Talk:Hookah

Structure of Article

What a mess a bit of history of the name and various in .... country they do this... and in ... it is growing in popularity. Sugest most of this is ditched and the how it works moved to the top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.75.21 (talk) 10:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Removed: Damages

Removed the part: Damages Form the last news (American onsite) the effect of water pipe is more than cigarette. As dry john’s says smoking for 45 min is equal to using water pipe for 1 week. If you want to find out how this effect is true, call 457543902958 and you can get your right answer. Also there is a possibility to have a blood test in our laboratory which will be held next week.

Euand 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Muahah.. Im the boss babbayyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.253.254 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would actually AVC be very interested in comparing blood work from cigarette users vs hookah users, it would be interesting to see what could be learnt if the users where all occasional users who have abstained for a few weeks. Especialy if the volume of tobacco leaf(not shisha) was controled, rather than time. Please let me know of your results.

How it Works

Would it be possible for someone to write on how the water filters out anything? The study in the article implies that some things are filtered, however, I could not find anything that says how. My guess was that --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)the water stops anything heavier than it, but that is wrong as all nicotine and tar would be stopped, not just some. Then I thought perhaps it works by stopping all particles relative to how water soluable they are, but then wouldn't a lot more tar be filtered than the study seems to suggest? 24.83.215.11 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Zeroedout

Off the top of my head, it's a complicated process involving both solvency and condensation. It's, of course, a very important chemical and industrial process as well. Scrubber Gzuckier 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The water cools the smoke, some substances condense when cooled,some substances are also water soluble, and will move to the water rather than the air if they are on the edges of the air bubble... and such, if you have any doubts, go to a hookah bar, open a hookah, and drink up. get back to me afterwards.

Originating from turkey???????

who says this in the second line of the introduction? this is just wrong.

Hookah vs. Sheesha vs. Arguily

Are hookahs and sheeshas really the same things? I always though, the traditional arab "things" are sheeshas, while hookahs are made of glass and used for smoking mariuhana. 82.82.127.117 19:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) Its pretty SWEET

Things for smoking marijuana are simply bongs :) -- Lament.

No, hookahs (or arguily)are NOT just for marijuana. In fact, when one uses it that way, they're misusing the pipe. Sheesha tobacco is traditionally what is smoked out of a hookah. This is tobacco which is cured with fruits and molasses. And sheesha, shisha, hookah, hooka, hubbly bubbly, and nargile are all the same thing: an arabic water pipe which stands roughly two feet tall with a hose for smoking. Some people do smoke hashish out of their sheesha pipes, and in some cultures it's traditional. However, to think of it as "just a really fun bong" is to perpertuate the hookah's social stigma and misuses.-A proper hookah smoker

Then hookahs are just really fun bongs! =oD - Eisnel

Why are there no mentions of its uses for consumption of hashish and marijuana? Arent those 2 popular uses of a hookah, then arent we just calling a hookah being used for consuming those a bong instead of actuly difernetiating between diferent devices? Cts006

Check back a few edits, the reference seems to come and go. Gzuckier 05:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, traditionally, it is offensive to those in the Middle East and Asia to smoke anything other than tobacco out of a hookah. Smoking marijuana or hashish out of hookahs has become just a modern teenage/college thing. moondust9358

I'm pretty sure that hookah refers to the actual water pipe and that sheesha is the molasses-like tobacco used when smoking from a hookah. correct me if I'm wrong, fellow hookah-ers. NPPyzixBlan 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the tobacco called shisha/sheesha, but I've also heard the whole apparatus called that. But, as the intro paragraph makes clear, you can a hookah it just about anything. --Mgreenbe 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to rely on context. Sheesha (or 'shisha') can mean either the tobacco or the pipe. --BennyD 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No sir. Shisha is another name for a Hookah. I believe its Egypian. To call the me'asel (flavored tobacco) Shisha is Americans going to the middle east hearing someone order a "flavored shisha" and thinking that they were talking about the tobacco. -- True Sisha Smoker

Take it from a linguist (a real, academic one): when a misunderstanding creates a word in one language (or dialect) that means something different from what it meant originally, it isn't any less of a word than as if it was an accurate borrowing. 'Shisha' being used to describe ma'sael is a very real part of American English, and to argue that it is somehow 'wrong' is, well, wrong.Mgcsinc 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

copyvio1: [1]

One must take into account the accumulated findings of socio-anthropological research on the subject. Only the above-mentioned research framework can help shed light on this new - and strange for many - phenomenon, i.e. the globalisation of narghile (hookah, shisha) use for almost a decade now.

Now, 2 reference unique books have been written on it. The last one was published in Paris (France) under the title "Le Monde du Narguilé" (The World of Narghile/Hookah)(156 pages, colour, Ed. Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002), by Kamel Chaouachi.

Besides, there is a unique trilingual reference website :

*[The Sacred Narghile http://www.sacrednarghile.com]

--KeithTyler

I think most contributors here are missing the point: these are all different regional names for the same thing: namely a tobacco pipe which filters water through a container at its base. In Turkey it is a Nargileh, in most Arab countries it is a Sheesha (which in Turkish means 'bottle' and in Persian/Hindi 'Mirror' or 'Glass', suggesting it is derived from the material the base is made of, if it's an Arabic word). In Persian it is a 'Qelyun' (قليان), a name which hasn't been mentioned here, whilst only on the Subcontinent is it known as a 'hookah', or 'Huqa' (حقی). However, as it was in India that English-speakers first smoked these pipes in large numbers, it is the Indian name which has become common English usage, in the archaic 18th century form 'Hookah' (see the Hickey quote I have put on the main page). Hence this article definitely has the correct title. Sikandarji 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So I have to ask... if a hookah and bong are different, what is that difference or is it just in the use. Also, how does water pipe fit in. Is it sort of water pipe is the overall set, with hookahs, bongs, etc subsets? Just really curious.

