Talk:Cigarette holder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rudeness[edit]

67.166.42.66, my issue was not that you were trying to improve the article, but that you were both rude and removing important information. I can live with the wording, but I'm glad they've not made you an admin either. Chris 19:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links[edit]

The top link doesn't come up dead for me, and the bottom link was originally spammed by someone, but it was discussed to leave it as it seems to grow into a forom for those interested. Chris 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link
The link theholderlady.com leads to a dead site. Please don't continue to reinsert it.

image deletion[edit]

I am again reverting deletions by Sean Black, and have asked him to explain on the talk page first why these are "simply unacceptable". Nothing is ever so "simple" as to warrant unexplained deletions. If, as he maintains "a free image to illustrate this article would be trivial to locate", then he should do so. Chris 17:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC. Read it.--SB | T
The images you are adding are not covered under fair use on this article. The Breakfast at Tiffany's one has a fair use rationale for Breakfast at Tiffany's and nowhere else. The other: "However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article Tennessee Williams: To illustrate the person in question..."
If you haven't noticed, Cigarette holder is neither Breakfast at Tiffany's nor is it Tennessee Williams. Please don't re-add them. If you'd like to take an image yourself, feel free to upload it to commons and display it proudly on this page, free of legal complications. --Keitei (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is fair use on smoking culture, then it should be fair use here, as they are both using it to show the sort of people who use cigarette holders. Franz-kafka 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Franz-kafka 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely, it will be removed from both, thanks to you for drawing attention to that. :( Chris 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Link[edit]

Comes up with "forum removed...possible TOS violation".

Ad paragraph removal[edit]

Information, not advertising (or yellow advertising) please.

1900's?[edit]

I would think that it would probably be more accurate to say mid-1910's, since public cigarette-smoking amongst ladies was not popular or condoned until after the Great War began(though some Edwardian socialites had smoked indoors.)--Anglius 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free, that's the best cite I've heard. Chris 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you again.--Anglius 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

65.80.185.206 16:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)We've been over this, y'all. External links *of value* are an enrichment, not a detriment. The commercial site has some nifty information including history (if and when I can get some verification for some of it I'll add it to the article, actually) and the "fetish" site has some amazing period photographs. I think both are more than reasonably valuable.[reply]

equal time for the ladies[edit]

I am temporarily removing " actors Errol Flynn, Rudolph Valentino, Monty Woolley, Clark Gable, Laurence Harvey, Walter Pidgeon " from the text as it is becoming too male-centric. If anything, this is primarily a female phenomenon and the males are more the exception to the rule. If someone wants to compile a list of notables that smoke using holders, please do so. Chris 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, it would interesting to see some citation to support that assertion. I believe a much more accurate assertion would be that the use of cigarette holders was an exception to the norm for everyone, male or female; the vast majority of women smokers did not use them either. For my part, I've noticed cigarette holders in the hands of so many men in photographs and films of the era that I can place little credence in the notion that it was primarily a female phenomenon. It was a louche, leisure-class affectation for both genders. The significant gender difference was in the length of the holder: women's were longer - see the citation I added (the only citation in this article from an even half-way scholarly or non-biased source, by the way). Still - without a reference, the article shouldn't be made to represent cigarette holders per se as being predominately masculine or feminine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk • contribs)

list of ladies using holders[edit]

How about Evelyn Mulwray from the movie "Chinatown"? She smoked out of a cigarette holder in several scenes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://smokingsides.com/asfs/index.html would be a good resource Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes[edit]

During the production of the original Planet of the Apes movies (Planet of the Apes (1968 film), Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and Battle for the Planet of the Apes) the actors who portrayed the apes would use long cigarette holders to smoke between takes, so as not to disturb their make-up (or set it on fire).

http://www.theforbidden-zone.com/info/trivia.shtml

The article should be editted to reflect this fact.

