Talk:Smoking

Wow.

Just a few days ago I suggested someone make this article at the Village Pump. Now I come back and this article is AMAZING. Props to Peter Isotalo and Quadell. Jolb 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article!

I can't believe it took until there were nearly 2 million articles before someone started this one.--Richy 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have articles on all the forms of smoking, so there wasn't such a great need to have a central article. But I think it should allow the common themes to be drawn together and make the daughter articles a little less bulky. Richard001 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Quoted from the article: Smoking, primarily of tobacco, is an activity that is enjoyed by up to 1/3 of the adult population. The word 'enjoyed" here is questionable. I mention that as an example of bias in this article. While the article is informative and interesting, it fails to fairly represent the whealth of anti-smoking POVs, activism, and legislation in our society today. --Xoxoxoxoxo 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Calling it a "recreational activity" is a bit of a stretch. No one leaves their job for a few minutes every few hours for recreation. 208.203.4.140 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the word "enjoyed" above. I think "recreation" is about as neutral as we can expect. Some people gamble compulsively, but gambling is a recreational activity. Some people masturbate compulsively, but masturbation is a recreational activity. And I do take a couple minutes out of every few hours on my job for recreation. (Wait, that sounded bad, didn't it.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I think that I'll hop on over to the child porn page and change it to describe that as a "recreational activity", too. People smoke some things for ritual or spiritual purposes and some due to addiction. Neither of those could be described as "the use of time in a manner designed for therapeutic refreshment of one's body or mind", the Wikipedia definition of recreation. This is profoundly disturbed. Ninquerinquar 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing smoking to child porn is about as offensive a comparison as you could make. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. TeamZissou 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Try working on an ENT ward for twenty years and seeing people have their faces cut off and replaced with a hunk of skin from their thigh because they smoked. When you've seen someone with no eyes, nose or mouth left because of an addiction, you take it kind seriously. Ninquerinquar 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not—and I don't—"recreational drug" is an established phrase. Deltabeignet 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about automobile accidents, or skateboarding, or eating butter? When you see the swollen liver covered in white scar tissue from the body of a medical cadaver who spent a life eating butter, or the bloody kidneys of a person who had a long-term attraction to rhubarb pie--by god!--you, too, will harbor the greatest disgust for the natural consequences affecting mortal, biological organisms! Albert Einstein once said, "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgement in all human affairs." (1950). Some studies on pipe smoking have shown that moderate pipe smoking can actually increase longevity, and many psychologists I've talked to agree that nicotine is great for the brain (most delivery methods of nicotine, however, leave much to be desired). Smoking tobacco over time increases the body's ability to carry oxygen (and can increase the size of the carotid arteries) when the smoker is not smoking. Like anything, smoking tobacco is something best done in moderation. Notice, too, that this article isn't only about the New Evil tobacco--it also contains a lot of information on other smokables. There is a seperate article on addiction, if you feel the need to vent. In the meantime, have you heard that they put mercury in some of your immunizations??? EEEEK! TeamZissou 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Badgering aside, are there any other neutrality issues anyone wants to present? Compared to a lot of articles, this article seems well-cited and functions as a necessary entry article to a plethora of various topics, similar to what the article dance does to the various forms of dance and associated topics.TeamZissou 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep in mind that merely not being decidedly anti-smoking isn't the same as not being neutral. And as for "hiding" and "downplaying", this article doesn't mince words about the hazards of smoking:

Inhaling smoke into the lungs, no matter the substance, has adverse effects on one's health.

Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries.

It has a logical structure with section dedicated to the health effects on both a physiological and social level, even if these are pretty small so far. In contrast, tobacco smoking hasn't been smeared with an NPOV tag despite having a very obvious anti-smoking POV and insignificant coverage on anything related to smoking culture.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done! In just two days this article has come a long way toward better reflecting the complexities of the controversial topic. Some contributors were even able to engage in discussion without resorting to name-calling.--Xoxoxoxoxo 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

redundancy

isn't most of this redundant with the tobacco smoking article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the article, it concerns the practice of smoking, including cannabis, opium, and several other natural, naturally-derived and synthetic materials. The tobacco smoking article concerns tobacco smoking alone, and contains a significantly larger amount of information on just tobacco and its medical and social effects. TeamZissou 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

health

The health issue of this article seems fairly well hidden and downplayed, and overall this seems like one big tobacco glorification advert imo!

