Talk:Tobacco

Levels of AGE's are dependent on the curing method used.

Depending on the curing method used, there are different levels of AGE's produced. This is an important distinction to make. I have added this to the Curing page. In addition I have added which curing methods produce higher and lower sugar and nicotine levels.70.137.162.131 (talk)Martin M. Haffner70.137.162.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Information on legality of tobacco use worldwide?

Is tobacco legal to own everywhere? I mean, aside from the bans on smoking in specific locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.192.121 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Nepal (or was it Bhutan?) os the only country in the world where tobacco itself is now illegal. Til Eulenspiegel 05:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco is illegal only in Bhutan. I added that to the lead with a ref

Unclear and Unreferenced paragraphs

"Many children have health problems because they are exposed to smoke which their parents produce and inhaling many dangerous substances and poisons like smokers. So we decide to invent a law for resolving this problem. This law consists to forbid to the parents to smoke in presence of them children or babies. The consequence if we don’t respect this law is to pay fines of 300$ the first time and it raises for 300$ at every time. The arguments for and against this law: For: - Smoke exposure causes acute lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and young children. - Smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms among school-aged children. - Babies who are exposed to smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.

Against: -Many parents think that is their responsibility to decide what is good for their children not the one of the government -Some parents think that the smoke isn’t dangerous for their children"

What law is this? Where from? These two paragraphs seem like they're pure speculation/opinion. Actually, I'm deleting them from the health effects section, if someone has a good reason to put the information back in--properly cited--they can do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.192.121 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

older entries

The last paragraph is super akward. Someone should go in and correct the syntax and diction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.141.168 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will other contributors please examine the statements that checkmate15 has reinserted:

"The use of smokeless tobacco in lieu of smoked tobacco does not appear to significantly reduce the risk of developing cancers" and "Significantly shorter life expectancies have also been associated with tobacco usage" (rather than "tobacco smoking")

and read the links checkmate15 re-inserted to support those statements, and the links checkmate15 removed?

Me fix, It good now. Gzuckier 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

It appears that the user with the IP of 66.228.197.234 may have a non NPOV with regards to Tobacco in general and especially smokeless tobacco. I suggest an eye be kept out for edits by this user as they may be damaging to the overall integrity of the article. -- checkmate15

We should discuss Nicotine found in other plants such as Eggplant. --Mrtobacco 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree. Why would someone invent a smokeless cigarette? It must be a plot to prevent cancer. But why not just keep it a secret and become the worst killer in history?

---

Need to figure out where/when to start breaking out different pages. For instance, "snuff" in the first paragraph has a ? referal to a yet unwritten page, but there's a nice section on snuff in the text of the page. -- saracarl

I agree. You'll also notice that there's an extensive writeup on different types of pipe tobaccos on the smoking pipe page linked from the article.

However, until this article gets fleshed out a bit more, I vote that we don't reorganize it.

-Ben Brumfield

my opinion is that it probably all wants to get consolidated here. (i made "snuff" a redirect to here). i started "cigar" and "cigarette", but i think eventually those want to redirect here as well. --user:RAE

I've reorganized the headers a little bit. I like italics for subheadings, but don't much care for the bullet points. Any other opinions? -Ben Brumfield

---

I'm interested to know why RAE added the line about dipping looseleaf? As far as I'm aware, there's very little significant difference between dipping and chewing looseleaf.

-Ben Brumfield

i've never chewed, only dipped, so i'm speaking of that whereof i know not - pls fix if wrong --user:RAE

So in chewing, you take a three-finger pinch and tuck it betwen your cheek and gum. Typically you have to ball it up with your tongue a bit if it gets unruly, or take it out and chomp on it a couple of times to soften it up. Then tuck it back into place and enjoy.

I always associate dipping with tucking something away and not doing anything else with it than that. If that definition is good, isn't looseleaf chewed? --Ben

---

Is there any step by step information on how to make chewing tobacco available anywhere on the web? If so.. perhaps such detailed information may be helpful on this tobacco page or a new page for "chewing tobacco".

It would also be useful for me personally as I've searched and searched and while I can find plenty of info on the web about preparing tobacco for smoking, there's nothing step by step and informative on preparing chewing tobacco from the tobacco plant. Book references and web links to information appreciated. Please post here. I've grown my own tobacco before but other than it looking nice I've never known how to turn it into chewing tobacco. I enjoy chewing Copenhagen Snuff but it's getting too expensive at $5.00 or more a can to continue buying when I can just make chewing tobacco for myself (if I knew how that is). I look forward to and appreciate all replies to this message! Thanks for reading and the work on this Tobacco section on Wikipedia. I love tobacco. :) --Demonslave 11:02, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried snus? I get it from [1] for about $2.70 per can - and that's shipped from Sweden. Yes, there's about $5.00 shipping, but buy 5 cans and the pain is reduced. Plus, studies are showing it to have dramatically less deleterious health effects than the American stuff. I switched from cigarettes to snus about a month ago, and I'm never going back. --NightMonkey 22:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

Oh, I found this interesting audio file about snus and its use in Sweden: http://www.theworld.org/content/04073.wma

But I didn't add a link to it on the Tobacco page, just thought I should mention it here for all interested. --Demonslave 11:26, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, why not put it over in snus? ;) --NightMonkey 22:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: The CDC quote "For some people, it can be as addictive as heroin or cocaine." Since this quote is attributed, it does not have to be NPOV. I think it should be put back in the article. Rhobite 03:39, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't deny that the quote, itself, is accurate, nor incorrectly attributed. I question its inclusion due to the inflammatory nature of the quotation. For every person you can find that would match the quote, one could find someone who doesn't. I can understand the quote for what is meant, but my observations that many others can't get the real meaning and just get stuck on the negative connection.

Hmm... is it inflamatory, or the truth? Why should a statement, if true, be removed? Perhaps it should be placed in a "contreversy" section? If there is a negative connection, that, in and of itself, should not preclude inclusion, just as a positive connection does not. This article isn't an advertisement for Tobacco. I agree with Rhobite, and think it should be re-added. --NightMonkey 22:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Although I understand the hesitant attitude of making this a advertisment for tobacco, I think that adding such information on tobacco's addictive nature can be better versed without overdoing it on the negative side. Just as this shouldn't be an ad for tobacco, it shouldn't turn into an anti-tobacco article either. We should list potential side effects with plain "addiciton" being one...but also list reasons why people choose to use it such as "flavor, to moisten dry mouth, releave stress, ect...NOT "peer pressure, to act older, ect.."

As a dipper of moist smokeless tobacco myself(Kodiak), and the occasional user of loose leaf(Red Man), I have never heard of loose leaf being "dipped". Usually when someone is referring to dip,dipping, or dipping tobacco they are reffering to moist smokeless tobacco. When talking about loose leaf its commonly called chew or chewing tobacco. Techincally you don't "chew" on moist smokeless tobacco its generally far to finely cut or ground to actually chew.

