Talk:Smoking/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



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

New Article!

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

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


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

I have to agree. Calling it a "recreational activity" is a bit of a stretch. No one leaves their job for a few minutes every few hours for recreation. 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the word "enjoyed" above. I think "recreation" is about as neutral as we can expect. Some people gamble compulsively, but gambling is a recreational activity. Some people masturbate compulsively, but masturbation is a recreational activity. And I do take a couple minutes out of every few hours on my job for recreation. (Wait, that sounded bad, didn't it.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I think that I'll hop on over to the child porn page and change it to describe that as a "recreational activity", too. People smoke some things for ritual or spiritual purposes and some due to addiction. Neither of those could be described as "the use of time in a manner designed for therapeutic refreshment of one's body or mind", the Wikipedia definition of recreation. This is profoundly disturbed. Ninquerinquar 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Comparing smoking to child porn is about as offensive a comparison as you could make. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. TeamZissou 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Try working on an ENT ward for twenty years and seeing people have their faces cut off and replaced with a hunk of skin from their thigh because they smoked. When you've seen someone with no eyes, nose or mouth left because of an addiction, you take it kind seriously. Ninquerinquar 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not—and I don't—"recreational drug" is an established phrase. Deltabeignet 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
How about automobile accidents, or skateboarding, or eating butter? When you see the swollen liver covered in white scar tissue from the body of a medical cadaver who spent a life eating butter, or the bloody kidneys of a person who had a long-term attraction to rhubarb pie--by god!--you, too, will harbor the greatest disgust for the natural consequences affecting mortal, biological organisms! Albert Einstein once said, "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgement in all human affairs." (1950). Some studies on pipe smoking have shown that moderate pipe smoking can actually increase longevity, and many psychologists I've talked to agree that nicotine is great for the brain (most delivery methods of nicotine, however, leave much to be desired). Smoking tobacco over time increases the body's ability to carry oxygen (and can increase the size of the carotid arteries) when the smoker is not smoking. Like anything, smoking tobacco is something best done in moderation. Notice, too, that this article isn't only about the New Evil tobacco--it also contains a lot of information on other smokables. There is a seperate article on addiction, if you feel the need to vent. In the meantime, have you heard that they put mercury in some of your immunizations??? EEEEK! TeamZissou 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Please try to keep in mind that merely not being decidedly anti-smoking isn't the same as not being neutral. And as for "hiding" and "downplaying", this article doesn't mince words about the hazards of smoking:
Inhaling smoke into the lungs, no matter the substance, has adverse effects on one's health.
Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries.
It has a logical structure with section dedicated to the health effects on both a physiological and social level, even if these are pretty small so far. In contrast, tobacco smoking hasn't been smeared with an NPOV tag despite having a very obvious anti-smoking POV and insignificant coverage on anything related to smoking culture.
Peter Isotalo 07:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