I agree. For starters, the variety of health effects of smoking, particularly tobacco smoking, should be summarized in the introduction; given how many people are killed each year by those same health effects, not doing so is bordering on deliberate whitewashing. And the "smoking in culture" section is woefully incomplete without describing the tobacco industry's successful campaign of introducing positive imagery of smoking into movies, literature, magazines, etc. over the last few decades. We should be careful with the imagery in the article itself as well, and include a couple of examples of recent anti-smoking campaign imagery. Regrettably, the article on tobacco smoking suffers from similar POV problems.--Eloquence* 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about looking up some research, being a Wikipedian, and entering some referenced information? That's the point of the project, right? I agree. It is lacking, like most articles on Wikipedia. And that is why it's open to editting. I spent a couple hours today finding references for various statements in the article regarding different cultures and the history of smoking. Do the same with smoking and the media, keeping in mind that the article is about smoking in all its forms, not just tobacco smoking, which has its own article.TeamZissou 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think Eloquence needs a lecture on what being a Wikipedian is all about. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Faux pas. Oh, snap! TeamZissou 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Health effects of tobacco smoking POV? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Smoke, the immensely useful primary source for this article, has plenty of material on anti-smoking campaigns, including photos of anti-smoking demonstrations and ad campaigns, but none of them are free images. If anyone can find good pictures that properly illustrate the anti-smoking movement, please include them in the article. As for mentioning specifics of the health effects of tobacco in the lead, I think this ill-advised, as no other topic has received more than very brief coverage. The article has talked of "well-proven health hazards" from the second day of its existence, which is hardly to be characterized as pro-smoking.

The reason that I don't think the article should be dominated by details about various cancers and cardiovascular diseases is because smoking is far more than just long-term chemical reactions in the human body. It has immense social significance and a very rich cultural history that is so much more interesting (and relevant) to describe than dull and lifeless descriptions of how it can hurt you. The negative aspects will get their due coverage, but I can assure you that we're not going to allow this article to become a bloody soapbox for moralistic anti-smoking propaganda. Most people are perfectly aware that smoking is dangerous. The anti-smoking movement has already succeeded in this department. We don't need to overdo it, but rather to show some respect for history and people's personal choices. The article doesn't glorify smoking, but describes how a substantial proportion of humanity practices, enjoys or even praises smoking. That's NPOV for you, so deal with it.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Far too many historical mistakes in the article. For a start, there are no mentions in any texts in the Americas that describe smoking around 4000BCE. No records of it exist at that time. Second, there's a mention of an Indian Veda dating to 2000BCE describing smoking. None of the Vedas date to that time. The earliest Vedic texts that we can translate and read date to circa 550BCE. There are many more mistakes that add up to a glorification of this stinky unhealthy practice. ParlerVousWiki 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The proof of American smoking being several thousands years in practice is based on archaelogical findings of tobacco cultivation and is as far as I know supported by multiple sources. Not everything needs to be proved with written records. The reference to smoking in the Veda is indeed incorrect. The dating of how long medicinal fumigation and smoking has been performed is not off the mark, but I misread the source and thought it said that it was mentioned in Vedic texts from 2000 BC, not just attested in general. I'll correct this as soon as the article is unprotected.

As for other "glorifying mistakes", please let us know if you're willing to actually specify any of them. I'm sure you're upset that the current opinions about smoking are actually a fairly modern phenomenon, but that doesn't amount to any praise of smoking, just a statement of facts. That the article doesn't say that what is now has always been and will always be doesn't mean that history needs to be rewritten nor that we need to guard our readers from it. Most anti-smoking arguments can stand on their own without the need for moralistic historical revisionism.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll still have to contest anyone who says there was smoking in ancient (Iron or Bronze age) Asia or Europe without a textual reference with concrete dating. The only mentions in Vedic or classic Hindu texts of hallucinogens or intoxicants were taken in liquid form as Soma or Bhang. Smoking from hookahs or shishas is not as ancient as one would be led to believe. Not only is there no mention of them in ancient Persian or Indian records, the practice also doesn't exist in cultures they traded with. ParlerVousWiki 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The smoking described in Smoke appears to be mostly in the form of regular pipes, not water pipes. I haven't tried to get to the bottom of how old hookahs/shishas actually are.