---

As far as the addictive properties of tobacco are concerned, the chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20drugs.gif) from the Lancet may be helpful. It would appear that, in general, tobacco is less addictive than cocaine or heroin, but is more addictive than methadone.

---

Tobacco Kiln vs. Tobacco Barn

An anonymous user changed the word "barn" to "kiln" in the curing section for fire-cured tobacco. Google returns 48K hits for "tobacco barn" vs. around 700 for "tobacco kiln", but it turns out that this is the Australian term for a flue-cured tobacco barn. See [2] for an example. Ben 03:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Snuff edit

I made a major edit of the snuff section before I had registered. The "European Snuff" section is mine.

My medical references to snuff & hay fever are direct personal experience and confirmation that I received from my Ear, Nose & Throat specialist (who told me that he actually suggests snuff to some of his patients!)

BTW: I have a snuff page on my site: HowdyDave - Snuff --Dave ©¿©¬ 03:32, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

So you edited a Wiki page based on what your doctor told you that he told some of his patients? Well done. 66.65.171.198 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey HowdyDave, I would be interested to see if you can find an actual source for the claims your doctor has made. I actually read that passage and made sure there was a there. I do think that the actual text was interesting and good for the section. I'd like to see it put back there if you can find a source other than your friend/med studen drop out/ doctor. If you find one, tell us about it in the talk page. :) Beam 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Catagory changes - hallucinogen?

I'm really not an expert on tobacco, so I could be wrong, but I don't think it is a hallucinogen is it? --Benna 00:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At high doses it is, just put in some info about that and can provide references if necessary, although it will take me a day or two to find. eating a handful of rustica is much different than smoking a cigarette. I've been organizing some of these categories and placed tobacco in both herbal & fungal stimulants as well as herbal & fungal hallucinogens; as those are subcategories of herbal & fungal drugs/medicines, its already in that category by default. If you are still unhappy with this please get in touch on my talk page, as i'm sure we can figure something out. --Heah 00:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thats fine then, as long as its stressed that its in really high doses that is has that effect. --Benna 02:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tobacco is not a hallucinogen at all, therefore, I have removed it from the categories entheogen and hallucinogen. --76.214.104.171 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.235.152 (talk)

Can you post a citation here? I'd be interested to read that... Beam 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took that out too; not only was it not sourced/not detailed ("high doses" not good enough), but I'm also pretty sure it's not true. Tobacco, for the most part, can actually kill you pretty quick at one go and you don't have to eat/absorb much of it -- something in my head is saying you could snack on the equivalent of five or six regular-sized cigarettes and, if you don't actually die, you'll be so sick you'll wish you were. In other words, long before you start tripping, you'll be either puking your guts out or talking the whole experience over in the past tense with St. Peter. (Of course I didn't add any of that info to the article, not having good sources handy, but I will see if I can dig up information about the use of tobacco juice [for instance] as pesticide, which was/is a fairly common practice before more/less yucky chemicals became available. I'm also fairly certain there are OSHA laws about tobacco pickers having to wear gloves because of how toxic the stuff is to handle on a daily basis. And I'm not knocking it in general -- I'm from Virginia and smoking's the best, blah blah -- but the whole hallucinogen thing I'm pretty certain is relative hogwash.) The End. Sugarbat (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC) [Addendum: After I typed the above, I read the comments just below, and I want to reiterate that what I think I know is that the toxicity I'm talking about is related to either consuming "a lot" of tobacco plant/juice within a few minutes, or exposing your skin directly to it all day long, for weeks/months. I don't disagree with what Heah says, and please note she uses the word "entheogenic," which isn't a synonym for "hallucinogenic," even though sometimes a substance can have both qualities. Sugarbat (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)]

Toxicitiy inconsistencies

The article's second paragraph claims that there's a lethal dose of nicotine contained in as little as three cigarettes; however, the article later claims that shamans would consume tobacco in excessive quantities to achieve entheogenic effects. How did they manage to do so without dying?

thought i just posted this, but guess i just closed the window without saving it . . . apparently there is a drawback to tabbed browsing. Anyways. What's also interesting is that generally they use Nicotiana rustica for entheogenic purposes, which contains up to twenty times as much nicotine as north american varieties, according to some studies- meaning there's enough nicotine to kill you in much less than a quarter of a cigarette.

My short answer would be tolerance- an apprentice using tobacco will start his or her training very young, 8 or 9 years old, starting with a VERY small amount of tobacco. They do this every day for years, minutely increasing the dose along the way; it can often take a decade or more for such an apprenticeship to be completed. by the time you have worked up to significantly entheogenic amounts, your body has adjusted to the toxicity. Tolerance to the toxicity of nicotine seems to build easily; notice that one cigarette will often make a non-smoker sick while others can chain smoke 5 packs a day. As would be expected, the entheogenic use of tobacco isn't as common as it once was in the rainforest given the length of time it takes to be able to use it and the ever increasing age of those who did learn when they were young.

I would also hazard a guess that tobacco is entheogenic in lower quantities than assumed, but we are using for very different purposes and in very different surroundings. If i smoke too many cigarettes late at night and yawn, due to the combination of the nicotine and a head rush i very breifly find myself in a state similar to that of many dissociatives. --Heah 21:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point, additionally there are many Internet rumors claiming Al Quaida planned to make skin contact poisons using cigarettes. This is silly and clearly disinformation aimed to frighten the public. Al Quaida has much more powerful weapons and smoking is killing us quickly anyway. Don't fall for the Internet myth about skin contact poisons, it's hokum because you can't absorbe it that quickly through the skin in the concentrations they are purporting.

World Bank analysis

Not sure how this would fit into the article, but it's interesting. This is from a World Bank report (see www.drug-policy.org/documents/ illicit_drugs_convention_reform ):

While interventions to reduce demand for tobacco are likely to succeed, measures to reduce its supply are less promising. This is because, if one supplier is shut down, an alternative supplier gains an incentive to enter the market. The extreme measure of prohibiting tobacco is unwarranted on economic grounds aswell as unrealistic and likely to fail. Crop substitution is often proposed as a means to reduce the tobacco supply, but there is scarcely any evidence that it reduces consumption, since the incentives to farmers to grow tobacco are currently much greater than for most other crops....

True, perhaps, but policy & facts are N necessarily congruent. The same applies to MJ & cocaine, & the drug warriors continue to support crop sub, burn, & ban, despite 30yrs' failure... Trekphiler 02:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Genus or Species?