71.168.132.16 (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Function[edit]

Other than for fashion, does a cigarette holder filter or anything? Does it make it safer to smoke the cigarette? (Though inhaling any amount of smoke and such into the body isn't healthy overall.) Coffee4binky (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could actually read the article.... Go on, I don't want to spoil the surprise for you. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I elaborated on the practical use portion. I have been using a cigarette holder for 20+ yrs, and have lots of knowledge, but some idiot keeps trying to delete it. He wants me to cite the portion, when I am in fact an informed person on this matter--therefore no citations are needed. I have a degree in Political Science and History, and am scholarly by nature. I wrote the section under my username: rocketpeacock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.101.214 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read personal attacks, and WP:OR, since you're so scholarly. "therefore no citations are needed" may work in the outside world, here we need cites. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Trumbo[edit]

The picture of Cleo Trumbo is under copyright, and the fair use rationale for its appearance in this article rests on the bizarre claim that "cigarette holder" is a deceased person. Its use is perfectly well-justified in the Dalton Trumbo article, but someone needs to produce a legitimate rationale if it's to remain in this article. Binabik80 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Not great, but honest and I think it should pass muster. I think the first go-round was just oversight on my part. Sorry. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quellazaire[edit]

The term "quellazaire" was referenced to Urban Dictionary; Dictionary.com doesn't know the word. (Does a better reference exist?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - lacking a citation, the term should definitely be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial link affiliated with the subject used as a source - removed[edit]

There was a commercial website linked as a source. I have removed this content, as sources affiliated with the subject of an article are not acceptable per wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it per previous discussion, and am watching your own OR-pushing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo, I don't see any prior 'discussion' about that commercial source: I only see one user stating his assertion that he thinks it's informative and useful. No one responded to that person so it doesn't look like much of a discussion to me. However, as more than one person seems to think it's worth keeping, I'm willing to let it slide through.
As for me, I'm not aware of 'pushing' anything. There was a citation to a volume on men's fashion history that I provided, which I provided in the hope of increasing the amount of reliable information in this article, yet you've removed it repeatedly without explanation. I invite you to explain yourself in the section below. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

traditional length of men's cigarette holders[edit]

I provided some sourced information regarding this aspect of the history of cigarette holders. The user "Kintetsubuffalo" has removed this source three times now without giving explanation. If he regards it as a dubious source, that is ironic in view of the fact that 75 percent of this article is now completely unsourced and the rest of it is sourced only by commercial links. So if there is some reason why you think the article should lose of its only serious source, maybe you will explain here. I won't restore the source until you've had your say. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your rudeness to me on this article's history page. You wrote that my legitimately-sourced contribution was 'dubious and unnecessary' and that I should 'go do something else'. Well, glancing down the article's history page, I can see that you've been lording over this article for five years now, and yet it's still largely an unsourced joke. For example, if you live in Japan, can't you provide a citation to support the claim that cigarette holders are an important part of Japanese fashion today? It appears that you are the one who is propping up dubious original research, my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update: as Kintetsubuffalo has made it clear both here and on his talk page that he is not interested in discussion, I will go ahead and restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.137 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble a brewing[edit]

Howdy folks ... I just happened to be waltzing by here and noticed one of them there edit wars brewing up. I would like to take a moment and remind all editors equally that it is very much in the best interests of everyone in the project to not spend time commenting about editors. If you feel an editor is out of line, it is a good thing to engage in discussion. It is not a good thing to be denouncing their work without justification. It is also not a good thing to be making accusations or labeling people rude, no matter what.
Having said that, I haven't looked this whole thing over, but as I see it, we have an anon trying to include a source for a claim. Kinetsubuffalo appears to have a concern about this. As a strictly neutral observer, I am inclined to allow the referenced claim to stand, unless there is a good reason to remove it (in which case, it should be removed). For the moment, if I may recommend to avoid slipping further into an edit war, I would recommend keeping things status quo, and discuss issues here. I am volunteering myself as an impartial third party. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who use cigarette holders[edit]

I've been prowling around a bit, and see a potential issue with listing people as they are in this article.

