Talk:Passive smoking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move 16 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The ENGVAR/RETAIN concerns have not been adequately addressed for there to be a move. Jenks24 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Passive smokingSecondhand smoke – "Secondhand smoke" is the primary name for this topic used by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the CDC. Everymorning (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Might could be but there's no consensus in the archives and the current article uses both American and British English. If we're establishing a consensus now, my own preference would be to resolve the tie in favor of American English, as spoken and read by a much wider audience in general and on Wikipedia in particular. The objective thing to do per WP:ENGVAR, though, is to see who got in the first edit. Looks like that was the Brits. So it should remain at passive smoking unless enough Brits also use secondhand smoke that we can find MOS:COMMONALITY. Certainly SHS is the preferred American name for the phenomenon, as documented by User:Everymorning. Can anyone see what the British National Health Service or Lancet uses? — LlywelynII 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    On NHS's "Smokefree" site, this page uses "second-hand smoke" with a hyphen and this one uses "secondhand smoke" without one. No "passive smoking" in sight. So... good to go? — LlywelynII 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it to others but I don't see a problem with the current title. It's more accurate — secondhand sounds like something sold at a rummage sale — and we should note WP:TITLECHANGES.  AjaxSmack  02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As above. — LlywelynII 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "passive smoke" used x2 as much as "second handsmoke" on n-gram [1], and in my locality is also used more commonly. So per "common name", oppose --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Tom (LT) By making the Ngram search case insensitive and by extending the time frame to 2008, the results favour secondhand smoke. However I would be interested to know if people in the US have heard of passive smoking. I don't remember hearing usage of secondhand smoke. GregKaye 04:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There are 611,000 google results for "secondhand smoke" and 714,000 for "second-hand smoke" but only 486,000 for "passive smoking". In addition, there are only 3,060 Google News results for passive smoking but 11,000 for second-hand smoke and 13,100 for secondhand smoke. Thus COMMONNAME would seem to support a move from the current title, in my opinion. Everymorning (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Passive smoking is used by Cancer Research UK [2], the NHS [3], BBC [4] Ash [5], etc. Zarcadia (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that the BBC at least sometimes does use "secondhand smoke", [6] [7] as does the NHS's Smokefree website. [8] Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:ENGVAR / MOS:RETAIN. RGloucester 03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The United States often uses their own terminology separate from that of the rest of the world. This is similar to how they use miles while the rest of the world uses metric. Sometimes we use American terminology others global terminology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The "mile" isn't US terminology - it was inherited from the UK, who also still use miles. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The article was originally started in American English, if you look through the archives, it comes off of the article on tobacco smoking, which was also started in American English. The article has always thus been in American English. Cheers, ~~ipuser (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum 14:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support' per nom, common name, and accuracy. Randy Kryn 20:19, 24 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RETAIN does not seem to apply here, per above. I am inclined to support "secondhand smoke" (or "secondhand smoking"), as I have never heard it called "passive smoking"; but of course WP:ENGVAR. The redirect "secondhand smoke" was created on the same date by the same user as "passive smoking" (originally also a redirect), on June 9, 2004. "Second hand smoking" was created not long after on September 22, 2004, by another user. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) has no point. The article started at passive smoking. Passive smoking is the default term, and should not be changed, per ENGVAR. RGloucester 00:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the current title was the title first used.Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Passive smoking" being twice as commonly used as "Secondhand smoke" with "Secondhand smoking" not even featuring.[9]. And a big WP:TITLECHANGES. There is nothing wrong with the current title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When I use the ngram tool and look only at uses since 1950, it seems that "secondhand smoke" is used somewhat more often than "passive smoking", which is, in turn, used more often than "environmental tobacco smoke". [10] It also appears that this arrangement has existed since approximately 1997. Similarly, there are 1,820 Google Books results for "secondhand smoke" and only 1,540 for "passive smoking". [11] [12] Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015[edit]