I agree. For starters, the variety of health effects of smoking, particularly tobacco smoking, should be summarized in the introduction; given how many people are killed each year by those same health effects, not doing so is bordering on deliberate whitewashing. And the "smoking in culture" section is woefully incomplete without describing the tobacco industry's successful campaign of introducing positive imagery of smoking into movies, literature, magazines, etc. over the last few decades. We should be careful with the imagery in the article itself as well, and include a couple of examples of recent anti-smoking campaign imagery. Regrettably, the article on tobacco smoking suffers from similar POV problems.--Eloquence* 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
How about looking up some research, being a Wikipedian, and entering some referenced information? That's the point of the project, right? I agree. It is lacking, like most articles on Wikipedia. And that is why it's open to editting. I spent a couple hours today finding references for various statements in the article regarding different cultures and the history of smoking. Do the same with smoking and the media, keeping in mind that the article is about smoking in all its forms, not just tobacco smoking, which has its own article.TeamZissou 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think Eloquence needs a lecture on what being a Wikipedian is all about. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Faux pas. Oh, snap! TeamZissou 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Smoke, the immensely useful primary source for this article, has plenty of material on anti-smoking campaigns, including photos of anti-smoking demonstrations and ad campaigns, but none of them are free images. If anyone can find good pictures that properly illustrate the anti-smoking movement, please include them in the article. As for mentioning specifics of the health effects of tobacco in the lead, I think this ill-advised, as no other topic has received more than very brief coverage. The article has talked of "well-proven health hazards" from the second day of its existence, which is hardly to be characterized as pro-smoking.
The reason that I don't think the article should be dominated by details about various cancers and cardiovascular diseases is because smoking is far more than just long-term chemical reactions in the human body. It has immense social significance and a very rich cultural history that is so much more interesting (and relevant) to describe than dull and lifeless descriptions of how it can hurt you. The negative aspects will get their due coverage, but I can assure you that we're not going to allow this article to become a bloody soapbox for moralistic anti-smoking propaganda. Most people are perfectly aware that smoking is dangerous. The anti-smoking movement has already succeeded in this department. We don't need to overdo it, but rather to show some respect for history and people's personal choices. The article doesn't glorify smoking, but describes how a substantial proportion of humanity practices, enjoys or even praises smoking. That's NPOV for you, so deal with it.
Peter Isotalo 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The proof of American smoking being several thousands years in practice is based on archaelogical findings of tobacco cultivation and is as far as I know supported by multiple sources. Not everything needs to be proved with written records. The reference to smoking in the Veda is indeed incorrect. The dating of how long medicinal fumigation and smoking has been performed is not off the mark, but I misread the source and thought it said that it was mentioned in Vedic texts from 2000 BC, not just attested in general. I'll correct this as soon as the article is unprotected.
As for other "glorifying mistakes", please let us know if you're willing to actually specify any of them. I'm sure you're upset that the current opinions about smoking are actually a fairly modern phenomenon, but that doesn't amount to any praise of smoking, just a statement of facts. That the article doesn't say that what is now has always been and will always be doesn't mean that history needs to be rewritten nor that we need to guard our readers from it. Most anti-smoking arguments can stand on their own without the need for moralistic historical revisionism.
Peter Isotalo 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The smoking described in Smoke appears to be mostly in the form of regular pipes, not water pipes. I haven't tried to get to the bottom of how old hookahs/shishas actually are.
I won't speculate about how early Old World smoking really is, but it would seem odd if the pre-historic Americans would be unique in early on realizing that inhaling the smoke was an effective way of getting intoxicated. If anything, think fo the Oracle of Delphi breathing gas (or whatever) to produce mystical prophecies.
Peter Isotalo 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The recent mini-series Rome (2nd series), generally rather well-researched on stuff like this, had much cannabis smoking from bong-type pipes (elite women only ones shown). On pics, if we are not to have the sense of smell, an Adrian Brouwer smoking-den scene would be better than the rather bland van Ostade. There is also a nice print of some court ladies from Versailles, late Louis XIV, having pipes behind the carriage-shed. Johnbod 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