Nicotiana tabacum or Nicotiana? Not a good solution like it is now. --Saperaud 14:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is only one species but it does not represent the whole genus.AnnaP 00:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the word "tobacco"

What is the source of the Y-shaped pipe explanation presented in the opening paragraph? The life of Christopher Columbus (1891), page 93 reads, "These mosquetes, as we should call them, they call tobacos." Here the author is referring to cigars: dried tobacco leaves wrapped in a tobacco leaf and smoked, as encountered on November 3 or November 4, 1492 by an expeditionary party dispatched by Christopher Columbus. It would seem that "they" were not the Spaniards, but rather the inhabitants of a village some "12 leagues" inland from the Cuban coast, in which case "tobacos" would be a local term, not an originally Spanish one. I don't understand what the book's author, Edward Everett Hale, meant by "mosquetes", which, as far as I can tell, simply means "muskets" (the weapon) in Spanish (obsolete slang for cigars?). Hale was a writer, not a scholar. At any rate, this article needs better grounding for a statement about the origin of the word, tobacco. Myron 12:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th ed. (1860), which obviously antedate's Hale's publication, reads, "The word tobacco has been the subject of much inquiry, and is not very satisfactorily accounted for. Some derive it from Tabago or Tabacco, one of the lesser Antilles; others from Tabasco, an island in the bay of Campeachy; others, again, from the circumstance that the herb is wrapped up for use in a dry leaf, which forms a sheath or envelope, and that this kind of sheath is always called tabacos by the Caribbeans." In light of this, the claim that the word is Spanish, while not disproven, is certainly insufficiently supported to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia article. Myron 13:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed. (1888) states that, "The term tobacco appears not to have been a commonly used original name for the plant, and it has come to us from a peculiar instrument used for inhaling its smoke by the inhabitants of Hispaniola (San Domingo). The instrument, described by Oviedo (Historia de las Indias Occidentales, Salamanca, 1535), consisted of a small hollow wooden tube shaped like a Y, the two points of which being inserted in the nose of the smoker, the other end was held into the smoke of burning tobacco, and thus the fumes were inhaled. This apparatus the natives called 'tabaco'...." Myron 13:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Shisha

I would like to see some information on shisha. I know only that it is a kind of tobacco commonly smoked in hookahs, and I think the Egyptians originally made it by washing the tobacco to reduce the nicotine. Modern shisha has about 25% of the nicotine of cigarettes, and comes in various flavors. Any info appreciated. --NormalAsylum (t) 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nicotiana genus

this article needs some serious reworking if this one is supposed to be a describtion of the nicotiana genus. as it is right now, it looks like a nice information page about all different kind of tobacco products and related information how to grow it etc... e.g. there is no word about the approx number of species within this genus, which is today known to be 67. this just as a simple example. another thing is that i am missing completely any information about the ecology of certain nicotiana species, why is it that some of them are pioneer plants, what is the tight ecological niche these plants fit in??

if i am searching for nicotiana, i get redirected to this page. maybe there should be a separate page about nicotiana genus?!

I favor your suggestion that nicotiana get a second page, about biology. "Tobacco" is a little to specific a term, and has so many cultural and industrial references that even if we were to add info on the biology of nicotiana, it would probably get drowned out. -Ben 12:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

this article starts with "Tobacco (Nicotiana spp., L.) refers to a genus of broad-leafed plants of the nightshade family indigenous to North and South America or to the dried and cured leaves." but this is not entirely right. first: Nicotiana attenuata for instance has lanceolate leaves. second: of course the most plants of the Nicotiana genus are present on the american continent: America (48 species) and Australia (18 species), but one is also growing in southern Melanesia and one in Namibia. -- Hendriks 10:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

A smokeless cigarette?! I agree. Why would someone invent a smokeless cigarette? It must be a plot to prevent cancer. But why not just keep it a secret and become the worst killer in history?

Ubiespam

Has anyone else noticed this seemingly innocuous insertion of references to "the Ubie" and smokeless cigarettes in the tobacco and cigarette articles? It just smells fishy is all, that it would recieve such consistent placement. I think that someone might have an agenda. 130.85.248.110

Yes. It is most annoying. Couldn't someone run a bot to watch these pages for ubie-insertions? Zanaq 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Europe

History section omits intro date to Eur. Contrary to common belief, it was Sp Dr, Francisco Fernandez, in 1558, N Walter Raleigh. (I just wish I could quote a source...) Trekphiler 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Prescription

Just came across another factoid: tobacco in Br was available only thru apothecaries. (I just wish I could quote a source...) Trekphiler 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvesting and African Americans

I heard, but cannot confirm (that's why I listed it here rather in the article) that tobacco has a toxic liquid in it (like milkweed, I think) that burns people when they first touch it, but after awhile they develop an immunity to it. However, for some reason, African Americans have a natural immunity and thus were very attractive as slaves a few hundred years ago in the American southeast. Can anyone confirm this?--HereToHelp (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two potential bases for this story. Green Tobacco Sickness is a problem for any laborer handling tobacco with their bare hands. It is caused by absorption of nicotine through the skin from contact with the gum of the plant leaves or juice of the plant. The greater nicotine tolerance a worker has (either from tobacco consumption or regular field work), the less susceptible they are to GTS.

The racial aspect of this story is probably a reference to the conventional wisdom of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that people of African descent were better suited to the climate of the South. Any basis for this in fact may have been transported Africans' greater immunities to tropical diseases due to prior exposure in Africa -- immunities not acquired by transported Europeans. Seems like the story is conflating the real phenomenon of GTS with the racial legend. -Ben 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

products

Why is the cigarette not listed at the products? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography contents

The entry "Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production" refers to a book that is out of print. At any rate, its purview seems too specialized for an article on tobacco in general. Actually, many of the items in the Bibliography section are quite specialized and probably don't deserve mention here. I hope people familiar with the tobacco literature will suggest which entries should be removed and which books merit inclusion. Myron 12:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is a bibliography section supposed to suggest further reading, or to cite sources actually used? If the latter, the section as listed probably should stand. -Ben 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The bibliography section should include references actually used. Furthermore its section heading should be "References" as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard headings and ordering and inferred by Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to cite sources.

Being out of print does not mean that it is neither verifiable nor accessible. The book mentioned above does not seem to be too specialised for this article, particularly if it was actually used as a reference. Need to check with the editor who added the reference as to what they used from the book.--A Y Arktos 23:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sowing

Most tobacco farmers no longer use this form of sowing, they use what is called a float bed, where the plants (along with dirt and fertilizer) are planted on styrofoam trays (which are laid out like grids) that are then floated in a pool of water inside a makeshift green house. I think a sentace should be alloted for this technique. Enigma 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco history: did the eastern hemisphere just smoke opium pre columbus?

Before tobacco was brought back to the old world, what were people smoking? --Fxer 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at all, in Western Europe. Early accounts of tobacco use commented on how strange "drinking smoke" was. I'm sure the reception was different in areas where opium or hashish was smoked, however. -Ben 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect:

• Did the Romans smoke?
• The poppy plant, Paper somniferums history begins with the ancient Sumerians. The ancient Sumerians referred to the flower as hul gil or plant of joy. The Sumerians passed their knowledge of the plant to the Assyrians. The Assyrians gave their knowledge of poppy cultivation to the Babylonians who passed their understanding to the Egyptians. inThe opium trade flourished during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The Egyptian civilization promoted use of opium as a sleep aid. Even Egyptian Pharaohs were buried with opium artifacts.(quote from http://www.poppies.ws/poppies/history-of-poppies.html)
• Smoking

Maggy Rond (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A. First link single paragraph from "The Gentleman's Magazine" cited by the NYT in 1896 about Romans' smoking "coltsfoot." Snap! [see B.]