  1. There is a nowiki warning not to make the list exhaustive, but there is no imposed limit. Wat what point do editors start removing earlier edits and replacing them with their own, if other editors kick out their edits for making the list "too long".
  2. I noted at least one instance where the reference was a picture. Is this confirmation that they were regualr users, or were they using it only once. It would seem to me that in order for anyone to be on this list they would need to be referenced, and the reference needs to be a reliable source confirming they were a routine user.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I think leaving things status quo is eventually going to lead to more problems, with the minial problem being an uninvolved editor swooping in and clearing the list, and touching off an unintentional edit war. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair questions. To the first one: I can't say I even see the need for having a limit to the list of notable users on the list. There's no reason for the list to not be as informative and interesting as possible.
What I do have a problem with though, is the fact that there are no references at all for almost everyone on the list. So even though the Vladimir Horowitz reference I added is only a photograph in a book, it is a much better reference than nothing at all. (Please note that the Terry Thomas reference is more than just a photograph - his cigarette holder usage is also explicitly discussed in the referenced web article). If nothing more than a photographic reference can be found for many of the notable users - and this is very likely - then perhaps they could be listed in a separate section.
Ideally, the list of notable users should be expanded to include as many historical personalities and celebrities with reliable sources as possible; and after a reasonable number of such sources have been added, we could prune off all the unsourced names. It will be difficult though, as the cigarette holder is a fairly abstruse and little-discussed phenomenon. CravateNoire (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added references for most of the men and women examples of Notable Users, and added a few more names. Most of the references verify the celebrities as being regular users; some of them are only photographs of the person using a cigarette holder. I think the latter are acceptable until better citations can be found. There are few names left still uncited. I would be in favour of removing them, but I'll hold off on that, in case someone wants to have their say. CravateNoire (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese fashion "hoax"[edit]

(copied from ANI)


I've copied this comment here because there does seem to be something to the claim of circularity. The book was published after the article, at a time when the article said (emphasis mine):
Most frequently made of silver, jade or bakelite (popular in the past but now wholly replaced by modern plastics), cigarette holders were considered an essential part of ladies' fashion from the mid-1910s through the mid-1960s, and are still widely popular accessories in many aspects of Japanese fashion. Cigarette holders range from a few inches to over a foot in length and from the simplest single material constructs to incredibly ornate styles with complex inlays of metal and gemstones. Rarer examples of these can be found in enamel, horn, tortoise shell, or more precious materials like amber and ivory.
and the book read (emphasis mine):
Cigarette holders, constructed of every conceivable element, but mostly usually plastic, wood, ivory, ebony, teak, gold, silver, platinum, amber, tortoiseshell, Bakelite or horn ... Cigarette holders were considered an essential part of women's fashion from the early to the mid-twentieth century and are sometimes of quite simple design; or they may be incredibly ornate, with gemstone or mother-of-pearl inlays. Today cigarette holders are still widely popular on the Japanese fashion scene.
In addition to the bolded sections, note the similarity of the two lists. On this basis, I move to strike the book as a reliable source for the article. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree and support the removal of this source. I don't believe for a minute there's any "hoax" involved here, but we do need a source that we know wasn't drawn from our own article. Otherwise, it could simply be an error. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But an error that was allowed to be repeated in print, surely, necessarily became a hoax, even if it originally started out as an un-intentional error. Still, I nevertheless support, and would not dispute, the renaming of this discussion. — KC9TV 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. See hoax. Mistakes happen. Hoaxes are committed in bad faith. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, with all due and the greatest possible of respect, you might in fact be guilty of just doing a bit of "circulating" yourself! In the English language, as it is spoken in England, at least, the word "hoax" does not have to mean an untruth made with malice of forethought ("bad faith") (for that would simply be called a "lie"). Putting things upon Wikipedia has to be itself a deliberate act. — KC9TV 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jarry, the more I look at this book, the more I think you must be right. I'm comparing the section on fans (pp. 53-54) to our article Hand fan, as it existed in December 2006. Structurally, there's some powerful similarities: "Tutankhamum's tomb possessed gold fans with ostrich feathers" our article says; "Tutankhamen's...tomb contained gold fans with ostrich feathers" the book says. From there, the book goes on to the Americas and then to Greeks, Romans and Etruscrans, just like the article. It then moves to China, just like the article, and then to Japan, talking about the invention of the folding fan and their usage by Shinto priests, just like our article. Our article says, "They are used today by Shinto priests in formal costume and in the formal costume of the Japanese court". The book says, "In the modern era, Shinto priests still use fans as part of formal costume attire, as does the royal family of Japan." Moves on to the Ming dynasty, check. "Hangzhou was a center of folding fan production" says our article; "the city of Hangzhou was the center of the folding fan industry" says the book. "The management of the fan became a highly regarded feminine art. " says our article. "The stylized usage of fans during this period was a highly regarded feminine art" says the book. Moves to Europe, check, and, like our article, talks about rigid fans. From there, it deviates, as our article goes on to mechanical fans.
  • I've been looking for a source, because I'd love to settle this with one. :) Unfortunately, while I've found plenty of sources to verify that cigarette holders did exist in Japan (including this book which mentions specific manufacturers in first half of the century), I haven't been able to find anything specific about the usage now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Japanese cigarette fashion as I don't smoke and don't pay attention to it. Perhaps ask at WT:JA. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Associated discussion, use of the term "hoax", &c., etc.[edit]

