Talk:Cigar

.

Cigar Aficionado message board posts as references in article

Am I the only one who sees this as a conflict of interest? 1) anecdotal evidence by message board members does not justify it's use in an encyclopedia and 2) the survival of the site/magazine is dependent on advertising the cigar lifestyle. it would appear the mods on the forum would remove any content that jeopardizes their future. I don't think it's NPOV enough to be used. 129.174.254.68 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it is true that Cigar Aficionado promotes a moderate lifestyle of cigar smoking, as the statistics show that health risks for moderate smokers (once daily or less, with no inhaling of smoke) are negligible on average when compared to non-smokers. The CA polls show that the vast majority of those polled are moderate smokers. If Cigar Aficionado wanted to alter the results in order to please cigar retailers and manufacturers, then would they not suggest that most of the readers smoke more cigars, not fewer? That said, the CA polls are not scientific, as readers can vote multiple times, and it is not a random sample of all cigar smokers - just those that read Cigar Aficionado, which again, reinforces the moderation lifestyle. This does not explain however why the other material (not from Cigar Aficionado, but the good Doctor's analysis of the NIH study) was removed - namely the "hidden" data from the NIH study that showed that non-inhaling cigar smokers who smoke less than 1-2 cigars per day, which constitutes the vast majority of Cigar Smokers, had LESS risk of developing lung cancer and cardiac disease than non-smokers. Rmoval of relevant sourced material just because you happen to disagree with it, is pushing a non-NPOV and can be considered vandalism. That material should be re-instated. Following is the original statement, for reference. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Before

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs , and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) . According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation." .

Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer, relative to cigarette smokers, for moderate cigar smokers who smoke one or two cigars per day; and that the risks increase with additional cigar usage. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" . An analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. Schneiderman demonstrates that the NIH data shows that at 1-2 cigars per day, there is a lower overall risk of developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, compared to the non-smoking population; and since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be slightly protected from developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers. The "all cause" of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day or less is not significantly higher when compared to those who never smoked.

After

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" but do not inhale the smoke, and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) [1]. According to The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh, the reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation." Occasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Another study, conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer (relative to cigarette smokers) for moderate users who smoke one or two cigars per day. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" [2]. The NIH study has been accused of using misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking and second hand smoke, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers.

Proposed

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs, and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily). According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation."

Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health states that "Cigar smoking increases your risk of death from several cancers, including cancer of the lung, oral cavity (lip, tongue, mouth, throat), esophagus (the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach), and larynx (voice box)." But an analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics and statements in citing the health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. The NIH data shows an increased risk of death, relative to non-smokers, from emphysema, and oral, buccal, pharynx, larynx, and pancreatic cancers, for smokers of 1-2 cigars a day, relative to non-smokers, and that the health risks increase with additional cigar usage. But the NIH data also showed a lower risk of death from lung cancer and coronary artery disease, and only a slight increased risk overall of death from "all causes" for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day, relative to non-smokers . The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" . Dr. Schneiderman concludes that "Since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be protected from developing lung cancer" and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers, and that "The 'all cause' of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day (and sometimes more) is not significantly different when compared to those who never smoked.".