B. Second point doesn't refute Ben-point (which qualifies itself, making A. moot).

C. ?

Thank you -- Sugarbat (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Addictiveness

Why is there no mention of the highly addictive nature of this substance?

An eeeeeeevil conspiracy! Seriously, there are a few references within the article, but the subject is covered more extensively under articles on the health effects of smoking.

This article is obviously extremely biased in favor of tobacco consumption. The letters ADDICT, including addiction and addictive, are only found once in the article with ctrl-F. There is no talk of the withdrawal symptoms experienced by those trying to stop tobacco use. If this is not rectified, I will add these subjects in myself, and I will include a myriad of references. And I make sure that it makes tobacco look bad.

• I just added the word in a singular and neutral fashion, along with two citations. I think there is too much science referring to it as an addiction (even by Philip Morris now) to have an article that doesn't use the word, wikilinked, at least once. I don't think you need to dwell on addiction, however, since the article is about the plant, not smoking per se. For the record, I smoke ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think it has to be noted that tobacco is addictive. It's common knowledge. And the idea that it is some sort of conspiracy is plain retarded. Beamathan (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco In Canada

I think it might be worth mentioning the Tobacco industry as it is in South Western Ontario. Primarily within the regions of Norfolk County, Oxford County and Haldimand County. There is no mention of this in the article at all.

US-centric article

This article is quite US-centric. You wouldn't know, for instance, from the History section, that there have been and are significant centres of tobacco cultivation outside of the USA. Can someone provide some balanced coverage for tobacco cultivation elsewhere?--Iacobus 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

bad reference

the final sentence of the introduction section indicates: in contrast, use of steam-cured chewing tobacco (snus), avoids the carcinogenicity by not generating nitrosamines, but the negative effects of the nicotine on the cardiovascular system and pancreas are not ameliorated.[4] this reference (an abstract) makes no statements about nicotine's effects on the pancreas, and it suggests that there are no significant differences re: the effects of nicotine (snus) on atherioscleroris when compared to non-users, only a higher risk in high BP. hence, there is non-factual and overgeneralized information provided in the statement. 128.147.38.10 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Whole First paragraph - delete it?

I'm new to this but it definitly isn't what I'd call Encyclopedia quality, personal pronouns and all. FelixNZ 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page, he's banned - have deleted the paragraph from this article and the tobacco smoking article FelixNZ

Genus Nicotiana and Nicotiana tabacum split-off

I think "Tobacco" as plant species (Nicotiana tabacum) and plant genus (Nicotiana L.) should be split off and distinguished from "Tobacco" the processed plant product (the focus of this article). Does anyone think so? If there are no objections, I will perform the split in a few days. Sjschen 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article doesn't say which specific species are used in producing tobacco for the tobacco industry. Badagnani 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed spam link

Link to Stogie Fresh website removed as spam.

--Flapjackboy 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Schedule I Drug?

This site states that tobacco is federally classified as a Schedule I drug in the U.S.

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Tobacco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.77.164 (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Tobacco is exempted from the Controlled Substances Act.--Wxyrty 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The references should be unified for clarity and consistence; the eternal links used as reference should be moved accordingly.Canaima 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Eggplant

There is no discussion on the quantity of Nicotine in Eggplant, which would be poingant to the article. --Mrtobacco 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't solely about nicotine -- it's about tobacco. Adding information about eggplant in your context would be like adding information about "pudding" to the article about "cake" just because both have sugar in them. Sugarbat 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I'm going to edit the "cake" article now. Beamathan (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I love you. Sugarbat (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco Culture

Why is there no mention of tobacco and cigar culture? Tobacco consumption is largely a social indulgence akin to alcohol. The lack of mention of this (especially in the introduction) with the focus on the negative effects of tobacco on the body make it read with a political bias.

Shouldn't there be a warning?

Tobacco contains Harmine, a powerful monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)

monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)+tyramine =cheese syndrome

monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)+ tryptophan=hyperserotonemia

Tyramine =foods that went through fermentation or decay. Foods containing considerable amounts of tyramine include fish, chocolate, alcoholic beverages, and fermented foods such as cheese, soy sauce and soy bean condiments, sauerkraut, processed meat, and red wine.

Tryptophan =chocolate, oats, bananas, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, fish, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds,spirulina and peanuts. It is found in turkey at a level typical of poultry in general.

List of foods containing tyramine

hum...since there are a lot of smokers, shouldn't there be a warning somewhere since these two syndromes are potentially lethal!!! --Wxyrty 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Before starting on a warning, it would be prudent to investigate whether the amount of harmala alkaloids ingested in the various forms of tobacco use is anywhere near enough to provoke these cross-reactions. If you don't do this, then it would tantamount to warning people to not eat almonds (and lots of other foods too) because they naturally contain harmless amounts of cyanide. Frotz 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exposure to lower levels of cyanide over a long period (e.g., after use of cassava roots as a primary food source in tropical Africa) results in increased blood cyanide levels. These may result in weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, and decreased thyroid gland function, but chemicals other than cyanide may contribute to these effects. Skin contact with cyanide can produce irritation and sores.

It is not known whether cyanides can directly cause birth defects in people. Birth defects were seen in rats that ate diets of cassava roots. Effects on the reproductive system were seen in rats and mice that drank water containing sodium cyanide.

Of course, the lethal amount of cross-reactions should be researched and stated. However, Smokers are exposed to tobacco all the time and these foods that contain Tyramine and/or Tryptophan seem very comman so I think there should be a warning just for that, since the accumulated effect through out a day could be very damaging and if an individual were unfortunated enough to consume the lethal amount, he/she would die --Wxyrty 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the list of foods again, I could not think of a single meal that I had that did not contain at least one of these foods: fish, chocolate, alcoholic beverages, and fermented foods such as cheese, soy sauce and soy bean condiments, sauerkraut, processed meat, red wine, oats, bananas, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds,spirulina, peanuts and turkey. This is very troubling, since the cross-reaction between these foods and tobacco is so deadly. At least there should be a warning because there is no shortage of ,tyramine, and tryptophan in foods and once Harmal is introduced into the body, the lethal combinations could occur for tobacco consumers.

The most worrisome aspect of these cross-reactions is that unlike cancer and other chronic illness which would take a long time to die from and where treatments are possible. These cross-reactions happen too quickly. If one were not informed of these cross-reactions and seek help immediately, then it would mean death for that unfortunated person, because treatments would become impossible or rather too late for them to have any effect.