I won't speculate about how early Old World smoking really is, but it would seem odd if the pre-historic Americans would be unique in early on realizing that inhaling the smoke was an effective way of getting intoxicated. If anything, think fo the Oracle of Delphi breathing gas (or whatever) to produce mystical prophecies.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent mini-series Rome (2nd series), generally rather well-researched on stuff like this, had much cannabis smoking from bong-type pipes (elite women only ones shown). On pics, if we are not to have the sense of smell, an Adrian Brouwer smoking-den scene would be better than the rather bland van Ostade. There is also a nice print of some court ladies from Versailles, late Louis XIV, having pipes behind the carriage-shed. Johnbod 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You seriously can't use a TV mini-series on Rome as a basis for evidence of ancient smoking. I can't find a single reference, textual or pictorial, for smoking in Asia or Europe prior to the 11th century. It wasn't until the 12th century CE that we see the hookah become a popular past time. All forms of hemp, opium or cannabis before that was crushed and added to food and drink. Even when the hookah did appear it was used primarily as an after-dinner breath freshener (using water and fruit zest) as it still is today, not specifically to burn plant leaves in. One must keep in mind that if something was seen as religious, then it was sacrilegious to alter its form. For that reason, in India they never burned cannabis or transformed milk (another "holy" item) into cheese or curd (until the Portugese showed them). They were taken "as is" in their pure divine form. ParlerVousWiki 08:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ParlerVousWiki, if you want to question the validity of the source provided (Smoke, not Rome) you might want to actually examine it yourself, or provide your own sources for that matter.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a citation above (If you mean the print from Louis XIV's reign you're a little too far forward on my timeline) and how can I provide a source for something that didn't happen (smoking in ancient Asia and Europe)? ParlerVousWiki 07:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the footnotes in the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Very poor citations in the footnote (a link that basically sent me back to the middle of the article). I fixed the passage on South Asia until better citation comes along but doubt it will remain that way for long as people tend to believe in fiddle faddle. All encyclopedias feature the same erroneous belief that the Vedas (and most Hindu texts) date back hundreds, even thousands, of years older than they really are. Hindus themselves tend to believe the Mahabharata, for example, was written well over 10,000 years ago until one reminds them that writing doesn't date that far back. The Aryan Invasion and belief in an Aryan race is another bit of unhistorical and unscientific nonsense that exists in every encyclopedia. ParlerVousWiki 09:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove information that is referenced without citing your own sources. You should cite something that confirms your claims instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters there aren't any legible texts that date to 2000BCE in South Asia. All Indus Valley inscriptions are too short in length (one or two lines) to qualify as literature of any sort. Second, there are references to Vedas in some artifacts dating before the Common Era but no text artifacts from the period remain in existence. There are no textual or pictorial references to smoking with pipes older than a 12-13th century. None at all (the traditional vedic form of smoke inhalation is to wave smoke towards one's face, breath deeply and then place hands together in prayer. Sadhus still perform it this way though they prefer the even more traditional drinking of bhang and soma rasa). Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism and politically correctness towards modern religionists. This is not unusual though and common in nearly all encyclopedic entries. To correct that would take an entirely alternative form of encyclopedia. The citation used in this article is very lacking in historical evidence. ParlerVousWiki 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, everybody...I checked a lot of statements in this article a while ago, and I provided a variety of references for many of those statements only to have about half of them removed by Quadell because they looked a might cluttersome. Perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion if those refs were left alone.TeamZissou 08:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of refs, I just added a REFS! section at the bottom. Please use it. Thanks. TeamZissou 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ParlerVousWiki, I don't know that much about Hindu religous practices or the finer details of the history of smoking in India, but I can only say that I'd be very surprised if an anthology with so much information about smoking was wrong on such a basic fact. Either way, we can't really do anything other than trust the information that is actually supported by what otherwise appears to be a serious and reliable source. It would still be so much easier if we could be provided with references to other works related to the topic that might have a different opinion on the matter.

Zissou, adding references to a section of text that is already sourced in its entirety is as far as I can tell mere reference padding. It might look better, but it could just as easily confuse the reader as to what citations covers which fact. As far as I can tell, this practice usually leads to editors demanding more and more refs without ever bothering to check the original citation, and what we will eventually wind up with might very well be something like this. Less is sometimes more than enough.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that an article concerning anthropological, biological, and historical subject matter could be easily referenced with recognized scientific journals and texts and still avoid appearing like a pop culture article with tabloid citations concerning the world's most famous porn star. I ref'd the statement on the veda, and it was removed. Now not only do we have to put up with the ParlerVousWiki's personal crusade, you have to read me bitch about having my ref's removed. I had some other things elsewhere, but as the ref was removed, now I can't find the statements--I assume someone removed them because they were unreferenced. Go figure.TeamZissou 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Most edited DYK?

This article is probably one of the most heavily edited DYKs of all time! 69 edits after it was linked on Main Page, as I type this. Most others don't even get 10 edits. Resurgent insurgent 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... it's indeed rather unusual that such a controversial article would've appeared in the DYK at all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually a little surprised we didn't have an article here until a week ago (that is, I'm surprised it even qualified for DYK). Nifboy 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit count for medieval cuisine was actually slightly higher when it appeared as a DYK in September 2006, and that was without being particularly controversial. I think both DYK and Wikipedia in general attract far more readers (and goodwill) with topics that aren't as absurdly obscure as rebracketing or Aspergum, even if these articles might not be all that bad per se. That it took a whopping 6 years to figure out that it might be a good idea to have a general article on smoking rather than a bunch of POV-forks says so much more about the flaws of Wikipedia than it does about the topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and BCE

It's nice to see people add more sources, but it's just puzzling that this is done in conflicting formats and by near-duplication of citations to the same sources (but in a different format).