Secondhand Smoke can not only cause lung cancer,stroke and heart disease but make your overall health make a turn for the worse.Due to the fact that a lot of second-hand smoke being inhaled day in and day out,we need to avoid this hazardous smoke at all costs in order to keep a healthy bright future with no toxic chemicals. If more people were informed on how negative second smoking is then they would try to avoid it as much as possible. Individuals whom are exposed to this smoke need to take all things into consideration as something so small can be fixed by just avoiding a situation by leaving the smoker. CourtneyLT (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

2013 Stanford study on the impact of passive smoking on lung cancer among women[edit]

In 2013 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a study from a team at Stanford University which made world wide news. The study, by a large number of authors headed by Ange Wang, followed up a database of 76,304 women compiled in the 1990s, and found that while current and former smokers recorded much higher rates of lung cancer than non-smokers in the ensuing 15 years, there was no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer, other than for women who had been exposed to smoke in their home for 30 years or more. This was a startling finding, and an important one given the size of the database it drew on, and the fact that the NCI itself had published the study. I looked up this article on Wikipedia to find out the considered reactions of expert opinion to the study, and was astonished that in this long article there seemed to be no reference to the study at all. This is a form of censorship which is completely alien to the spirit of Wikipedia (I speak as a regular donor). I don't look up Wikipedia to read propaganda, however well-intentioned. I look to Wikipedia to tell me the facts, but this article seems to ignore the scientific debate and present only one side, one version of "the facts". I can only agree with the comments made by others on the talk page about this article. It is biased. It is unscientific: with good intentions, no doubt, but Wikipedia exists to promote knowledge, not good intentions. This is a lapse of Wikipedia's standards.

The study is entitled: "Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Intiative Observational Study prospective cohort". It was presented to the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, and published later that year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (which unfortunately is not accessible from the institute's webpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone of this quote from the article:

Despite the industry's awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke as early as the 1980s, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products

Since the opposing lawyers got their hands on evidence of tobacco industry malfeasance, it has cost them hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. It must be getting closer to $1 trillion by now.
In this particular case, you can find the results of the study by Googling, e.g. Oxford Journals: Annals of Oncology and get the following:

Conclusions: In this prospective cohort of postmenopausal women, active smoking significantly increased risk of all lung cancer subtypes; current smokers had significantly increased risk compared with FS. Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk. These data support continued need for smoking prevention and cessation interventions, passive smoking research, and further study of lung cancer risk factors in addition to smoking.

In other words, NOT "no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all the other usual caveats regarding scientific research. Also, in the case of second-hand smoke the biggest problem is not lung cancer, which is something of a red herring incidental to the bigger risk of heart disease. As usual in smoking articles watch out for trolls and industry shills reinterpreting the experimental evidence for their own purposes.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 study on the impact of smoking bans on heart disease[edit]

Under the effects section, I added a recent large study from a peer-reviewed journal. Here it is - Doc James deleted my edition on the grounds this was not a secondary source, despite the fact that it was a recent, large, peer-reviewed study that directly rebutted other studies referenced in this section (studies that were also NOT secondary sources). So I deleted said studies (I left the meta-analysis as that was a secondary source). Now THAT change was reverted. You can't have it both ways. Either high quality studies that are primary sources are allowed, or they are not. The deciding factor cannot be whether the study supports or rebuts your pre-conceived opinion on passive smoking. Please either restore my original edit or uphold my latest edit deleting the primary source.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "recent", "primary" and "rebutted other studies" is considered to be a bad combination here, just as MEDRS says. There is clearly a need to update that section, but it should use the best available sources, such as PMID 26242915 PMC 4526291 doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2041-6. We don't really need to use a low value source to support the assertion that correlation does not imply causation, however: in the absence of time travel, nobody has yet proposed a plausible mechanism whereby a later-date reduction in disease might cause an earlier-date passage of legislation.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
In what way is this a "low value source?" It comes from a peer reviewed journal and has a very large sample size - much larger than the studies it is rebutting. Moreover, it is not primarily making the point "correlation does not imply causation," but demonstrates that there is not even correlation across any kind of decent sample size. You cannot just exlude primary sources you don't like and leave ones that you do.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)