Cheese syndrome

when the MAO enzymes are inhibited, tyramine concentrations can rapidly increase and become toxic. Tyramine mimics dopamine and norepinephrine structure and toxicity includes hypertensive crisis and possibly heart failure.

Hyperserotonemia

Symptom onset is usually rapid, often occurring within minutes after self-poisoning or a change in medication. Severe symptoms include severe hypertension and tachycardia that may lead to shock. Severe case often have agitated delirium as well as muscular rigidity and high muscular tension. Temperature may rise to above 41.1°C (105.98° F) in life-threatening cases. Other abnormalities include metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Later, someone could list the lethal amount and how long it takes the body to breakdown Harmine,tyramine, and tryptophan so to avoid lethal combinations of these substances in the body.

I suggest a warning be listed for now, then a list of the lethal amount later.--Wxyrty 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to know just how much harmala is present per gram of leaf, both fresh and cured and some figure on how much harmala is actually ingested. I think it's clear that it's nowhere near the level of Syrian Rue Frotz 07:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, it is Harmine not Harmala and tobacco is rich in Harmine, I will try to find out the lethal amount but in the mean time, shouldn't there be a warning? Also, I found something very interesting.

http://www.eff.org/Net_culture/Ritual/Drugs/legal_herbs.encyclopedia

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/smokmaoa.htm http://www.biopsychiatry.com/smokemao.htm

http://www.anthonygregory.com/parkinsonssmoking.htm http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol13N3/tobacco.html

--Wxyrty 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I said "harmala" because it's tobacco contains several members of the harmala family of alkaloids. Harmine is only one of them. There is no media storm about hypertensive crises in people smoking and eating cheese at the same time, for example, so no warning should be added yet. Frotz 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we have to wait for someone to die from these conditions before any serious measure could be taken to inform others. After all, this is the great American principle: if it is not broke why fix it? There is no assurance that other would listen. It is the others fault for not knowing that these interactions between these sustances are deadly. We knew in advance that even if the others were informed that the contineous consumption of these substances togather would harm them, they would continue to do it. There is no point, because it is our belief that others would just ignore us, and our belief is always right. So we must wait until one of them to die from these condtions then we will held our heads up high, for we knew something that they didn't, then say to the rest of them with pity, maybe even a few drop of tears: See, we knew this would happen, but we knew it was useless to tell you. Isn't that so? They will listen then and that is how we do things around here. People couldn't possibly learn before experiencing pain, like rats in a lab, because the media said so.--Wxyrty 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how recently you've looked at a pack of cigarettes (for example) lately, but at least in the U.S. every cigarette package (and, I think, every other container of all other kinds of tobacco -- smoking, chewing, sniffing, etc.?) already has a big old warning on it about how cigarettes contain carbon monoxide, and anyone (at least in the U.S.) who's old enough to legally buy and use such products, probably already is fully aware that smoking not just can, but does, cause cancer (physiological location dependent on form of tobacco used, and a person's predisposition to cancer types). My point is that if people choose not to heed the warnings that are printed right on packages of tobacco products, they're likely not going to be concerned about the relatively obscure dangers you list, above, if they were added to a wikipedia article. I think you'd be better served not worrying that people are going to die from not knowing about the risk of harmine poisoning associated with the use of tobacco products. Sugarbat 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go over the top here guys

yes Tobacco is dangerous but that Hamine comment is really over the top. There is no doubt that tobacco is carcinogenous (bad spelling I know) especially when burned. Nicotine is a toxin, sure but who at this point does not know this when they choose to start smoking. It's dangerous - just like Alcohol, Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Caffeine etc.. PERSONAL CHOICE MY FRIENDS....I've been smoking for 40+ years! --Mrtobacco 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the "intercourse PA" comments a joke or serious? Most Tobacco does not come from PA as PA only accounts for less then 5% of US Tobacco grown. I get the joke but is it appropriate?

--Mrtobacco 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into it. Frotz 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been so much anti-tobacco slander on the page I think I might be hyper sensitive. I've had to undo so much junk over the while --Mrtobacco 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Perhaps if we remove the name of the village from the caption. Frotz 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Unregistered User here:

Tobacco contains a minor quantity of harman, not harmine! They are both reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors and they both have a beta-carboline ring structure. Harmine is a strongly active MAO inhibitor by any route of administration in vivo, yet harman has only shown to be strongly active in in vitro studies. In vivo harman doesn't share pharmacological similarities with harmine. Harman has been found in many plants although usually not a contributor to the action for which they are known.

Here is an interesting abstract on the subject : Role of acetaldehyde in tobacco smoke addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.15.159 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On acetaldehyde, did anyone notice that the chemical is naturally found in ripe fruits, coffee, and fresh bread among other things -- that it's a natural product of the metabolism of plants? Frotz (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, you come up with one confirmed case in the past several hundred years of someone dieing from eating cheese and smoking, then I'll add it personally..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.130 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an amusing observation. If you click on that link above, you'll be taken to some page served up by http.com that appears to be a login page for a "rotator". Frotz (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be so delighted if that (the link) were somehow a super-subtle insult (not directed at you; just in general). Sugarbat (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification in the Third Paragraph

The first paragraph mentions different ways to use tobacco, and then the third paragraph starts with: "Long term tobacco use carries significant risks of developing various cancers as well as strokes, and severe cardiovascular and respiratory diseases." This just says "tobacco use," however the reference sited is specifically for smoking. Cancer should be a no-brainer for most people, but it's unclear as to whether or not all of these problems are caused by all tobacco use, given the reference.

there should be a category linking all 2,000+ chemicals in tobacco smoke

there should be a category linking all 2,000 + chemicals in cigarette smoke.

How is that any more informative than listing all 2000+ chemicals in apples? Frotz 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is NOT ABOUT CIGARETTE SMOKING - IT IS ABOUT THE PLANT TOBACCO! --Mrtobacco 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically this is an article about the processed agricultural product derived from Nicotiana. But I agree, this whole "list all the chemicals in cigarettes/tobacco" fanaticism does get a bit tiring. Sjschen 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

put it under one of the tobbaco use pages if your so damn militant about it --24.2.50.22 09:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess someone could create List of chemicals used in or generated by cigarettes, which would be perfecly logical. Sourcing might be difficult, however. Pharmboy (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

History?

tobbaco is a very important plant so wheres the history the plant is almost as important if not more important historicly than some of the other plants like sugar the number of spices europeans were looking for in the 16th century cotton salt its way up on the list of historicly significant resources so where is the history

Cancer? Anyone read something NOT put out by big medicine?