And could we please try to avoid the BC/BCE-conflict in this article? The article has been established with the the BC-format, and let's just keep it that way as it still is the most common date format.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this article was "established" in the BC format. Most of us aren't Catholic, and many are not Christian, so why should we describe past points in history according to the supposed life and death of a religious figure? Since no one wants to go and change the entire year-numbering scheme, let us at least move out of the dark ages and simply declare this the "current era." I'm happy to once again change the BC's back to BCE's, which would work better with the CE's marking current era dates. Also, the ref's I re-added are accurate--the other book called Smoke, Introduction. by Sander L. Gilman and Zhou Xun doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. That is simply a poor reference job.TeamZissou 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BC is a two-letter term that happens to have a certain history related to Christianity. There are plenty of equally gratuitous arguments against using BCE as well, and this is not the place to settle the issue. More importantly, though, far more readers know what BC means and very few object to its use. That includes staunch atheists raised in Protestant and Russian-Orthodox countries, i.e. myself. This is about as irrelevant a dispute as bickering over whether one should use US or Commonwealth spelling, and those conflicts are usually settled by using the standard that the person who got the article going decided on.

As for references, notes are supposed to be shorthand specifications of sources, and in the case of Smoke, it's very useful to our readers to point out that it's an anthology and to reference the authors of the individual chapters, not just the editors or the simply the title of the book. The full details of the print works need only be mentioned once, in a separate section, which makes it a lot easier to read all those footnotes.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree on the use of BC, as opposed to BCE. I feel it simply panders to archaic notions, has an easy replacement, and takes very little time to amend. As to the references, I'm used to the CBE, Journal of Wildlife Management, and (to a less-used extent) MLA. Wikipedia is supposed to use the Harvard style, but the page describing that isn't as clear as it should be, so I tried the best I could. Also, I placed references verifying those statements with fact tags, some from your source and some from others. TeamZissou 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Harvard referencing hasn't been ordained in policy and guidelines as the one standard to be used by everyone because most editors prefer footnotes. It's not that much different from the academic world, where standards vary between different countries and disciplines.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia isn't a Christian org, BCE should replace BC. ParlerVousWiki 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. The vast majority of authors and historians who use the term "BC" are not devout Christians. And before we get into even sillier hairsplitting, it is the birth of Christ (even if it was miscalculated by a few years) that is the basis of this chronology.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Smell image

Please better begin discussing the "Smell" image here. I'm also getting dizzy looking at the disappearing/appearing act of the image. Thanks. Dragonbite 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen, thank you... Dragonbite 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had included mention of the fact that smoking in 17th century art was used as a representation of the sense of smell (which was also often illustrated at that time by depicting defecation). I guess I forgot it, but I did add it after Freakofnurture posten on my talkpage. It is also a very good illustration of how smoking was initially depicted as being very rustic and crude. The painting wasn't picked at random either, since it was scanned from Smoke.

As for Mayan art, there's already one pic included at the start of the history section, and while I would like to include pics of smoking on pottery, I can't, because photos of 3D objects are unfree images and I don't know where to find Mayan pottery depicting smoking that I can take pictures of myself.

I think the page protection should be removed now. It only serves to make it harder to explain the use of the picture.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

REFS!

I'm creating this section on the talk page to list references that editors may access to better this article. I usually work on mammal pages and biology-related stuff and have been busy lately, so I don't have time to go through all of this right now.

Historic and Pre-Historic Native Smoking Pipe Bibliography
Marijuana - The First Twelve Thousand Years
Opium Smoking and Paraphernalia

Add more if you find any. TeamZissou 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis info revert, 25 August 2007

Peter Isotalo reverted an edit because "cannabis is common, but not that common." I'd like to point out that according to the UN's estimate, 141 million people around the world currently use marijuana. This represents about 2.5 percent of the world population. 83 million Americans admit to having tried it. (Source: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999), p. 91. ; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Summary of Findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 2002), Table H.1) I think the original information was useful, as cannabis is the world's second most commonly smoked substance; and, I think the revert should be reverted to the original contribution regarding cannabis. Comments? TeamZissou 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no dissent regarding replacement of the cannabis info, then I'll re-insert it in three days. TeamZissou 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis is used much less frequently, is less public and has had less influence on culture and society than tobacco. I'm just under the impression that its popularity trails so far behind tobacco that it isn't prudent to mention it in the lead.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was included under the phrase "most commonly," and compared to, say, opium or DMT, cannabis is a lot closer to tobacco than to these drugs in terms of number of users and social acceptance.TeamZissou 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So, any objections to re-adding cannabis to the sentence by the end of today?TeamZissou 16:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cancer, please

Smoking, in any form, is one main reason for cancer development in our world.

Smoke, of most substances, and all organic raw materials, is highly carcenogenic for humans.

Only ONE mention of the word "cancer" is visible in the main article. I think this is a tight work, for evil and untruth. Please beware.