How do cars and trucks differ? lets call em all cars. NO NO NO, thats not the trunk, thats the boot. NO! boots go on feet! Seriously kids, if you have a problem with a term, explain why, add referances, etc etc, then, let it go, dont try to change a language or culture, you'll live longer.

Picture

The Hookah

Is there no way to get a better picture than this? Intrigue 20:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with the second (tobacco burning) picture as well.

The tobacco looks like a freshly posited cow patty. --Philopedia 28 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)

The pictures in this article are unprofessional. Why are there so many pictures of unrelated objects such as the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland. So it involves a hookah? Big deal, the user might as well use Google image search.

ok, explain to me, slowly, like I was a small child, why the caterpillar from alice in wonderland is unrelated. Please. I, personnaly, would probably pick that as the BEST, western, referance to popular culture possible. It seems to me to be the first thing 90% of north americans think of when they hear "hookah" seems like a good reason to include it, and, gawd damn it, its a fookin picture, the more the merrier. If you think another would be more informative, add it, but quit your bitchin, it's childish.

---

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Matt Jordan wrote:

Hi Keith,

I'm a huge fan of wikipedia and I appreciate what you do for the organization. Off of the "hookah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah>" page, I posted a link (yesterday) to a Hookah History page on my website, hookahcompany.com. Later on that day, I noticed the link was removed and two other links were placed there. One of the two websites is a commercial website that is simliar to ours, which is called smoking-hookah.com. What qualifies smoking-hookah.com <http://smoking-hookah.com/> and not hookahcompany.com <http://www.hookahcompany.com/> as a valid link?

You removed those two other sites to put in your own commercial site instead. I consider that to be vandalism and until other contributors suggest otherwise I'm not going to let it stick.

It is also the second time you have done this. I for one would appreciate it if you would at very least take your form of "advertising" to a different website.

KeithTyler

This is really old, but since I've come across this page again in the search engines and it is public, I just wanted to set the record straight that we didn't remove any other websites from wikipedia. Perhaps it was another hookah website. It however was not hookahcompany. -Matt Jordan

Hookah Hub ( <a href="http://www.hookahhub.com">Hookah - Hooka - Huka - Hookah Hub</a> ) would appreciate inclusion as well, thank you.

Since Wikipedia is such a good source for Google to show and discuss what a Hookah is, it is considered a very good resource from a search engine optimization standpoint to have a link from Wikipedia's domain. The problem is you have allowed a few sites post their link and now they have a very high advantage over others. CustomHookahs.com is a very valid resource for Hookah and has a Hookah Bar Directory integrated with Google Maps. This is useful to a lot of people looking for Hookah Bars in their state, but they have no idea where it is or the contact information. We allow them to see that information and get directions using Google Maps. I would appreciate if CustomHookahs.com was also appreciated as a valid resource and have a link posted on the Hookah page.

Armen Shagmirian

Commercial links

Do we really need four different links to commercial hookah/tobacco vendors? Since they add no intrinsic value to the academic content of the article, I've been bold and removed them. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Dewet 07:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dewet, As I agree that the commercial links do not add intrinsic value in the academic arena, they do offer a path by which someone can purchase hookah items. I am going to go a step further and be fair. If four links is too many for commercial advertising, which three should be selected? Perhaps it should be left to the consumer to search for hookah items, thus leaving the advertising completely outside of the realm of wikipedia. I am, therefore, deleting the remaining three links, as it would be unfair for three to have inclusion and others not. Cobrabyte

Err, I though I deleted all four? :) I definitely think something like Froogle should be the consumer's first stop to find anything to buy online; Wikipedia gets abused too often by vendors trying to better their search rankings. Dewet 16:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Sacred Narghile site is not commercial. So I am putting it again. Genevieve.

Without posing judgement on the quality of the article (I am not qualified to assess it and it seems satisfactory) I get the impression that only a single source was consulted. A bit as if the source in question had written the article and written for all the website pointed to in the first link.

I'm re-adding hookahforum.com, because it's clear to me that it's deletion has nothing to do with commercial content but with a childish game of internet king of the hill. Kuriohara 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Nargileh. The first three letters are always [n]ar. Is the 'g' a 'g' or a 'gh'? In Hebrew it's a 'g'. Is the following vowel an 'i', a 'ui' or an 'ee' or something still more exotic? Is the final vowel an 'e', an 'eh', an 'a', or an 'ah'? We should be consistent. I don't really care; I like 'nargileh', but I'll be happy with anything consistent. --Mgreenbe 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The "e/a/ah/eh" is a common problem of Arabic transliteration. I think Hebrew has something similar: it is a question of the feminine ending, a short "a" followed by a letter written in the shape of a "h" but with the two dots of the "t" over it. In the "pausal form", i.e. at the end of a phrase or sentence, the h/t (ta marbuta) is not pronounced at all. In classical arabic, it is otherwise pronounced as a "t". In dialect arabic, it is only pronounced as a "t" when it is part of a genitive construction, and of course, this being arabic, it is never, ever, pronounced as a "h". The pronunciation of the vowel in many dialects is closer to an Italian or Spanish "e" than to English "a". Hence, it is found transliterated as "a" or "e" and also, in order to reflect the feminine ending, as "ah" or "eh". Hope that's clear.