I would support the replacement of the contentiously worded tag with {{cn}}, but I warn KC9TV to desist violating WP:POINT and trolling multiple users, including myself.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, he should stop accusing you of bad faith. There's no sign that I see at all of that. :/ -- — Moonriddengirl (02:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)[reply]
  • I would respectfully suggest that you might wish to have a look at what the other chap might have been up to, as evidenced by this talk-page, since the year 2006. For a moment, I thought this (the rest of this page) were 4chan! "[R]udeness", with a small letter? And as of yet, that other person has not yet even halted himself and stopped in his calling at me, a quote "troll" unquote, at his edit-summary boxes, has he? Wikipedia:BOOMERANG! And why does he still keep on changing the tags, even after this discussion had started? Even his talk-page resembles an attack-page!
P.S.: He has even vandalised, or vandalized, the user-page of the user:76.210.67.137 (who had edited this article, as evidenced with his presence upon this talk-page), wrongfully tagged with "sockpuppet" (with unspecified parameters), as an "unspecified sock-puppet"! This is unheard of! — KC9TV 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does he not say or write anything very much upon here, putting his case of defence or defense and rebuttal across, upon the table (other than this miserly, feeble and admittedly-rather-pathetic two-liner)? Well, perhaps because this probably is a "hoax" after all. A hoax, is a hoax, is a hoax. Instead of this belligerence upon his part, why can he not just back down and climb down, and allow these disputed words to be taken down, without any further ado, let, hindrance, contest or disputation? He has very little case, and he probably knows it. I am not a Japanese, and I am most certainly not looking for an, or his, apology. — KC9TV 13:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He "probably" "could" (the onus really lies upon and with him, and not us), if only he were not ranting by employing such reproachful, intemperate and immoderate language as the word "troll", both as a verb and as a noun. He is still using it, upon here, is he not? He has a lot of contempt for others, does he not? — KC9TV 14:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KC9TV, I think a more productive suggestion to de-escalate things would be for you to refrain from using the word "hoax." You have asserted that your understanding of the word does not imply malice; realize that that is very different from other editors' understanding of the term. Read the lede sentence of hoax. You seem to want to debate semantics in the parsing of "deliberate" there; the commonly accepted understanding is a deliberate attempt to include disinformation while aware that the information is falsehood. Whether you realize it or not (and personally I think you do and are merely trying to ruffle his feathers), you're accusing Kintetsbuffalo of bad faith. If you stop saying that Kintetsbuffalo is trying to introduce a hoax in the encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure that this can be discussed rationally. Chillllls (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for my post on the meaning of hoax. :) I'll just add to this that the word hoax means a deliberate deception - the OED Shorter would suggest this is true on both side of the pond. Deliberately deceiving is contrary to policy and an act of bad faith in the general definition: "intent to deceive". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the last 30 years, and the O.E.D. is definitely out-of-date in this respect. Language changes, and languages change. Now, the word, at least from where I sit, is now also a synonym for "urban myth" or "urban legend". In my defence, or defense, anyway, he, amongst other things, has not even actually halted or stopped calling me a "troll", as of yet, in fact. — KC9TV 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be the definition from where you sit, it should be pretty clear now that your definition is not universal, and it's certainly not embraced on Wikipedia, where a hoax is defined as an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just received a lengthy email at the email address linked to my account from KC9TV which consists of a series of links to social networks (Twitter, Okcupid, Linkedin, and Flickr) alleging that they are all social media posts by Kintetsbuffalo on other networks about Japanese women smoking. The email also includes a summary of what KC9TV thinks is the real name and occupation of Kintetsbuffalo. He finishes with a vague accusation that Kintetsbuffalo is making the additions to the article to satisfy personal fantasies about women and smoking and calls for a full site ban. I have no idea how close this comes to WP:OUTING but this is clearly beyond my pay grade. Chillllls (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)edited Chillllls (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to