The article is about smoking, not cancer, and it isn'nt even the most common form of death caused by smoking. But you might want to consider trying to add information you feel is missing.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

research... second hand?

No link to an article or reference of second hand smoke? Oh well....

"Secondhand smoke increases teen test failure" Correlation does not equal causation... --Emesee 06:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The cost on the health care system

Would someone please find out how much public health-care money is wasted to care for the health of smokers? Maybe in the millions, or billions of dollars range?--Louiechefei28848888 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

This article is horribly biased twords antitobacco (as many smoking related articles on wiki seem to be). I'm adding a neutrliy disputed tag to this. I'll add specifics in a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naacats (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I had saved this. This article is incredibly biased against smokers, smokers rights, and the truth about the [Theory of Second-Hand Smoke] and the truth about tobacco use in general. It uses several sources that are unreliable on this issue, and does not comply with Wiki guidelines for Neutrality. I am re-adding the tags I was in the middle of putting (Citations needed) - Before removing these please find verifiable and reliable sources for this information, or fix the language so it reflects that this information is in dispute.

Regarding the suggested move tags, there are discussions on the merge-to pages. Follow the proper link in the tag, and feel free to discuss it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naacats (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article does not comment second hand smoking in any way. The only reference to it is in the form of a see also-link to passive smoking. This link has been removed several times by Nacaats in favor of Smokers Rights, as have URLs to links that have been deemed to be too negative of smoking. At the same time the link to NACAATS (North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers) has been placed on top of the external links list. The front page of that site is now headed by an appeal with the title "Your Help Needed: Wikipedia" which encourages people to start questioning information that is unfavorable to (the health effects of) smoking by citing articles found at FORCES International Liberty News Network.

As for the fact tags, it's rather odd that these are added at all, since the article doesn't actually lack sources. Rather, it seems as if Nacaats is simply rejecting the sources in favor of the one presented at FORCES. In fact, the tagging seems to have been a general denial of random negative traits or associations related to smoking.

There's also the following rewording (additions and changes are bolded):

Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.

Nacaats' version has made the information much vaguer, and in some cases outright falsified:

Tobacco-related diseases are (according to some studies) some of the biggest killers in the world today and is cited as being one of the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to lung cancer and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.

I feel that this is for the most part nothing but misguided POV-pushing. Figures can alwaus be debated, but doing things like simply replacing "smoking" with "lung cancer" smacks of opinionated ranting.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally replying instead of simply reverting the edits as you have been doing.

This article does comment on second-hand smoking. As you said it mentions the "Passive Smoking" link, which discusses the Theory of Second-Hand Smoke. I have removed this link as the information in that article is inaccurate.

As for the link to the North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers website (and FORCES which I forgot to add), I was simply trying to add links to opposition view points, since there were several from the anti tobacco lobby. This is necessary to add some neutrality to the article.

I did in fact get an article placed on that website (requesting assistance digging for source material), although you must have caught it during an edit as it's flagged as a private message to the administrators there. I just checked and it does not show up publicly to any users.

This article also covers drug use and the smoking of illicit substances which need to be clearly distinguished from tobacco smoking. Keeping them "bundled together" is a common tactic of the antitobacco lobby, and only serves to "Muddy the issue".

In any case most of the article is already covered in other articles. With the exception of the history (which there is as of now no clear article going over) all the information is simply a duplicate of other articles.

The main article should be merged into [Tobacco Smoking]. Other information should be merged into a few other articles (such as [Opium]).

On the subject of the edits, the information you cited is speculative not fact. Much of this article is "misguided POV-pushing". The information is cited and speculated, but there is no clear data from any unbiased source (the CDC and WHO for example cannot be considered unbiased on this issue simply because of the nature of the organizations, not to mention their own admitted failures to consider confounders when performing those studies).

On the subject of that line, using the source you cited the number should be 400,000 not 500,000 in any case. Even that number is highly contested.

Regardless this article makes no attempt to be balanced. It assumes that the antitobacco side is correct, and makes no mention of these "facts" and figures being contested. All I'm trying to do is ensure that the article is neutral, and not showing a single point of view.