"g" is the most common pronunciation of the first / second consonant, even though the letter doesn't strictly speaking exist in Arabic and so in Arabic the word is usually written with "kaf" = English "k", but this is I think less common in pronunciation. "g" is probably better here. The second vowel is simply a long "i" like Gaelic or Hungarian "í" (ok, also like English "ee"). Hope that makes everything perfectly clear and warns you of the danger of asking for things to do with Arabic to be explained. Palmiro | Talk 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I imagine that the occasional appearance of "gh" is the result of European languages like French, Italian and Spanish as well as English often rendering "g" followed by a narrow vowel as "dj", and is an attempt to make it clear that that shouldn't happen. There is an Arabic letter غ which is often transliterated as "gh", but it's never found in the name of the nargile (usually أركيلة in Arabic). Palmiro | Talk 18:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Well, in Hebrew it's written with a qamatz, which would be transliterated 'a'. The vowel for /i/ is a hiriq yod, so it'd be written 'i'. Nargila, or narghila. One problem: that looks terrible. Not English at all. The OED online lists all of the information under Hookah. Here are its spellings, by pronunciation:

• nargeeleh, narghilè, narghille, narghyle, narguillet, narghile, narghilé, narghileh, nargileh, narghili, narguileh
• nargeel, nargheel, narghil, nargill, nargil
• narghilly, nargilly
• N.E.D. (1906) also records forms nargilé, narguilè

Narguillet is at least creative; nargilly has the backing of Benjamin Disraeli. Narghile has William Makepeace Thackeray on its side. You're absolutely right, I shouldn't have started this — I should just be bold. --Mgreenbe 19:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

illegal drugs

what kind of research, if any, has been done about hookahs being used for illegal drugs? Is there any way to tell if deionized water really absorbs toxins? I am not sure about this most recent addition to style and health. NPPyzixBlan 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hookahs are incorrectly-classified as drug paraphernalia in some jurisdictions and that has lead other jurisdictions to follow suit. As for actual research, I've searched high-and-low for actual research on the subject and have come up empty. It's likely a case where 'if it looks like a bong ... it must be one, right?' I know that the US Customs Department doesn't treat hookahs as drug paraphernalia and the 'traditional use' of the apparatus is what is generally recognized. In fact, I use this case, along with the actual wording from the U.S. Code when I have problems with companies who do not want to work with our company because of the nature of our products. As hookah becomes more popular, I think it will even out and become publicly-recognized as an apparatus for tobacco (akin to English-style pipes). --Cobrabyte 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Glow sticks and dust masks have been classified as paraphernalia... gov'ments is stoopid.

"Glow sticks and dust masks have been classified as paraphernalia... gov'ments is stoopid."

Colloquially maybe, but not LEGALLY. Seary6579 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Health Concerns

I see that the article makes claim that water actually filters the tar and nicotine from the smoke as it travels through the water. Though I have no doubt that the smoke is cooled by the water (probably via condensation or the micro climate within the base), I have serious doubts that the water is 'cleansing' the smoke of any substantial levels of nicotine or tar. The smoke passes, rather rapidly, through the water and, due to past and present hookah designs, the smoke is actually contained within a bubble (see: cavitation) that protects most of the smoke from the water. Is there credible research to show otherwise? --Cobrabyte 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Having cleaned a hookah, and accidentaly tasted the residue, I can attest that much of the tar and nicotine is filtered, the smoke travels a longer distance, in a cool metal or glass area, causing much of the tar to deposit, nicotine is also very water soluble, and condenses easily. The smoke also spends alot of time imobile in those areas before being inhaled. However, the amount of nicotine and tar in the tobacco, the speed it is inhaled, and the temperature of the charcoal are all variable, so...

I removed the following text:

Nakhla shisha is actually not as dangerous as cigarette smoking, the chances of getting cancer with cigarette smoking are 107 times higher. shisha smoking in fact has not been proven to cause any cancers as the few people who are said to have got cancer were also demonstrated to have smoked cigarettes at the time of the cancer or previously.

Shisha has been proven not to harm our health.

because it fails to cite sources and contradicts the rest of the article. 70.162.14.102 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Shisha harm, history et al is covered in the detailed World Health Organisation document by the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation: http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/Waterpipe%20recommendation_Final.pdf

Hello, I found this article that describes the dangers of smoking hookah: http://www.livescience.com/health/070531_hookah_risks.html As I don't know how I should edit the article, I'm posting it here. Ericius 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

advertising

Isn't this line

You can find some exotic flavors like caramel and chocolate mint at this online hookah store http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Tobacco.aspx

blatant advertising? I don't know exactly what is and isn't against policy, but it doesn't seem appropriate to me. Anaraug 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

INquiring about tobacco free and herbal alternatives

In the social acceptance section I have noticed that this alternative has been addressed, i was wondering if anyone knew of information as to where one might acquire such products

Try a google search for "herbal hookah tobacco". You should also read this famous essay on asking questions on the Internet. --Mgreenbe 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A company called SOEX in India makes the herbal flavour. Its the same company that makes the AFZAL flavours.

Contradiction

In the Function section:

However, recent studies have found that hookah smokers inhale more nicotine than cigarette smokers due to the massive volume of smoke they inhale.