ParlerVousWiki, if you want to question the validity of the source provided (Smoke, not Rome) you might want to actually examine it yourself, or provide your own sources for that matter.
Peter Isotalo 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Try reading the footnotes in the article.
Peter Isotalo 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Please don't remove information that is referenced without citing your own sources. You should cite something that confirms your claims instead.
Peter Isotalo 10:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Speaking of refs, I just added a REFS! section at the bottom. Please use it. Thanks. TeamZissou 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
ParlerVousWiki, I don't know that much about Hindu religous practices or the finer details of the history of smoking in India, but I can only say that I'd be very surprised if an anthology with so much information about smoking was wrong on such a basic fact. Either way, we can't really do anything other than trust the information that is actually supported by what otherwise appears to be a serious and reliable source. It would still be so much easier if we could be provided with references to other works related to the topic that might have a different opinion on the matter.
Zissou, adding references to a section of text that is already sourced in its entirety is as far as I can tell mere reference padding. It might look better, but it could just as easily confuse the reader as to what citations covers which fact. As far as I can tell, this practice usually leads to editors demanding more and more refs without ever bothering to check the original citation, and what we will eventually wind up with might very well be something like this. Less is sometimes more than enough.
Peter Isotalo 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that an article concerning anthropological, biological, and historical subject matter could be easily referenced with recognized scientific journals and texts and still avoid appearing like a pop culture article with tabloid citations concerning the world's most famous porn star. I ref'd the statement on the veda, and it was removed. Now not only do we have to put up with the ParlerVousWiki's personal crusade, you have to read me bitch about having my ref's removed. I had some other things elsewhere, but as the ref was removed, now I can't find the statements--I assume someone removed them because they were unreferenced. Go figure.TeamZissou 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Life expectancy issue: While mentioning a study that predicts premature death for one third of the male chinese population - because 67% of them are smokers, the article fails to mention that in fact chinese men have a very high relative life expectancy: it is only 3 years less than women's. Chinese women are 95% non-smokers. This may not fit in well with the current scientific sense of smoking being a deadly thing, but it is a fact. TeamWinter 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Winter, I noticed that you added this statement to the article. However, this is something that isn't covered by the existing sources and it's really something that has to be sourced. I'm also somewhat skeptical as to how useful this information is in the context of this article. The topic of interest is health effects of smoking, not the general health of the Chinese male population.
Peter Isotalo 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this issue is actually a large one, and it is hard to choose which information to put into the main article. After studying the relations between life expectancy and smoking rates in several countries, I chose the Chinese because of the interesting difference between the abovementioned scientific study and actual reality - and because they were already being focused in the article. Furthermore, the Chinese have a long and rich tradition in smoking. There is vast and serious coverage on Chinese life expectancy and smoking rates on the Internet. TeamWinter
Yes, and if you want to keep that fact in the article it's up to you to find that source. See WP:V and WP:CITE for the guidelines on this.
Peter Isotalo 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I hope these will be fine with you. Be generous with a Wiki neophyte. TeamWinter 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see that you referenced those fact statements, but I must again raise a very relevant question: exactly how relevant are these statements in their current context? The statement that up to 1/3 of all Chinese male might die a premature death because of smoking is meant to illustrate how bad smoking can be to your health whether you live in China, the US or Tanzania. That very few Chinese women smoke would be a lot more interesting in a paragraph that discussed gender differences (there's some of it in the culture-section), but the statement about the average life span of Chinese males is really not relevant to this article.
Peter Isotalo 09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, basically, facts are more relevant than speculations - which makes it an obligation to mention what is really going on, if we also quote those estimations.
As an alternative, one could remove all the information about China, including the life expectancy estimate. Since China has the biggest number of male smokers worldwide, I do think it is worth being mentioned how they are doing, though.
TeamWinter 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite following you here. What speculation? And I must again stress that the article isn't about public health in general in China or anywhere else, but smoking. The difference in life expectancy among males can be caused by hundreds of other factors.
Peter Isotalo 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph we are talking about is dedicated to public health and smoking, though. The estimation about life expectancy is about public health, just like the actual facts I added.
I did not state that the good life expectancy of Chinese male derives from smoking. The respective study draws a terrifying picture of shortened lifespans though, which is actually uncorrect and needs justification by mentioning the facts. The truth is, that Chinese males are not suffering from shortened lifespans at all, no matter how we put it. And the truth is what we should be dedicated to.
TeamWinter 11:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Public health related to smoking. Just public health in general is not within the scope of this article.
But where are you getting these conclusions about exaggerated health concerns for Chinese male smokers? One of the referenes you yourself introduced states rather bluntly that "if the current smoking pattern in China remains unchanged, 100 million men now under 30 years will die from smoking-related diseases."[1] That habitual smokers suffer from shortened life-spans is almost universally agreed upon by physicians. I have no idea what the three year difference in the life expectancy between the sexes actually means, but I don't think it disproves anything stated in the article so far.
Peter Isotalo 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Life expectancy is literally what to expect, if current patterns generally remain unchanged.
That means: Chinese men can expect to live almost as long as Chinese women if they smoke on. No more or less than that. (So their situation is pretty enviable, given that American men who smoke just about as little as female Americans, actually die six years earlier). That doesn't disprove any smoking hazards, but it is a strong and interesting counterpoint worth being mentioned.
Actually there is a lot more stuff like this - surfing the web I recently found out that America was leading the global life expectancy scale, 20 years ago. At that time, America was also the first country to start a successful nation-wide campaign against smoking, resulting in millions of people stopping to smoke. But simultaneously it seems the US lost their lead in life expectancy, being overtaken by smoker countries like Japan, Spain and dozens more. To my mind this is a very precarious and mentionable development, but confronting thoughts like these would probably not survive in the main article.
TeamWinter 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is drawing your own conclusions from extremely limited data and is highly speculative. If you want to make claims that basically amounts to claiming that smoking is a negligable public health issue, you need a reliable source that actually makes that claim outright. I've removed the comment about life expectancy for now.
Peter Isotalo 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. If I would have made such a claim you would be right to remove it, but I just quoted officialy valid facts. Actually I feel like you were just searching for a reason to remove this, and since you didn't find one - you removed it, anyway. This is not correct and close to vandalism. I will not encounter in any kind of an edit war, but I will remove the estimations as well for now, if the facts cannot stay.
TeamWinter —Preceding comment was added at 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) But the problem is that you're not merely stating facts. The comments about the life expectancy of Chinese males is worded in a way to make it seem as if the effect of smoking is negligable. The CIA fact sheet says absolutely nothing about the effect of smoking, and the other source insists that it's a very significant health hazard. With this in mind, the comments about life expectancy of males being "remarkably high" will clearly influence the reader into thinking that smoking isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be here.