Naacats 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not decidedly anti-smoking. It's just not as pro-smoking as you would like it. You're entitled to your opinion, but what you're attempting here is to force your pro-smoking activist views on others. You're removing or slanting information to favor your own agenda without even trying to check out the sources provided, and this is not the first time you've done so. Your suggestions to remove any and all content that isn't related to tobacco is not in the least neutral as it would simply marginalize any forms of smoking that aren't related to tobacco instead of presenting smoking in all its forms. Please note that the article doesn't exactly give undue coverage to cannabis or opium smoking just because it happens to mention it.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While this article is not as slanted as some of the other articles (which as you pointed out we are politely working out the POV slant that those articles currently have as well) it is still VERY heavily slanted in favor of the antismoking lobby. I am not removing or slanting information in any way- I am simply correcting information stated as fact when it is not. Had I been slanting it, I would have changed the information to say something along the lines of "Anti-Smoking propagandists untruthfully claim that more than 400,000 people die from smoking every month" - instead all I am doing is requesting citations for your information where needed, and clearing up misinformation that you are stating as fact. It is fact that "some sources say that as many as 400,000 people die every year from smoking" it is not fact to say "400,000 people die from smoking every year". Until a PROPER, unbiased scientific study is done on the effects of tobacco smoking (which there has not yet been to my knowledge) taking into consideration other cofounders that are ignored by the current data, you cannot state this information as fact. If your source lists the information as fact it should be properly quoted, and clearly shown to be the source of your data, which in the case of the fix I made, you did not.

If this article remains (which I argue it should not as almost all its information is covered elsewhere) it needs to meet wiki's POV standards, which as it is now it does not.

This is not the first time YOU have been warned about this. You were banned for 24 hours a few months ago for your revisions to this article when another user tried to fix some content.

As for the drug references, these are all covered in other more appropriate articles, and have no place in an article about tobacco smoking. A tag at the top is all that should be needed for people to get that information if they come here by accident.

Naacats 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By introducing weasel wording which makes it seem as if the idea of smoking being an obvious health hazard is something being propagated solely for political-moralistic reasons, rather than being the widely held consensus of the medical community. This is an indirect way of giving a rather marginal and highly politicized opinion undue coverage. Right now, the article contains completely false information by claiming that lung cancer kills 500,000 Americans a year.[1]

And as for "drug references", it should be noted that tobacco also is a drug, although not classified as a narcotic. This article was created not merely to become an appendix to tobacco smoking, but to cover all forms of smoking. People who want to check out tobacco smoking in particular will only have to read two paragraphs of the lead to encounter a non-oblique link to that very article.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok now that can be considered a valid argument (at least as far as the lung cancer thing is concerned). There should be the phrase "smoking related" in front of lung cancer. Also I pulled up the original publication from which all current smoking related statistics is drawn from, and got the exact figure listed (418,000). The article should read:

Tobacco-related diseases are (according to some studies) some of the biggest killers in the world today and is cited as being one of the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. According to the CDC, In the United States 418,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking related lung cancer and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.[30]

The following paragraph should also be added following this (this was to be my next addition before you started reverting every change):

The CDC's August 27, 1993 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is currently in dispute.(Ref. Here) An unpublished American Cancer Society study called Cancer Prevention Study-II (on which the relative risks in the MMWR are based) did not consider confounding factors such as diet, alcohol, occupation, socioeconomic status, etc. Therefore, as stated in the MMWR, the estimates "in this report are not adjusted for confounders (e.g. alcohol), which may lower the estimates for laryngeal and certain upper gastrointestinal cancers." In other words, if confounders were considered, the estimates would no doubt be lower. (Ref. Here) Even many of the CDC's own representatives have disputed the findings. Dr. Michael Siegel, who is employed in the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, says that one of the most important things to consider in lung cancer risk is diet. (Michael Siegel, M.D., MPH, "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace, " JAMA, July 28, 1993, Vol. 270, No. 4, p. 492.) Dr. Ernst Wynder of the American Health Foundation says you have "clearly got to think about fat as a confounder to tobacco consumption." (The Toxicology Forum, Annual Summer Meeting, 1993. Given Institute of Pathobiology, Aspen, Colorado. Transcrip p. 308.)

Finally the antitobacco opinion is NOT the consensus amongst the medical community. While the most publicized (largly due to media bias) the antitobacco movement is considered the consensus only in some circles. There are just as many, if not more, people on the other side of the issue. Even the most highly quoted scientist (Sir Richard Doll) by the antitobacco lobby has stated his misgivings about the CDCs findings and the myraid of studies conducted since based on that information (all of which is faulty since the original study was not done properly). Naacats 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not health effects of tobacco smoking, but a general article on all types of smoking. Nor is this a discussion of deaths due to lung cancer, but deaths related to all smoking-related diseases. You were the one who changed "due to smoking" to "due to lung cancer". The problem is that you changed the wording in the first place, not that the figure was wrong. And what really makes no sense in this is that while you're disputing the 500,000-figure for all diseases (of which lung cancer is only one), you have no problem in agreeing for over 400,000 deaths due to lung cancer alone. The paragraph you're proposing to add now may be interesting in a more detailed discussion, but I can't for the life of me understand how it is relevant here. The citations you've provided seem to slightly nuance certain aspects of the health hazards of smoking, but there's really nothing that indicates that smoking is one of the biggest threats to public healths in the world today (along with other forms of drug use, obesity, pollution, automotive accidents, etc.)