No independent, neutral study done outside the united states (including those sponsored by the WHO) has linked anything related to tobacco, the plant, with cancer. So far; every such NEUTRAL study only links chemicals added to tobacco to causing cancer, not the plant itself. When the general public, in the US and abroad, accept the facts; we can get past Big Chem and Big Med and address, and solve, the problem with tobacco: chemical additives. For over 5000 years people have smoked, chewed, and ingested tobacco with no record of anything remotely close to cancer being recorded. Then suddenly, in the late 1800s, early 1900s things changed drastically. Interesting coincidence that that is about the same time people started adding other things to the tobacco, first nutmeg (causes cancer), then Cobalt-Nitrate (causes cancer) then dozens, hundreds of other chemicals (many causing cancer.) Any statement generally along the lines of 'tobacco... causes cancer' is categorically, undeniably false. Any statement that it does shows either, at best, ignorance, and at worse intentional falsehood. Lostinlodos 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This being said, you cannot argue that smoking tobacco does cause cancer today, and yes it most likley is because what they're adding to it now. That still should be in this article, at least a section if not a major article.

See, what I believe needs to be done here is an additional article block (including the above referenced complete history) showing the timeline of tobacco, the plant, as a whole. I do not deny that many cigarettes, various chewing and ingestion tobacco's today do, in their entirety, cause cancer. It's the various statements that continually get added in, often by unregistered and new users, stating 'tobacco causes cancer' that is the issue here. That's a false statement. And much more attention needs to be drawn to the facts of the intention; chemicals added to tobacco cause cancer, despite what the Surgeon General of the US states, the fact of the matter is that "no additives" DOES "make a safer", if not safe (debatable), cigarette. That needs to be addressed. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No. [3]. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Tobacco still up to its "health effects are controversial" tricks

Some of the comments found in Wikipedia are difficult to understand other than as an attempt to extend tobacco sellers' decades-old "tobacco might be healthy" controversy-tricks to Wikipedia, and to minimize or obfusticate the causative role of tobacco smoke as a cause of asthma.

Big Tobacco's attempt to create the appearance of health "controversy" wherever it can seems to me to have extended to editing Wikipedia's "Tobacco" and "Smoking" pages, and to deleting mention of Big Tobacco's circumvention of its advertising agreements by product placement in movies from the Product Placement article.

Just as product placement in media such as movies is devastatingly effective advertising because it appears not to be advertising, misinformation planted in Wikipedia is devastatingly effective because those expecting to rely on it expect straight information, and do not expect it to be skewed for the profits of the tobacco sellers.

To the extent that the tobacco sellers succeed in extending the appearance of "controversy" to Wikipedia and depriving a new generation of the information needed to make a fully-informed decision about becoming a tobacco buyer, the tobacco sellers' direct and indirect profits will be huge and worldwide. It's censoring and throwing half-baked, off-topic studies to generate the appearance of "controversy" amount to subtle vandalism, and to the extent these tricky context tamperings are effective, are designed to suggest to impressionable preteens considering smoking -- tobacco seller's favorite marketing group -- that the health effects of tobacco use are, after all, in doubt.

Tampering with Wikipedia to dilute the fact that tobacco costs are far higher than the price per pack should be viewed as a call to Wikipedians familiar with the science on the issue to ensure that

(1) the science and facts needed to evaluate tobacco's risks and costs in context, and the insidious marketing strategies of tobacco sellers, are not allowed to be quietly deleted from the relevant pages,

(2) that tobacco sellers' smoke screen of off-topic implications that tobacco use might be healthy is addressed by full factual context, and

(3) that health professionals realize that there is a continuing need for vigilance in guarding the pages where potentially profitable young customers for Big Tobacco will come looking for presumably-accurate information -- that making sure that information is reliable -- not jimmied to increase sales -- is an ongoing public health issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.209 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you please give some examples as to what the **** you are talking about? Some specific instances would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Beam 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputing the factual accuracy and neutrality of multiple sections of this article without listing specific reasoning for doing so is not productive. I have reviewed the sections in question and do not find anything that does not appear to be factually accurate in the disputed sections. I have therefore deleted the tags. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter how the vandal tries to disguise it. NDM (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be locked?

Reviewing this article shows numerous subtle and not-so-subtle attempts at vandalism. I feel the editors should act to protect this site from further vandalism. NDM (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Locking the article is pretty ignorant of what Wikipedia is all about.

I have the page on my watch list, and I revert most vandalism asap. If I'm not here it gets reverted by someone else. There are enough editors who care, so I wouldn't even contemplate locking it. Beam 10:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I am glad to see that someone is keeping an eye on this. I am concerned that there are subtle forms of vandalism being tried here, such as the flags I removed. Keep up the good work! NDM (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think locking is that necessary. I'm another of those who watch this article for vandalism. Frotz (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm thinking that perhaps a semiprotect would be good for this page given the recent crop of anonymous edits that just inject misspellings and other subtle vandalism. Frotz (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Beam 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - what's up with that? Can anyone see (using technology I don't have at my disposal) whether the IPs are related in any non-obvious way? Like coming from the same backward village on Mars? Maybe a temporary protect wouldn't be so bad; the content of the vandalism suggests these characters don't have much of an attention span -- they might get bored quick and split? Sugarbat (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate dealing in absolutes, I really do, but I absolutely oppose any protection of this article. It is against the principle of Wikipedia. I work on a few protected and formerly protected articles such as Kosovo, Burma, and Israel. I fear that protection stifles progress by preventing the random anon who isn't an asshole from contributing. A lot of editors start illustrious and productive WikiLives with anon edits which leads to a registration and subsequent Wikipedia Barbecue and Firework display. Beam 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you volunteering for babysitting duty? :) (I actually just poked around at the trail of one of our vandals to see what other shenanigans he/she was up to, and was impressed by a period of relative committment to disruption. You might have your work cut out for you.) Sugarbat (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for months. As the replies in this section indicate, I'm not the only editor to do so. Do not have this article protected for the reasons I state above. Thanks for your cooperation. Beam 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy! I hope that wasn't a reaction to what I said (about the troll)! I'm neutral on the protection issue -- I was just pointing out that cleanup's tedious, and there are probably other editors who'd rather spend their editing time doing things other than poop-patrol. I think it's great that you're willing to watch for it, but you might be on a small team. Is all I'm saying. Sugarbat (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I read what you said. And if you read what I said, then you understand that there is no need to protect this article. That's all I am saying. Beam 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, dear Beam. But I'm still waiting for my illustrious Barbecue Display. Sugarbat (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't get one if you lock the article. Beam 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be locked. But if it is, I won't have done it. I told you; I'm Swiss. Today. Sugarbat (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

[RESTORED SECTION BELOW]

Thanks for wasting my time

Dear guilty party: In an effort to clean up the mess of this article, I tried to doublecheck the punctuation of one of the quotes. In so doing, just a few minutes ago I discovered that a bulk of this article has been ripped off from here: http://www.tobacco-cigars.com/index3.shtml. Not only do I not see this listed as an external link, I also don't see it cited as a reference, so I'm reasonably certain that the text was used without permission.