notify Moonriddengirl about this on her talk page, but I noticed that she has the same notification from KC9TV that he has sent her the same email; I'm guessing that the contents of the email are also identical. This is getting weirder and weirder. Chillllls (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've received another email from KC9TV consisting of a copy-paste of WP:OUTING along with an aggressive accusation that I've outed him by revealing some of the contents of the previous email. I'm on the verge of disconnecting my email address from my user account. Please, Moonriddengirl, step in here. Chillllls (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chillllls, you're coming very close up against our rules about revealing emails, which you can see at WP:EMAIL. Specifically, it says, "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). " You may want to redact part of your message. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, with regards to the topic of this thread, "hoax" is clearly the wrong template to use here, because that word has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. That being said, the sentence from the article should be removed immediately, since it seems fairly clear that it copied Wikipedia, and thus there is no real source for the claim for them being fashion accessories in Japan. The claim is too fantastic to warrant inclusion without a good source. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, I've modified my post above so as not to directly quote the email but have merely provided a summary (because I respect the copyright concern element of WP:EMAIL). I agree that the claim should not be in the article without a reliable source; it is not, however, a hoax. It's merely an unsourced claim that doesn't belong in the article. What truly scares me, however, is that the emails have been sent to me and I presume several others and the emails contain evidence of a comprehensive attempt to link a user with their real world identity, yet I'm the one who's the subject of an ANI posting (in which KC9TV asked for my immediate block) and am warned by an administrator to redact comments because I quoted a sentence from an email that I received through the media wiki interface. I'm sincerely glad that my username cannot be connected to my real-world identity; others are not so lucky. Chillllls (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already recommend to kC9TV that conversations about WP, articles, and users, should generally remain on wiki. If he has been trying to claim that he knows who you are and is using this in a threatening manner (note, I have not seen any such emails, so I have no knowledge if that claim is accurate), then the best thing you can do is to contact WP:ARBCOM, and send them copies of the emails privately. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a chap in England ever wish to threaten a person from the Deep South? I did no such thing, and don't be so silly, my dear chap! — KC9TV 11:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • These, at [3] (for public view) and at [4] (also for public view), I believe, might (or might not) be allowed on Wikipedia, at least at the talk-page, for it is not, as far as I believe, directly associated (linked) personally with any of the editors of the article. The latter is a Blog, in the Japanese language. From my elementary and most basic knowledge of Japanese and Japan, no (obvious) real names, or names that remotely resemble (obvious) typical names in Japan, are used (unless "煙の魔女" were one, for which is doubtful, for it roughly means "the Devil-girl who smokes"). This is probably the closest one would get to see a Japanese, least of all a woman, who smokes, in the present tense, with an actual cigarette holder. Some sort of a fantasy role-play by some sort of a "bad girl". I wonder why? Too ashamed even to use their real names, even? Is this considered NSfW, the same as pornography, in Japan? I think it probably is.
  • My counter-theory is,
    • That men in Japan no longer actually use cigarette holders (now considered unmanly);
    • That women in Japan have never really used cigarette holders either; [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (Smoking is still, and has always been, considered unwomanly, in a socially very-conservative Country, a Country where even any tattoos, even by men, are verboten in society, except by members of the criminal fraternity and under-world.)
    • That only men (and sometimes "their" women, in whatever "capacity"), in brothels, bordellos, whore-houses or other "disorderly", "infamous" or "immoral houses", or such like places, used cigarette holders, [10] but even that had died out by the latter years of the Second World War, and has never been revived, having been finally and formally proscribed (outlawed, prohibited) since.