Peter ^Isotalo 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No this is not health effects of tobacco smoking - another article that is severely biased. There at least they are willing to discuss the issues and make adjustments accordingly. You are right as I said about the one edit I made- but all the rest stand. Naacats 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Naacats, the antitobacco opinion IS the consensus amongst the medical community, at least here in UK, add to that Europe and the World Health Organisation. It is UK Department of Health policy, supported by recent introduction by the Government of a ban in restaurants and pubs supported by the British Medical Association[2][3], and universal advice from every Cardiologist, Respiratory physician and Vascular surgeon I have ever heard in the UK and indeed the World Health Organisation.[4]. Fine to look at the underlying research papers' methodologies, but wikipedia reports current accepted understanding (even if factually wrong) under NPOV, not WP:SPOV, and minority viewpoints is not granted equal space to that of the majority viewpoint (see WP:UNDUE). David Ruben ^Talk 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no it's not. It's the consensus of a few politically motivated organizations. If you ask doctors they will generally tell you otherwise. At least any who has actually read the reports. Yes there are doctors who will agree with those organizations, but the majority simply do not. Since ours it the majority viewpoint- the arguments you just stated actually work in our favor. Additionally Fringe Theories are supposed to be avoided, so really if anything there shouldnt be much of a mention of your POV.

Even if you were correct (which you clearly are not), I'm not asking for equal space for the truth. All i'm asking for are revisions, to state that there IS another side. As it states it now its listing this information as fact, not opinion. Naacats 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not go deleteing other's postings on talk pages. I as for argument from another page being unfair as under construction, an hour's gap in editing seemed like you had completed an editing session, but Ok I'll only reinsert the most directly relevent part of my response. To dismiss the opinions of the BMA is to dismiss that of the majority of UK doctors, to claim that it is is just "a few politically motivated organizations" is to be POV pushing and constitutes original research - cite otherwise please from medical reliable sources. Sorry you are simply POV pushing and just trolling here.David Ruben ^Talk 08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that- I thought that was the proper way to handle it. Wiki's still a bit confusing to me. As for your charge of trolling I very much disagree with you. I'm fairly certain that the BMA gets its data from the WHO, who in turn used the CDCs original study for their basis. I don't know enough about the BMA (or British politics in general) to claim that they personally are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, but the gatherers of the original data are. Additionally this is not a UK only document - it covers the entire world. Your going to tell me that the majority of medical professionals in the world (all 7 continents) all agree that smoking kills 418,000 people a year? I think not.

I already did cite above, the issue with the CDC (in regards to smoking). I've contacted a British smokers rights group for some additional information on the BMA and should have it hopefully in the next day or so. None of what I stated is original research - its proven fact that is well cited. Naacats 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding this. The CDC, WHO, and POSSIBLY the BMA (again I need more information to be sure) really can't be used as a source for this topic. Under wiki's own guidelines they are considered an extremist source.

Extremist sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Naacats 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

In the heat of the neutrality dispute, I forgot the random fact tags that have been presented. Here are the statements that you have demanded citations for without any motivation nor any indication that the references already provided have been scrutinized:

• Ever since smoking was introduced outside of the Americas, there had been many vehement protests against it.
• Many arguments were presented to the effect that smoking was harmful, and even if the critics were in the end right about many of their claims.
• It was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies....
• But this was a pleasure that was to be confined to a male world; women smokers were associated with prostitution and was not something that proper ladies should be involved in.
• While the symbolism of the cigarette, pipe and cigar respectively were consolidated in the late 19th century, it was not until the 20th century that artists began to use it fully.
• ...a pipe would stand for thoughtfulness and calm.
• It was not until the 1970s when the negative aspects of smoking began to appear....

There seems to be little or no concern for factual accuracy, but rather a general campaign against negative aspects of smoking. Considering that the article is very clear medical science often condoned smoking as beneficial to one's health, one gets the impression that the taggings have been made without actually reading the entire article, and without bothering to check out the citations already provided.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As for past medical opinions, yes that may well have been true in the past, but its is not current consensus. Likewise wikipedia accepts medicine has moved on from bloodletting as a useful cure for almost all ills :-) David Ruben ^Talk 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea splitting the argument into sections, as each should really be standing on it's own merits.

Regarding these citations (A lot more are needed):

• Ever since smoking was introduced outside of the Americas, there had been many vehement protests against it. -- This is blatently untrue. Tobacco usage was universally accepted in society until late in the last century.

• Many arguments were presented to the effect that smoking was harmful, and even if the critics were in the end right about many of their claims. - Find me a quotation saying this. The critics were not "right in the end" - at the least the end of this sentence should be removed.

• It was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies.... - There has yet to be a serious medical study into this.

• But this was a pleasure that was to be confined to a male world; women smokers were associated with prostitution and was not something that proper ladies should be involved in. - This seems to indicate this was a universal truth. This needs a source.