Since I've just spent an embarrassing amount of time working on this article, I'm extremely reluctant to start yanking big chunks of it wholesale. But neither am I going to bother with it anymore -- except that I will be squealing to the owner of the site from which the text was stolen. After that, I'm twist & shout. Sugarbat (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. (later, after tantrum) Caveat: I did check dates (using wayback machine, and it's entirely possible the site, instead, cadged part of the WP article. In which case I'm sort of sorry -- except that it's significant that I made the first assumption based almost totally on the quality/style of the writing. Sugarbat (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just possible, but confirmed that they copied Wikipedia. Not that there's a problem, I'd just prefer to see proper references made. I follow Smoking pipe (tobacco) much more closely than Tobacco and I recognize that http://www.tobacco-cigars.com/index9.shtml copied large chunks of text that I wrote for the pipe article. It's verbatim. There are bits of other Wikipedia articles in other pages (like my wording of Latakia tobacco). Something interesting: click the link way down at the bottom and you're taken to a European online smoke shop. Frotz (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I freaked out precipitously; this happens to me sometimes. And yes, I saw it was a smoke shop when I was looking for contact info. Fortunately it occurred to me to check dates (as mentioned above), after which I was seriously tempted to delete my own hysterical blowout here. I didn't -- and not just because it'd make no difference; you could still see it in the logs -- but I did steady myself for retaliatoryness. Thanks for not doing that.  :) Sugarbat (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that you didn't actually do anything brash. Now, if tobacco-cigars.com complains that Wikipedia ripped off their pages, then that would be the time to roll out the whoopass. Well, not really roll out... more like point and laugh. Frotz (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think calling (invisible, imaginary) people [deleted by Sugarbat is brash. :) Sugarbat (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you didn't do anything besides vent your spleen here, did you? Frotz (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I only wish I had some spleens left to vent anywhere. It's been a long life of desplenestration for me. Sugarbat (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was pretty insulted by this. I've reported you. Hopefully you won't be so rude in the future Beam 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm joking, I didn't report you, [deleted by sugarbat. ;) It's way too entertaining! Beam 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Badump bump. Chhhhhhh! Sugarbat (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The website that's using Wikipedia content without crediting Wikipedia is violating WP:C and Frotz as the uncredited contributor to the Wikipedia article should followup with that website per WP:FORK JGHowes ^talk - 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I filed the appropriate notice at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def. Frotz (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Git em, Frotz. Sugarbat (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[END RESTORED SECTION]

---

Etymology-section-edit rationale

From:

==Etymology==

The Spanish word "tabaco" is thought to have its origin in Arawakan language, particularly, in the Taino language of the Caribbean, said to refer to a roll of these leaves (according to Bartolome de Las Casas, 1552), or to the tabago, a kind of Y-shaped pipe for sniffing tobacco smoke (according to Oviedo; the leaves themselves being referred to as Cohiba).

However, similar words in Spanish and Italian were commonly used to define medicinal herbs from 1410, originating from the Arabic tabbaq, reportedly dating to the 9th century, as the name of various herbs.

I deleted the bulk -- not because I'm trying to be a jerk, but because of grammar/syntax problems:

1.) In the sentence (which is also the entire first paragraph), the subject, "tabaco," gets gramatically obscured after "Arawakan language." Is "tabaco," or "origin," "said to refer to a roll of [those - needs defining in the sentence] leaves"? Is "tabaco" "thought to have [its] origin [as a word]" to "tabago," or to "a kind of Y-shaped pipe"? (Also, gramatically, "Arawakan language" can be said, according to this sentence structure, to "refer to a roll of these leaves," which I'm sure is not what's meant.) What, exactly, is "Oviedo" reported to have said/verified? The origin of the word "tabaco"? The Arawakan language's existence? The existence of a roll of leaves? The Y-shaped pipe's existence/use? Or the "leaves" being referred to as "Cohiba"?

2.) The second sentence is just as confusing, and for the same reason. The subject of the sentence, "[similar] words," clearly refers to "were used to define medicinal herbs." But it's not clear what happened in "1410"; the sentence's grammar and structure implies that "words" "were used to define medicinal herbs" only in "1410," which, again, is probably not what was meant. Also, to what does "originating from" refer? It's not grammatically clear, and neither is "reportedly dating to the 9th century, as the name of various herbs." What dates to the 9th century? Words? Spanish and Italian words? Tobacco? Herbs? Medicinal herbs? The Arabic language? Etc.

All that's needed is for this section to be rewritten correctly, so that its meaning is clear. That's all. I won't touch it after that (assuming, also, that sources for the facts are also shortly cited). Sugarbat (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting all that much because of unclear grammar is overkill and should not have been done. Now use some common sense: which is it ("tabaco" or "origin") that is said to refer to "a roll of leaves"? Do you really need me to tell you the answer? It's perfectly clear to me: according to Las Casas, the Taino word tabaco refers to a roll of tobacco leaves, while according to Oviedo, the name of the roll of leaves in Taino is cohiba, and tabago is the name of the pipe. If you have doubts as to whether either of these men really reported this, try looking into it on good faith before censoring the information on a grammatical pretext. As for the second sentence, the meaning is similarly plain: there are words in Spanish and Italian similar to tabaco attested as early as 1410 (ie, "from" 1410, as the etymological scholars commonly tell us), and both of these words are "originating from" the Arabic word, which is attested in the 9th century. You'd have to try hard in order to misunderstand the sentence as it is written, but blanking it just because you can't is totally uncalled-for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS (and, more specifically, The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook, both of which are used in the basis of overall WP style) for justification of edits that don't comply with fundamental grammar and the dynamics of a legible sentence. This is not "overkill"; it's part of the fundamental structure of Wikipedia. Please rewrite the section if you'd like to have it avoid deletion; even if I leave it alone, sooner or later someone will (not might) either delete it, or make the necessary changes. (And in fact, the entire section is going to be subject to deletion because the stated information isn't cited as fact; please do make the effort to create citation tags that refer to the sources you used [since it sounds like you wrote the section]). Why not make the corrections yourself, since you clearly do understand what you're trying to say, and care enough to say it? Sugarbat (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, I did not write the section, but I think you ought to read up on our policies a bit more. The section is perfectly grammatical, you are deliberately mis-construing it by ignoring the obvious context in a facetious manner, and AGF means you don't accuse whoever wrote the section of making the information up, I'm sure it would take you only about 5 seconds with google to verify it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your observations and opinions, but I'm going to have to stick with my original action/justification for the action. The section isn't "perfectly grammatical"; I'm not misconstruing it -- deliberately or otherwise; I'm not sure what you mean by "AGF" (I mean I literally don't know what that stands for in the context of your comment), and no one should have to (or be expected to) use Google to verify uncited material stated as fact in an article (in Wikipedia or in any other encyclopedia). I do respect your effort to defend inclusion of the section as it was before I deleted it, but I don't agree with your conclusions, and can't condone restoration of the section, unedited/unsourced. Sugarbat (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I see the reference you added to the "etymology" section, and I appreciate your having taken the time to cite the source. While I'm not altogether convinced that "The Online Etymology Dictionary"[sic] is the best/most-reliable source (among other things, it's a website [instead of a print dictionary or reference book], and it's a site that hosts advertising, which is a semi-red flag) for the information regarding the origin of the word "tobacco," I do freely admit that it's probably better than nothing for now.