  • Furthermore, if we attempt to go onto the so-called Japanese fashion article, you would find that the whole article had been hijacked, as some sort of a "wind-up", or at least, the use of the word "fashion" is not one that most native-English-speaking persons would be reasonably expected to understand, which is "la Mode (habillement) vestimentaire"; but rather, the article is describing a sub-culture (sous-culture). We do NOT e.g. call or term "Goth" as being part of Western, Trans-Atlantic fashion (as in haute culture, in both the English and the French senses of that term). (or do we?) Some in Japan probably do, though.
  • Moreover, the presumption of good faith, surely, no longer applies if there is evidence, even circumstantial ones, of bad faith, and I am no aware that that the Wikipedia:OUTING policy allows for suppression of evidence (but not E-mails or other private correspondence) as such, which can only be a mis-interpretation and a misuse of the policy. This is all academic though, and anyway, the words are out. (with or without sanctions against the re-posting of them.) — KC9TV 11:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to support your counter-theory? Otherwise, it is of no use to us on Wikipedia. We do not permit original research. The presumption of good faith is required "unless there is clear evidence to the contrary" (emphasis in original) -- not circumstantial evidence. The battleground mentality is not helpful. This comes down to one thing: we either find a reliable source to support the contention in this article, or it is removed or emended to support the sources we do find. The state of the article on Japanese fashion (actually Japanese street fashion) has no bearing here. This talk page is about this article. You're welcome to work on that one over there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not on talk-pages, no, I don't think that we need evidence for the counter-theories at this stage. It is also a little unreasonable to expect me to be able to prove that something does not exist. — KC9TV 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-theory is not helpful. It has no bearing. We either find sources for the assertion here or we do not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you might have been misunderstanding me. I have always been arguing FOR the removal, and NOT for a new citation as such. — KC9TV 12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[I MUST add that I cannot possibly confirm or deny any evidence, which I might or might not have.] Short of a full retraction and a full apology, would it be acceptable if I were to contact, by telephone, by Facebook or by E-mail, (short of lobbying him directly, in person) the author of that book, who is in fact a pastor of a church in the Episcopal Church in the United States, at Wilmot, in New Rochelle, in the State of New York (the Reverend Rayner W. Hesse, Junior) [11] [12], and suggest him to contact you (and how should I go about in doing this)? Or would you rather prefer to do it yourself instead? — KC9TV 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you keep misunderstanding everyone. So far, the consensus is that the claim that cigarette holders are popular among women in Japan will not be returned to the article because there is no reliable source that supports such a claim. That's all that needs to be done; there's no need to try to find evidence of a conspiracy (or to make the somewhat ridiculous claim that no woman in Japan smokes cigarettes). Your position here about the removal has been correct, it's your methods that people are finding bizarre. No reliable source=the claim stays out. There's no need for you to ask a book author to contact a Wikipedia editor. Chillllls (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is an administrator, for goodness sake! Is life really that boring in Virginia/West Virginia? And how do you even know that this is ridiculous? Have you even been to Japan? Probably not. I? At least trice (three times). — KC9TV 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your personal comments and the assertion that women in Japan do not smoke cigarettes, what further are you seeking here? It's unlikely that you're going to have Kintetsbuffalo blocked based on your internet investigation and what I perceive to be your goal (that the claim about cigarette holders in Japan is removed) has been accomplished. After this kerfuffle, I strongly doubt that Kintetsbuffalo will try to reintroduce the content into the article without an WP:RS. Is there anything else that you would like to address? Chillllls (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. And anyway, why is it so hard for you to believe that most women in Japan do not usually smoke? Most in Japan definitely do not (dare to) smoke pot, weed, whatever, if that is what you are getting at. The women in England obviously do, though. Anyway, I do sympathise (sympathize). I too live in a boring part of the Country where I live. Definitely not London, and no "swinging". Not yet rural, but definitely "provincial". — KC9TV 18:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have two ([13]; [14]), back in the 19th Century, which were probably models. — KC9TV 18:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Upon further research, the men in Japan [15] (notice the "character" "男" (dan (daan)), Japanese for "men") do in fact sometimes use a smoking implement, probably at home: — a "Kitsuen-gu" (喫煙具), which is in fact a pipe. They are not in fashion in Japan, at least not for the last 50 years, as far as I could gather [16] (1877) They have another thing, called "Kiseru" (煙管), which is yet another type of pipe. [17] All rather 19th Century, I am afraid. Just because they keep on selling them, that doesn't actually make them any more "fashionable", is it? — KC9TV 18:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask you, respectfully, to stop making (ill-informed) assumptions about my character and behavior because I have a userbox that states I attended the University of Virginia and I have a userbox that identifies me as a member of NORML (Do you seriously think that an entire state, one that is within 15% of the size of your entire country in area, is totally rural?). For the last time, I never made any claim that Japanese women use cigarette holders because they are fashionable; I came here because you repeatedly stated that Kintetsbuffalo was trying to introduce a hoax into the article and those accusations started a spiral of incivility. Your claim that no Japanese women smoke cigarettes is demonstrably false; This article, from a reliable source, indicates that just over 10% of Japanese women smoke. Your anecdotal evidence from your three trips to Japan has no bearing on article content. This will be my last post on the talkpage as it seems the the original issue has been resolved. Chillllls (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, dear! See Midsomer Murders. There is nothing wrong with little villages! Just about every-one in the Country next door, Ireland, does (Father Ted; Ballykissangel)! — KC9TV 19:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am already involved in this topic, and so can't act administratively; I'm also not currently blocking individuals per my own choice. Having said that, I will find an admin to block the next person who makes a single bloody comment about other editors. Cut it out. Now. Look, the more important point is this: is there even 1 person who thinks the sentence should remain? If I see no objections in about 48 hours, I will remove it from the article. Alright? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I do, though I agree it needs a reliable source. Anecdotally, I actually live here in Japan and can attest, but it's not the cite needed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need a reliable source, obviously, or the material needs to be removed, as with all contentious content. If it is removed and you find a reliable source later, it can certainly be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that, and thanks for being levelheaded.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I of course would accept the information being in the article if it's reliably sourced (and it would have to be a current source, not one from the 1970s), though it probably doesn't belong in the lead. I also live in Japan, and while I disagree with KC9TV that women in Japan don't smoke (and the statistics support that they do, though at only half to a third the rate of men), I also disagree with Kintetsubuffalo, because I've never once seen anyone, male or female, use a cigarette holder here. Of course, my opinion and observations aren't particularly relevant, but since it's a pretty extraordinary claim, we'll need a pretty good reference to verify it. Moonriddengirl, since it seems like the only objector to removal has acquiesed until RS become available, would you be wiling to remove the info? Now that I think about it, some might argue that I'm WP:INVOLVED. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Removed and protection removed as well. I have never been to Japan and have no opinion on the state of smoking or user of cigarette holders there, male or female. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection for one week[edit]

I've fully protected the article for a week, other admins are free to reverse without permission, just drop me a note afterwards. I would warn User:Kintetsubuffalo and User:99801155KC9TV on too many points to list. Throwing around the phrases "troll" and "vandal" for starters. I have no intention of getting involved in the discussion, and hope User:Moonriddengirl will continue to assist, and to lift protection when she felt it was needed. There is too much drama all around ANI, RFPP and and here regarding this article. Everyone go have a cup of tea and just discuss the article and sources, and keep personal observations out of it please. But if the incivility in summaries and other venues continues, sanctions are likely to follow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cigarette holder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cigarette holder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cigarette_holder&oldid=1200911681"