• While the symbolism of the cigarette, pipe and cigar respectively were consolidated in the late 19th century, it was not until the 20th century that artists began to use it fully. - Smoking has been depicted in art since before written history. Find me a citation that shows that there was no "fully realized art" regarding smoking prior to the 20th century.

• ...a pipe would stand for thoughtfulness and calm. - Where did you even get this from?

• It was not until the 1970s when the negative aspects of smoking began to appear.... - Quote? If anything this should read "It was not until the 1970s when some people began to act on a perceived fear of smoking" - or something to that effect.

Good point David. We are past bloodletting, discrimination, and bigotry. Past medical opinions, should not be considered unless in a historical article. Fringe theories (such as smoking being as bad for you as is stated) really shouldn't be included either. The majority of people in the world don't believe smoking as harmful as this document is saying. There has been ONE major study done (and if you read the article suggestion above it shows how that study has been heavily disputed) in the last 15 years or so showing your POV. All other studies have been based on the MMWRs findings, and not original research. I'm not trying to dispute that smoking is harmful- just that its not nearly as harmful as this article claims.

Naacats 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few revisions to the article in a sandbox, and plan to replace the existing error-filled article if no one has any objections. If anybody wants to have a look, it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TeamZissou/sandbox Thanks! TeamZissou 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While that is clearly intended to be a joke (I hope) oddly it seems less biased than this one in some ways. Thanks for the laugh! Naacats 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

There are many parts (arguably the whole thing) that should be split into other, better suited articles. Since the culture section of this article is apparently going to be moved by consensus, this article is going to be significantly shorter and lacking information. I suggest redirecting this page to [Smoking (disambiguation)] and merging any remaining fact into more appropriate articles.

Naacats 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, everyone...?

A few weeks ago we had a robust, enjoyable-to-read article that covered everything in just the correct amount of detail, and that not only came with an appropriate number of good and relevent pics, but that wasn't too long or wandered in focus. This has been a good article. We've battled-off vandals from both sides of the fence, and we've fixed the very few problems the text had. This is perhaps the most balanced article on wikipedia--you'd think this was abortion or some other such topic considering the amount of flack we get from all sides. Now we're moving/chopping-up parts of this B-class article that is well on its way to being featured?!?!?! What the hell, everyone? I'd like everyone--especially frequent editors and admins--to read this article all the way through without picking this or that error apart, then I'd like you to surf around Wikipedia for a while and read a dozen other articles on any topic. Open a paper, hard-copy encyclopedia sometime and look up some general terms or ideas--there are pages and pages covering broad topics in Brittanica and World Book because they would do the reader a disservice if the info was distributed along some taxonomic framework. It will just really be depressing for this page to go to shit after becoming so much in such a short time. This article is one of the most balanced and informative articles there is--if you don't think so, just look at the edit history and the amount of crap we've taken from the smoker's rights people and the anti-smokers, yet look what remains and look at quality of the references. If the topic hadn't become such a hotbed for argument, no one would have complained if half the ref's were missing--again, surf around and look at other articles that don't suffer from contention. And, if we're to have a huge debate about smoking/anti-smoking, let the two camps make their own articles about smoker's rights and the anti-smoking movement and let the edit wars and frivolous argument move there away from this decent, comprehensive-yet-succinct example of how an article should be started, built-up and maintained. Thanks for letting me vent. TeamZissou 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

TeamZissou. I respect your opinion of the article. While its true it Was on its way to being nominated (I notified the review board of the POV issues) I think that this is undeserved until the issues in the article are resolved.

Yes the article is well cited - I could well cite an article on the benefits of Nazi-ism or as well, though that doesn't mean the article will be correct (Before someone tries to jump on that of course I don't believe in Nazi-ism. Its an example. ).

Just to clear up an earlier comment, I'm not trying to force my POV into this article. I'm merely trying to have it acknowledge that the POV it's taking is not the majority (and certainly not the only) view.

As for it being similar to abortion I agree with you. I have no doubt that there would be many people, on both sides of the issue, willing to vandalize this and other articles. Thats one of the reasons its so important that it follow wikis neutrality standards. Almost every article related to smoking has been hijacked by "Public Health" groups (aka antitobacco). Any attempt to even mention other viewpoints are removed and edit wars such as this begin.

I am in the process of editing the Smokers Rights page although the information there is still not very neutral or cited yet. I'll be fixing it up over the next day or so, to balance the issue (even against my own POV).

I do disagree with you that this article should remain, don't get me wrong. Almost all of its information is better covered in Tobacco Smoking, Opium, smoking culture, and a few other articles. It would serve the community better to have a page linking to those articles, than to have a page of duplicate information.

Thanks for your opinion on the matter. This is finally becoming a discussion. I'm glad other people have finally jumped in and began to voice their opinions, even if I don't agree with them.

Naacats 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)