In the Style and Health section:

In addition to fewer carcinogens being produced, nicotine production is reduced by the lower temperatures at which the tobacco is heated. Lower nicotine production, when compared to cigarettes, means addiction to tobacco, among hookah smokers, happens significantly-less frequently

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.9.47.180 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory at face value (per volume, there is less nicotine in hookah smoke than cigarette smoke, but much more hookah smoke is inhaled than cigarette smoke). In fact, I would say that my own experience bears out this fact. You are correct, however, that "recent studies" is a weasel word. Feel like looking it up? --Mgreenbe 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Thomas Eissenberg, a professor of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University co-authored a review on hookah smoking[1] which found that a session of hookah smoking which lasts about 45 minutes, delivers 1/60th the tar, 1/10th the carbon monoxide and 1/200th the nicotine than a single cigarette" source one says the opposite about CO production and little about nicotine and tar production other than the fact that the tar derivatives in hookah smoke are different than those in tobacco smoke because of the temperature difference. Source 10 is non-existent. Not only that but most sources say just the opposite about hookah smoke. A 45 minute session is almost equivalent to one cigarette. This line is entirely fictional after the phrase "lasts 45 minutes", and I smoke hookah and cigars myself, so I'm not just hating on tobacco users.

External link revert war

What's with the tug-of-war between an external link to hookahforum.com and one to hookahforum.net? Why not just include both, or is one of them commercial? I don't see products advertised on either front page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Like I said in Commercial Links, it's obviously a childish game of internet king of the hill, which is why I've simply added a third link. There shouldn't be a problem now. Kuriohara 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You said "it's clear to me that it's deletion has nothing to do with commercial content". How did you come to that conclusion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to the site. I read the front page. I clicked some links. It's pretty clear to me that Hookahforum.com is not a commercial site, and I think it'd be clear to anyone else who spent a little time on it. Kuriohara 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hookahforum.com is owned and operated by http://www.hookahkings.com, a hookah retailer. The IP of http://www.hookahkings.com is 69.80.208.111 and the IP of http://www.hookahforum.com is 69.80.208.204 Omega4 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but I don't see any links there to buy anything, and hookahforum.com doesn't seem to link in any obvious way to hookahkings.com, which is clearly commercial. The guideline to consider here is Wikipedia:External links. We're told there to avoid links to "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services," but it's not clear to me that's what hookahforum.com is all about. It appears to be more of a forum, for information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is spend some time on Hookahforums.com, or simply read their front page to understand that their aim isn't commercial. Who funds them is really irrelevant, as it's not a moral issue and it's not linking to a commercial site, per se. Simply because a commercial site keeps them alive shouldn't keep us from enjoying the information available from them. Kuriohara 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the other link? is it fair as well to have that one deleted in favour of hookahforum.com? If both of them are there, that is fine, but to continue to delete the entire external links section and replacing it with the hookahforum.com link is ridiculous. Omega4Omega4 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think hookahforum.net/org was doing to .com? A friend of mine, subscribed with .net who added hookahforum.com, was contacted personally by people from .net to basically tell him not to. Is that right? I think not. I added .com again in hopes they would both stay in, but I had to add it AGAIN before they locked the page. Kuriohara 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we all agree that both sites are ok, and not take either one down? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that 100%, GTBacchus. Kuriohara 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

sure thing Omega4Omega4 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I've unprotected the page. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

D Thanks for clearing it all up. Kuriohara

Interestingly enough a website got in under External Links as a Hookah Bar Directory. I looked at the site and it is still in construction and it does not provide any valid data to find all the hookah bars available in each State. This is in my opinion a better resource for finding hookah bars in your state: http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Bar.aspx As you can see when you click on California for example, you see all the Hookah Bars in the state and when you find the one you're looking for it shows you a Google Map representation of it so you can get directions to the hookah bar. It also has information such as the Hookah Bar's name, Adress, Telephone Number. I would suggest replacing the External Link of Hookah Bar Directory to this url: http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Bar.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.246.121 (talk • contribs) 08:21, May 12, 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:External links, Links normally to avoid, #12, "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." -- Mwanner | Talk 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of re-hashing the "revert war" is. The problem was already cleared up, and GTBacchus said both links were alright to stay. Kuriohara 03:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the revert war was pointless-- both links are forums, which are no-nos under WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the admin's decision in the end? First, it doesn't say no, it says normally. Second, the revert war was just as pointless as you policing the links. I don't mean any offense, I just don't see the point when an admin has already taken care of it and the rule doesn't say under any circumstance should you not link forums. I just don't understand the point of re-hashing something that was already taken care of. Kuriohara 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it says "normally." Then it continues "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." The article is clearly not about either website. So we're left with a question whether the websites are "of particularly high standard." Personally, I don't see anything in these sites that meets that test-- a forum is a forum (though I suppose that a forum about physics peopled by physicists might rise to the standard), and the contents don't appear to me to rise to an encyclopedic level. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that as the owner of hookahforum.net, I have been uninvolved in said "war." I believe that both of the forum links and the sacred narghile site link should remain on this page because they are all non-commercial websites, and are all very large information resources for people looking for more than what this has to offer. as Kuriohara stated, the problem that had arose before was settled by an admin, therefore the links should not be deleted. hookahforum.net

Clearly WP:EL insists that external links be more than simply non-commercial. And you will, perhaps, pardon my saying so, but your opinion in this case is clearly not without bias. I am willing to listen to GTBacchus's opinion on this case, and have dropped him a line. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note, Mwanner. According to Wikipedia:External links, you're right; we generally avoid links to forums, because we want to link to information whose reliability we can be sure of. Since anybody can post to forums, they aren't the best resources. When I suggested keeping them both, it was as a compromise, preferable to alternating between the two, and I admit I overlooked relevant parts of WP:EL, stopping at the bit about commercial sites. Unless either or both of these forums are actually major hubs of hookah culture, I can't see the links as justified. SacredNarghile.com seems pretty informative, and is certainly attempting to be scholarly about hookahs, so it seems encyclopedic to me, especially since he have no other external links except to medical studies. I hate to have made one call in May and then have to reverse it now, but Mwanner's right, the forum links should go.

