the major addictive component of tobacco smoke, can induce cell cycle progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis of lung and pancreatic cancers." If that is not enough I will provide more. QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a not proper secondary source for it is not from a medical source only general news correct? http://www.journalnow.com/business/study-finds-majority-of-adults-erroneously-link-nicotine-to-cancer/article_d249b427-3993-5c35-a044-bc6334617f07.html
But this is a proper secondary source reviewing two other works or is my understanding of MEDRS not yet sufficient? Inquiring so as to do justice to WP articles. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.srnt.org/resource/resmgr/Conferences/2016_Annual_Meeting/Preconference_Slides/Johnson_Nicotine_SRNT_Presen.pdf?hhSearchTerms=%22misconceptions%22 Mrphilip (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Content about e-liquid
QuackGuru explained "unsourced and not a summary; this page is about nicotine; too much detail about e-liquid" Now even more content was added to the lede. The WP:LEDE is usually 4 paragraphs for an article of this length. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. The topic is about nicotine. This may be too much detailed content about e-liquid, especially for the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Possible Move of "Weight Loss" to a "Uses" Heading
The belief that nicotine decreases appetite and promotes weight loss has been investigated in animals and humans. Research has concluded that nicotine effects the melanocortin system (MC) in the brain, which regulates appetite and body weight. Increased activity in MC receptors is shown to promote weight loss and decrease food intake. . (By increasing metabolic rate and inhibiting the usual compensatory increase in appetite, the body weight of smokers is lower on average than that of non-smokers. [their source]). Measuring the effectiveness of nicotine on weight loss in the long term is two-fold. Nicotine use decreases caloric intake. This effect decreases as tolerance builds. Nicotine has also been shown to increase metabolic rate, which stays consistent with use. Nicotine is believed to cause weight loss by lowering the set-point of body weight. Following cessation, the nicotine related weight lost is regained, and the body's set-point is returned to its original bodyweight. (When smokers quit, they gain on average 5–6 kg weight, returning to the average weight of non-smokers.) This effect has been reported to increase the instance of relapse following cessation. 
1. "Get it! Cornell". doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.5.768&title=journal+of+consulting+and+clinical+psychology&volume=61&issue=5&date=1993&spage=768&issn=0022-006x
5. Seeley, Randy J.; Sandoval, Darleen A. (2011-07-13). "Neuroscience: Weight loss through smoking". Nature. 475 (7355): 176–177. doi:10.1038/475176a. ISSN 0028-0836
6. "Evidence that transient nicotine lowers the body weight set point". Physiology & Behavior. 76 (4-5): 539–542. 2002-08-01. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00783-7. ISSN 0031-9384.
(sorry for formatting - new guy)