If there are no objections, I propose to post the updated version into the article as a restoration from the reversion that took out most of the pertinant information and references. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. This material belongs in health effects of tobacco smoking, not here. The entire contents of the proposed change should be merged with that article and deleted from this one. It does no good to litter multiple articles with the same warnings. Frotz 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If the material does not belong at all, then why are you reverting to an outdated and incorrect version which is improperly referenced? The material as it stands, which you reverted to, is inferior in every way to the improved version shown above. If you do not think anything at all belongs there, then the section should be REMOVED, not reverted to a poorly written version which is not properly referenced. Reversion is a tool used to repair vandalism and trolling, not to arbitrarily object to an otherwise valid and proper edit by an experienced editor. The section has been posted for a very long time - and you wait until now when it is improved to object to it existing? What is it you do not want readers to see? The facts? Please explain why we should revert to a poorly written improperly sourced version. I am being WP:BOLD by improving the article and including the properly sourced material with inline references. Your reversion to an inferior version has no justification whatsoever, and appears to constitute a non-WP:NPOV pushing away from the facts. If a version is to be posted, it MUST be the better version, not the version you reverted to. Your reversion to an inferior version is completely and utterly inappropriate. If you wish to Merge the section to another article, then use the Merge template. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted instead of deleting because at the time, I didn't have the time to carefully compare your version with the corresponding section in health effects of tobacco smoking. I took a careful look now. It seems to me that the two sections amount to duplicates. Therefore the health section be removed entirely and a link to health effects of tobacco smoking placed in the "See also" section. Copying this discussion to my chat page is not necessary. Frotz 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So I see that, despite a consensus having been reached during an RfC, all mention of the health effects of cigar smoking have been deleted, save a short link in the "See also" section. I don't see that as editing in good faith. In accord with the consensus reached during the RfC, a paragraph about the health effects of cigar smoking needs to be in the article.--HughGRex 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone proposed something and someone else objected. Nobody else said anything. That's not a consensus. Given how discussions on this subject went last November and December, it seems clear that this article should remain as-is with regard to health warnings. Frotz 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

I don't know what template indicates spoil in this wiki, but this section definitely needs one: In the 1992 film Scent of a Woman, Lt.Col Frank Slade, who is staying in a posh New York hotel, orders his assistant Charlie Simms to get him a Montecristo No.1, knowing that it will take time to find one. Actually he is planning to shoot himself, so he wants Simms to leave him alone for some time. --Windom 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To add a plot spoiler template to an article, type {{spoiler}} at the appropriate section. But rather than applying a plot spoiler warning in an article with a spoiler, it is better to just get rid of the spoiler. It can be cut back just to state the facts: In the 1992 film Scent of a Woman, Lt. Col Frank Slade orders his assistant Charlie Simms away to find him a rare Cuban Montecristo No.1 cigar. - or something to that effect. We do not need a plot summary here, just the reference to the film. Not having seen the movie - does the Montecristo actually make an appearance on screen? If not, then it is probably not notable. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe nobody had fixed this yet... I just did. Zeng8r 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

problem

First of all sorry if i've some spelling mistakes because my mother tongue isn't english. you've prblem with the "List of current notable Cuban cigar brands". I saw that you wrote on this list name of cigar company like Guantanamera that isn't definitely notable cigars. Actually there cigars are kind of cheep. there are more company that I didn't chake so thke it seriously.

Wait a minute.....

I think I'm addicted to cigars. Help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.79.243 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just a knobaholic knobgobbler... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

There is a HUGE pop culture section in this article. Note that WP:TRIVIA says to avoid such sections. This needs to be worked on. Arthurrh 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Monica Lewinsky belong in this section? Gidklio 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Health effects should be covered

This article had zero mention of the health effects of cigars. I added a brief section on the subject a couple of weeks ago, and it was immmediately reverted by User:Frotz with the comment "This was discussed already. There is already an entire article on the health effects of tobacco." The argument that "there is an entire article on health effects" doesn't make sense. There are also entire articles on cigar brands, and on the U.S. embargo against Cuba; does this mean that Cigar shouldn't mention cigar brands or the embargo on Cuba either?

I looked at the above discussion, and it appears that User:Frotz is the only editor who doesn't want any mention of health effects in Cigar. Other, similar articles, such as Cigarette and Cigarillo, all have brief mention of health topics and then refer to the main article Tobacco and health. Cigar should do likewise. Any article about cigars that does not cover health effects is not being encyclopedic.

For now, I have reintroduced a health effects section. I'm not wedded to its exact contents, or to its current location; all I'm saying is that the topic should be briefly covered and cited. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the health section is that everything it adds nothing new to the article that is not covered in the Tobacco and health article. Here is my reasoning: Suppose we have article Foo and articles Bar₁ through Bar_n which discuss different topics having to do with article Foo. What you're doing is going through all these articles, adding a chunk from Bar_x. At the very least, this is messy and detracts from the usefulness of having subordinate articles in the first place. Frotz (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigars are unhealthy.

This is my two cents. Can anyone around here help with a book report?