For those who are interested in these forums, I would call your attention to a new Wiki - AboutUs.org - which has a page about every domain on the Internet, or at least aims to. You might want to check out how your sites are covered there (e.g., [2]), and you're definitly welcome to edit it freely, without any question of your content being judged "unencyclopedic". The wiki is brand new and still in beta testing, but I predict it will get big, being a great idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, since there clearly is some worthwhile content on the two sites, let me urge the interested parties to work on bringing that contents (rewritten, of course) into the Wikipedia article. To me, that is the heart of WP:EL. Cheers, all! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. If the websites have usefull information, why not list them? This whole thing is childish, and I think it is not fair for an admin to revoke their decision based on what one person thinks should happen. Clearly Mwanner has something against either or both of these websites, which should not have a role in the content that thousands of people view every day. I am very dissapointed with this decision.

I have nothing against either website-- my only interest is in making Wikipedia a great encyclopedia. I didn't write WP:EL, but I do try to enforce it. Take a look at my contributions-- my actions here are fully consistent with my other work on Wikipedia.

If you are interested in seeing this article be a great article, please incorporate the useful information from these links into the article. Our purpose here is not to direct people to other sources of information, it is to amass all of the important info on each topic directly in our articles. Now is your chance to show that this article is really what you are interested in, not increased traffic for your website.

And Wikipedia admins are hardworking volunteers like the rest of us, and have every right to rethink a decision. Who would work at a project where you were never allowed to change your mind? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

section organization

does anyone really believe the etymology should be explained before the device's function? i think it's far more important to describe what the heck the thing actually is before going into the history of its name. etymology is more "fun to know," whereas the function is something that people will actually look to an encyclopedia for.

Merge with Ghalyun

Ghalyun being just another version of the hookah, I'd suggest merging it into this page as a section Hookah in Iran or something. Maybe, in parallel, make separate sections for various other regions as well. The content of that page doesn't add anything over and above this one, even to try to distinguish ghalyan from hookah. cab 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are different enough. Ghalyun, especially the traditional ones, have a shaft that is a longer than hookah, and they definitely have different strengths and tastes. Besides, an etymological analysis also is required before a correct decision is made. I suggest someone take the initiative and consult the following source for a more detailed analysis: [3] --Zereshk 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article should be merged into this one. The ghalyun appears to have overwhelmingly similar construction and could probably be considered a Persian word for "hookah". —ptk✰fgs 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

cooking rather than burning

"What anti-hookah advocates fail to realize is when you smoke a cigarette, you smoke every thing; there is nothing left but ash. When you smoke a hookah for 45 minutes, if made properly, the charcoal does not burn the tobacco like a cigarette. It more bakes the tobacco, rather than a burn. If you took off the aluminum foil after a hookah session, you will see not ash, but blackened, hard tobacco, where the moisture has been cooked away. You're smoking the flavour substance; the "goopy" fluid the tobacco is soaked in. "

That's interesting, assuming it's accurate. Similar to products I've seen that vaporize "smoking material" with a hotplate or such, rather than letting it smolder. Ought to be much less carcinogenic, give that it's the anaerobic high heat that cooks up the nitrosamines, etc. Gzuckier 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is accurate. I don't know if I could find a verifiable source. However whenever I smoke from my hookah it always leaves the top third charred and crispy, not ash. - Rexmage, 10-19-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexmage (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some information on this, especially since some legislation specifically forbids the "burning" of tobacco products indoors or in cafes/bars. If it could be shown that a nargile/hookah only vaporises, maybe such anti-smoking-legislation as is spreading in Europe could partly be circumvented in hookah bars?

similar edits nov. 14 2006

Given the documented info we have on actually smoking the burning tobacco through a hookah, this info ought to be added to it, not put in place. I don't know enough about hookah smoking in official hookah establishments, etc. to know if it's the case and whether there's a difference between the Middle East and the Western world, but the amateurs I see playing the home game just fire the stuff up like a pipe. Gzuckier 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can smoke a hookah like that but it makes the smoke extremely rough (I've done it). Also I've heard of traditional smokers placing the coals right on the me'asel and forming some sort of natural screen with the burnt tobacco. Again I've tried both these and found that coals on foil with holes is much more enjoyable. Plus would you rather have someone walk in the room and seeing you relaxing with your hookah or bent over it, trying not to burn your fingers looking like your lighting a bong. Shishasmoker 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure... you can, true, but thats smoking it wrong, it's almost like including the bad health effects of laying under a moving car's tire with the health effects of driving a car. Anyone interested in the results of smoking a hookah with fire should just read the article on bongs or pipes.

Etymology addition

Hello everyone, I just wanted to notify you that I added a quote from Martin Booth's Cannabis: A History to the Etymology section. It has relevant information to the mention of hashish. I added the citation prior to the section break. This is my first edit so if I did anything incorrect please notify me.

Thanks, D.researcher 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I find it quite relevent and intriguing. Good addition.

origin?