Having said that, though, I will add that I also saw your edit summaries of the above changes:

→Etymology: This took me all of about 5 seconds, at least I am not lazy

→Etymology: now do you see what I mean by "assume good faith"???

Please keep in mind two things:

1.) That the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (who, in this case, is you), and

2.) Good WP editors don't use derogatory language directed at other editors or readers. Since I'm not human, but, in fact, a robot, neither "bonehead" nor "lazy" apply to me, because I neither have what most humans call a "head," nor am I capable of "laziness," since I'm essentially either "on" or "off," depending on electrical current and my battery charge. Because I also don't have "feelings (my engineers are working on this)," I'm not insulted by your comments, but I do recognize the possibility of other WP editors taking offense, and I warn you not to be surprised, should that happen in the future as a result of linguistic decisions you might make.

That is all! Beep boop beep. Sugarbat (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to check etymological dictionary .com with the reliable source noticeboard crowd, I'm sure they will tell you it meets our standard in most cases, being essentially the same information as taken from Weekley and Oxford. That is all! Have a nice day, eh. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you Canadian? Or was that a hiccup? :) Sugarbat (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil

Til Eulenspiegel, please refrain from comments such as (→Etymology: making it simple enough for even the dullest bonehead to comprehend) in edit summaries (or anywhere else). Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Sugarbat (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been a little stressed out today with a banned sockpuppet nemesis of mine making me grumpier than usual, but note I always try to be careful not to direct insults at any individual, but rather, as Bobmarley put it, "Who the cap fit..." ! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait -- when did Bob Marley say that? Sugarbat (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I don't find that really uncivil. A little rude? Maybe. Against WP:COOL? Possibly. But really, the way that some people take the WP:CIVIL policy is really excruciating. Beam 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know; right (your second point)? It's like I'm schizo. I mean, still. Post-procedure.

However, I'm not sure there's much of a technical difference between "uncivil" and "a little rude." But everyone's vote counts! Please keep playing!! Sugarbat (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Beam 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. Sugarbat (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Beam 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits of discussion page

Til Eulenspiegel, in an effort to undo your section-removal edit, I've pasted the section you cut (rather than reverting, which might disrupt recent additions, by other editors, to other sections) back in its original spot on the page, and edited it myself in case other users are/have been/could be bothered by the content I removed (see the history of this page for original posting). Although it's obvious that no one in that section looks dumber than I (and therefore I ought to be grateful to you for removing an embarrassing little piece of my recent WP history that occurred before the upgrade of my main neurochip), other than nuking the questionable language (as I have done -- I think there were three or four words), I can think of no logical adjustment that's necessary. A single editor's decision to remove an entire section (especially one in which that editor was not a participant) of an article's discussion page, solely because the editor considers it irrelevant somehow (or because words within that section offend the editor), strikes me as blatantly disruptive, at best. I'm not even going to list the ways in which it can be worst perceived, although they are legion-y.

Just please don't do that. Okay? Sugarbat (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No-Till Section

A large section was added here, and there has been minor discussion in edit summaries removing and adding it since, including my most recent removal of this 14KB block of text.

I am concerned that it was added wholesale with the comment that it is a student's work. No attribution to the student is given, and although references are provided, the student is not credited. I believe this violates the terms of copyright that said student is entitled to, and therefore would violate the GFDL that Wikipedia adheres to for all its content. In particular, regarding the GFDL, I am thinking of this section: "Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein." Since the student who wrote the work in the first place holds copyright, some release or grant of rights would be needed in order to include it here.

Furthermore, it seems a large chunk to add to an article, giving a lot of weight to a particular method of farming tobacco, while this is an article on tobacco in general. If the material can be properly included in Wikipedia (see above), it might be more appropriate to make it a separate article with one paragraph in this article, and a link to the other article.  Frank  |  talk  18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That section would fit better in an article about no-till farming. Frotz (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

my response .....

I agree that this may be too much for this article. I propose it be put in a new section called no-till tobacco and it is referenced from this page and the no-till page. I'm open to suggestions.

I tried to get all the students to post them their selves but this one didn't work out. This is a quote from one of my last emails with the author this semester

"If you post my Wikipedia Project do I have to be there with you, or can you just post the one I emailed you the other day? If I dont have to be there, you can go ahead and post it. If I do need to sign something or whatever, I can do that early thursday afternoon. Thanks for all your help and understanding this semester. This one was much different than my first 4 semesters because of the big changes concerning the long commute and living in a place without internet. "

I will contact the student to determine whether or not the individual would like to remain anonymous ... I've had trouble getting ahold of him.

in addition to 3 drafts during the semester, two university faculty who may be the foremost experts in the world on this technology ... reviewed this, gave editorial comments (the student responded and made the required changes), and approved this work. Its really good stuff and I don't think you can find this anywhere in the world. Hopefully, making this available could have a big environmental impact. SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your paper. No original research allowed. Beam 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You must not have read. By the way, it is not research. SoilMan2007 (talk)

Oh, I read. Beam 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that a whole bunch of work went into the paper. Unfortunately, posting someone else's work without attribution is not a good thing, and more to the point, when you say "I don't think you can find this anywhere in the world", you kind of disqualify the content from appearing on Wikipedia at all. The reason for that is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That the paper was reviewed by "two university faculty who may be the foremost experts in the world on this technology" is not the point. What counts here is that the source material can be verified, so that other editors can check the content, modify it, add to it, delete from it, etc.

Again - it's great that research work has been done. I encourage you or your student to add to the article from the material. As long as the work can be properly cited from reliable sources, it's great to add to an article or even to create a new article. But as has been pointed out above, original research is not what Wikipedia is about.

Please read the links above in this response, about verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. These links provide valuable information regarding what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia can always use new editors.  Frank  |  talk  00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, your points are well taken. I withdraw this submission ... at least until we can get more cite-able I think much of this was created from very in depth practical knowledge about the subject and personal communications with university experts in the subject. I'm thinking that next semester I should invite some wikipedians to edit contributions as the students are writing .... perhaps in sandboxes. I want you to know that I really appreciate your suggestions! Best Regards, SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't want you thinking that we don't appreciate the hardwork, Frank has put it very well. Beam 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Wikipedia works because the community supports it, especially with individual effort. (I presume money helps but I haven't contributed in that way myself yet.) The community is large and growing, and as it gets larger, it helps to have more editors who are able to provide valuable content that is consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. Essentially, Wikipedia is never a source of original research, and always a point where people can start, but find links and references to more information. If you look at articles which have controversial content, you can find that people get into heated discussion and "edit wars" over one phrase or even word. (Try George W. Bush or Barack Obama, for example.)

Anyway - again, thanks for your contributions. I hope you'll find this an interesting and rewarding place to spend some time!  Frank  |  talk  02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)