Citation needed for the claim that hookahs started in India -- Alfred Dunhill claims they started in Persia, stimulated by the marijuana trade with East Africa.

Yes, different sources have different claims, ranging from Africa to India and even China! However the basic form is most widely accepted to have its origins in India. It later sperad to present day Iran and the rest is history. There are two citations given in the article at the end of the statement. Please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hookah

Is it possible to link to hookah sites about hookah information. Sites that are about the history and maintenance of hookahs?

You can read a brief history on the Hookah from here and maintenance tips from here. Also please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Style and health section...

MESSAGE FROM KAMAL CHAOUACHI

Yes, I am realising that the information provided in this section is highly biased. However, I am confident that the readers are not so ignorant and will be able to understand the other issues at stake beyond the health aspects.

For instance, the following sentence has been deleted by Wikipedia vandals who are trying to impose their views to the general public:

Other researchers have raised objections to the methods used in these studies, most notably Kamal Chaouachi, author of early comprehensive writings on the subject [4]

In these conditions, I am submitting it again and I will check on it from now onwards. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia, not the medium of crusade-minded people.

Apparently, some people dislike this project and do not want people to know that there are a serious debate on most of the "health aspects" surrounding hookah smoking. You will note that I limited myself to inserting only one link to a few personal pages (the Publisher of my first book on hookah smoking - 1997). I did not insert links that are quite clear on the degree of false information some people are trying to sell on this site. For instance, I could have inserted a link to my evaluation of the multi-expert WHO (World Health Organisation) report on hookah smoking, the first ever published by this institution on this subject. I preferred not to do so. A critique of the WHO report on hookah smoking

If the above sentence –that brings a minimum of balance on this page- is deleted again, I will feel obliged to cite many counter-studies for each of the given references.

I hope the Wikipedia supervisor will keep a watchful waiting eye on this. Thank you.

Kamal Chaouachi, Researcher and Consultant in Tobacco Control Paris, France, 4 February 2007

... could use some work. I'm not familiar with the medical literature, but this section seems to be anti-hookah. In addition, the sentence about the study cited sets off a red flag... you can't estimate the amount of nicotine entering the body by measuring the time spent smoking the hookah and consider that equivalent to chain smoking for the same amount of time. Plus, a lot of this controversial material is uncited. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 I agree I find it highly biased. -Ali

Not just biased. COMPLETELY FALSE! The serveral sources it quotes for "shisha is safer" statistics are actually completely opposite. example: Thomas Eisenberg is not a proponent of the safety of smoking a hookah but actually presents data to the exact opposite (in line with standard data on it). The other quote from the article about gum disease actually DOES indicate that smoking a hookah will increase your chance for periodontal disease. - Damon

Since there's a lot of talk about the WHO 'findings', I added a paraphrase of them. I wasn't trying to add to the bias, but I didn't want to keep flipping around between Wikipedia and an external link. Presumably, the casual reader won't want to either. Not that I'm anti-sheesha - sheesha sessions are important parts of my life. --Silverscaledsalmon (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Cannabis Resources" template

The template at the end of this article may be misleading; it seems to show that illegal drugs smoking in the main use for hookas... What do you think ?
FiP ^{Как вы думаете?} 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Putting the cannabis list there implies that its commonly used in illicit activity. -March 24, 2007

Alright... where to begin, laws have nothing to do with this, keep your subjective moral opinions out of this, although the main use of hookahs is to smoke tobacco, many people use it to smoke other herbs or herbal extracts, in fact, it IS very common. Leaving this use out of the article is just as biased as saying hookahs are only used to smoke pot. Possibly add a line such as:

Many traditional hookah smokers are offended by the use of a hookah for smoking psychoactive substances other than tobacco, and do not like it's association with marijuana, hash, or opium. Most hookah smoker do not smoke Opiates or Canabinoids in their hookahs, however, many do.

Try to keep opinions out of this, if you need your view expressed, do it in an unbiased way, and let other have their say as well.

heck, if you hate substances that your government has told you not to ingest so much, why not start a separate section? It would allow you to add historical, traditional, cultural, etc etc, references on the controversy. I have no problem with mentioning controversy, and explaining it to the full extent, however, other people's opinions are just as valid as yours, and should not be ignored.

editorial content

"...and is primarily used by those that have only experienced this particular aspect of Middle Eastern culture in its cheaper, commercialized form in the West."

aka American retards who don't know what they're talking about, and aren't oldschool and cultured like me. This paragraph has inappropriate (condescending) tone.

If there are no protests, I'm going to go ahead and delete that paragraph. It adds nothing, and contradicts Shisha.

hookah userbox

Fellow hookah enthusiasts and smokers we need to get a Hookah userbox can someone please make one. So that we can proclaim "This user smokes Hookah and is proud."

Difference between a hookah and a bong?

Is there any functional difference between a hookah and a bong? If so, maybe a section on how it works would be of merit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The South Asia section of this article is poorly referenced and does not cite sources for assertions made. May require cleanup.

I've created (unfortunately using an anonymous user) a section explaining how the hookah works.

Hookah vs bong

Basically the principle is the same. Tobacco is burning, and smoke is drawn through a tube that leads to a water container that cools off the smoke. However, a bong has no valves or gaskets. Its usually made of two components: The bong and a tube.

The tube of the bong is the equivalent of the hookah's bowl

—- Smackware

One is for marijuana, and has no hoses, no valves, does not use charcoal, and smells of hippies. The other is a hookah.

The irony with the above statement is that I've only ever used a hookah for smoking cannabis. The main difference between the two is that the substance you are smoking in a bong is burnt and that the substance you are smoking in a hookah is roasted. Also, while a hookah may be used for smoking any number of things, smoking tobacco from a bong is pretty silly, you'd just cough a lot, have to drink a ton of water and maybe feel a bit dizzy. 194.81.105.171 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the high?

From what I've seen of people using a shisha is much more of a high than smoking, I've grown up around them and seen/ see the effects first hand often. I've always attrbuted that to the fact that while using a shisha people take in soo much smoke it's lack of oxygen thing. Since it apparantly only gives the user 1/200th nicotine of a cigarette per 45mins and the effects I've seen happen instantly. If it also only give sthe user a fraction of a single cigarette why is the effect so much more pronounces? I've seen papers where they conclude (using VERY high temperature coal 700°c compared to 100°c) that it produces more nicotine CO etc, in which case the results would be better explained, but usually criticism of these papers is that usually the coal is much cooler. Is it that the coal is truly much hotter than 100°c? Or am I missing sometihng? Wolfmankurd 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

200 - 300 cigarettes

Could someone please reference me to the following study (Stated in article): "One study found that a session of hookah smoking which lasts about 45 minutes is similar in nicotine tar and carbon monoxide intake from 200-300 cigarettes."

I've been searching for such and haven't found any research claiming 45min*hookah ~ |200-300|*cigarettes. Also, I have been conducting my very own research for many years... which, uhh, involved way more than just 45 minutes of smoking hookah :)...

Consider the following: Between 2003 and 2006, almost every weekend (Thursday, Friday and Saturday) I have been smoking approx 2-3 hours per day. This excludes all other smoking during the rest of the week,

The research mentioned above suggests that I have consumed at least 600 cigarettes per weekend. Most surveys and researches I've found, using Google, state that average cigarette smokers smoke approx 100-120 cigarettes in a week.

Even if such a research was conducted, I find the conclusion exaggerated. I think I should have had several nicotine poisoning cases by now.

    I agree, that statement seems pretty absurd - Circler

Health Section?

The section currently reads: "Health benefits and risks Health effects of tobacco smoking are widely known. But don't believe all the lies too much. Smoking Hookah (Shisha) isn't like smoking cigarettes or weed. It's very good for health. It has vitamin A, B, C and even D!"

First, this doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. Secondly, it's totally wrong. Recent studies show a significant, negative impact on the health of the smoker. In fact, it's many times worse than cigarette smoking. It needs to be revised. [5][6] [7] 128.241.109.243 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True, sounds horrible, however, the many times worst thing is also horrible... ok, to begin: Health effects of SMOKING tobacco ARE widely known, however, very little research has been done on vaporisation, hookah smoke is obtained by indirectly heating very very wet tobacco, resulting in much less actual substances being burned or vaporised, and since blends of tobacco vary widely, as well as burning time, temperature, and charcoal quality, little can conclusively be drawn. All we can assume safely is that there will be more carbon monoxide, as charcoal produces it and the tobacco is burned slowly at a lower temperature, which usually results in more carbon monoxide, but amount will vary greatly, and the water may absorb quite a bit... we can also assume that for the same volume of tobacco leaf, not weight or time or bowls, the chemicals released and produced will be LESS than from smoking, how much less cant be determined accurately, but it will be less, HOWEVER, some harmful chemicals might break down when burning, and not while vaporising, or may not vaporise at all, so, some chemicals in cigarette smoke may not be present, and others may be much higher, again, this will change with the tobacco blend and the charcoal, so exact figures are impossible.

Now... seriously, wtf? the line about lies is HORRIBLE! As far as I can tell, your calling the health effects of smoking tobacco lies... ok. no. bad writer. bad. and the term is marijuana or cannabis.

Very good for health... again, someone is being remarkably stupid here.

As for vitamins, somehow I doubt that all these vitamins vaporise at hookah temperatures, some may burn, some may stay in the tobacco, and some may not be absorbed very well as gases, so lets stay away from that, unless your suggesting people eat the tobacco, there are probably a few vitamins in cigarettes as well, but they are not good for your health.

As for the reply, the studies where flawed, obviously flawed in fact, and "many times" is misleading, as I've mentioned, it cant accurately be judged, some will be higher, some lower, some chemicals may never even be encountered with the other methode of consumption, as the health effects of each chemical is unknown, it's interaction with the other chemicals unknown, the amount of tobacco and other matter unknown, chemical composition of the charcoal unknown, temperature of the water unknown, saturation of the water unknown, burning temperature due to distance from charcoal unknown, relative daily amount of consumption unknown, etc etc etc... ANY conclusion drawn from any study, other than, possibly, a HUGE study of actual hookah smoker's individual smoking habbits, will be flawed and very subjective, ok if your trying to decide whether to smoke shisha or not, but not in an encyclopedia. Although, "significant, negative impact on the health of the smoker" is probably accurate enough for an encyclopedia. Unless you want to add a good unbiased section on health STUDIES, lets stick to verifiable FACTS about health, no theories. Really, the whole many times thing is just silly, seriously.

So, we could stick to observable facts, such as less lung irritation, more CO, and problems associated with chemicals known to be released by hookah smoking, like nicotine, however, anything else should be noted as controversial and unproven, or left out. Theories on more or less chemicals are just that, theories, and should be left out of an encyclopedia. This is not an opinion piece, it's an encyclopedia article, so lets keep personal opinions on tobacco and smoking in general out of this. Possibly a link to a tobacco health page or article? At most, I suggest:

Tobacco smoke has been proven to cause serious health problems when inhaled regularly, however, since shisha is traditionally smoked using indirect heat and a lower temperature, and filtered through water, the health effects of it's use will not be the same as smoking cigarettes. Shisha smoke is produced by indirect heat, resulting in a different amount of various chemicals being introduced into the user's lungs, although many users report less lung irritation or subjective long term effects, the health effects of shisha smoking versus cigarette smoking are still in question. Studies have shown that many of the same chemicals released during smoking are present in shisha smoke, sometimes in higher quantities, as well as lower, however, because of the wide variation in smoking techniques and habbits, as well as the varied chemicals and plants used in shisha, no conclusive data can be drawn. Shisha smoke does contain tobacco smoke, which has been shown to have negative health effects, and although some of those effects may be lessened, or worsened by smoking shisha, shisha smoke should not be considered a safe alternative to cigarettes,only a personal preference.

Scientific studies can be added here, if well cited and identified as such, but use discression.

Merge with shisha

Why is there a separate page for the same thing? I suggest the shisha article to be merged into this one. Funkynusayri 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...go for it? Just take the new content (Arabic words, for one, but we need proper transcription), and set up a redirect. --Mgreenbe 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've probably missed something minor, but, anyone can go back to retrieve that from the history of the shisha article. Funkynusayri 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hashish vs Tobacco........too much focus on tobacco

This article seems a lot more focused on tobacco hookah smoking when in fact hashish (cannabis resin) was the original product that was smoked. Hashish has never refered to tobacco and I will modify this as well. Zachorious 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the article not necessary

Additions such as "Hookah ('vesipiip' in Estonian) has also gained major popularity in Estonia, where it has caused contoversy amongst the troubled parents. Still, you can hardly find any party or (youth) gathering without a hookah." are completely unnecessary in my opinion. Anecdotal information like this doesn't add to the discussion at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.194.106 (talk) 19:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of anecdotal opinion; I've removed this from the ma'asel section... "Some arabs are mildly offended when you call it anything else. ". raining girl 11:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicotine controversy (in introduction)

I've noticed there is alot of controversy regarding nicotine etc in the above discussions and I'm not getting into that debate at all, but this sentence in the introduction is very clumsy, unreferenced and doesn't seem an accurate reflection of the discussion above. I have removed it and placed it here because of its poor wording (I'm just doing a quick copy-edit of the article) but if people feel that it belongs in the introduction, please improve the sentence before replacing it.

Also there are a lot of controversies, on the fact if hookah has nicotine in it or not. (Harvard University studies have proven there is no nicotine in the Hookah. There is a flavored tobacco which gets steamed away from the filter.However there is no nicotine).

Thanks, JenLouise 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

svg image

I have no idea about this subject, but I saw this nice picture. Perhaps u guys wanna put it in, or help correct it if it has any mistakes. I could translate it if u give me the names in english. --Canislupusarctos 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mada'a, yemeni water pipe

Someone who is knowledgeable on the subject should add Mada'a, the yemeni water pipe. http://www.google.com/search?q=mada%27a+water+pipe --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

common now yall hubbly bubbly is not mixing marijuana with shisha get educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.210.83 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Line

"Malaysia

Malaysia too has seen an increase in hookah use and cafes offering hookah more commonly known as shisha pipes. Nonetheless, this is only to cater the increasing number of tourists from the Middle East. Malaysians are smart enough to know that smoking kills. [6]"

That last sentence adds nothing to the article and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.252.226 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the note. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify

so, IS it bad for you? is it like smoking cigarettes or something? I'm just wondering, not sure. i don't really know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.255.14 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

where can i buy hookah?

Hey, does anyone know where I can buy a hookah online ?? I have around 100 dollars i can spend

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.25.21 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as a reminder this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hookah article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please refer to the talk page guidelines for more information. Anyway to answer your question you can try using ebay or online shops which can be found on search engines like Google and Yahoo!.  S3000  ☎ 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hose composition

I've always wondered, the hose is very flexible, and (somewhat) hot smoke passes through it. WHat is it made of. nowadays, synthetic rubber? And what was it made of historically? When sugar cane mentioned in the article wasn't available. 64.252.11.134 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but upon examining mine, I would guess tanned leather and some type of binding thread or twine. If you closely examine a hose, you will see that a seam runs along the entire length of it, suggesting that a sheet of "leather" (or whatever material) is being rolled into a hollow tube and somehow sealed closed. The ridged appearance (again, at least on mine) is caused by tightly wound thread or twine being neatly spiraled along the hoses entire length.

Those with more knowledge on the subject are free to correct me, however.

Seary6579 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Hookah Communities

I think Online Hookah communities should be listed somewhere on the wiki. Online communities are a hugely popular place to go, to learn about hookah's from regular hookah users. You can get tips, tricks, find vendors or products and get many discounts for community users only. A couple communities include www.whookah.com, www.hookahforum.com and www.hookahpro.com. Each one has very useful articles for any hookah user, whether they are a pro or just beginning. You can find topics on how to get your smoke thicker to topics on peoples opinions on the ever growing question, "Are hookah's safer than cigarettes?".

We can't leave the online hookah communities out of the wiki. The Wiki is an online source of information so why not include the best places online to get info on hookah.

Nroph (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Barhom I would like to know the "legal" status of "hookah" cafés in states where smoking has been prohibited where there are employees, like New York, Sweden etc. What happened to these cafés? I mean their entire business model was on smoking this.