Also, please don't counter-remove statements along with references. That reference covers the whole paragraph and it states exactly what the source says rather than trying to interpret it.

Peter Isotalo 08:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to calm down and follow your arguments. I removed the word "though" and tried to maximize neutrality of the sentence without losing the facts. I would like to state though, that if you continue to remove my sourced contributions I will stress Dispute Resolution.
TeamWinter 09:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I echo what has already been said above - this information is irrelevant to the smoking article. The health section here should primarily be a link to the main article at Smoking and health, with the major points from there summarised. Chinese smoking rates and life expectancies are not global and not at all relevant to the section it's placed in. There would be a place for it in a section about comparative smoking rates between countries - but no such section exists. Similarly, any attempt to use raw mortality data and raw smoking data to suggest that the one is linked to the other are WP:Original research, and fundamentally flawed.
To illustrate why, and I hope you'll forgive the digression, I could look at mortality rates among soldiers during WWII who were extremely heavy smokers, note that they were high, and come to the conclusion that smoking had a dramatic short-term increase in mortality. That would of course be rubbish - what killed them was lead, shrapnel, and disease - but I could make the claim using officially validated facts!
I'm also going to add {{fact}} tags to all the disputed historical points above. It doesn't seem to have been very productive discussing them here, but ultimately they need sourced. Nmg20 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your funny example. I would not be surprised to find this in an antismoking publication soon...
I agree. This is in fact WP:Original research, but it is also WP:Ignore all rules. Why? Because otherwise Wikipedia would present tendentious information without mentioning a counterpoint. Quoting the study alone gives the reader the distorted impression, that Chinese men die exceptionally early because of smoking. This is not the case, in fact Chinese men live unusually long for that country. By mentioning this, a correct and neutral perspective is maintained.
TeamWinter 10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Many rules and guidelines are negotiable by appealing to WP:IGNORE, but original research really never is, especially not if you openly admit to it yourself. Either you have to find a source that actually confirms your own conclusions, or the statement needs to be removed. You may be right about this here, but there's really nothing supporting your argument but your own guesswork, and Wikipedia doesn't accept those kind of contributions.
Peter Isotalo 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
1. This is your opinion, not mine. There are no conclusions drawn, only facts listed side by side. 2. I will remove the sentence about the percentage of male smokers, to remove original research. Life expectancy will be reinserted. 3. If you keep deleting I will check the rest of the article for original research. Same rules to be applied for everybody.
TeamWinter 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nmg20 actually voiced the same opinion, so I'm not alone here. You're right that no overt conclusions are drawn, but even the current wording appears to inject doubt into the text without actually explaining the purpose nor motivation behind it. It's not quite weasel wording, it's quite not original research, but it's pretty darned close to either of them. As for checking the rest of the article for OR, I very much hope that's something that all editors do when reading it.
Peter Isotalo 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are not, just like me. The problem is, that if you really try to find a reason to delete any sentence on Wikipedia you will probably find one. I have already changed my statement a lot to comply, at least partially, with your conditions. At some point we will have to find a compromise.
The abovementioned study is actually questionable if quoted without context. It fails to fit into the actual life expectancy data because it solely focuses on the downsides of the habit. (The fact that it doesn't fit into is actually amazing and should lead people to think, rather than delete.)
I will also give you an example: if you solely focus on traffic dangers, you will conclude that even bicycle riding is to be condemned, because many people die from it. You have to mention the bigger picture to provide correct information.
TeamWinter (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the point here is that you appear to be attempting an insertion of dubious doubt by quoting random facts and explaining the addition by drawing your own conclusions. Judging by your arguments so far, I get the feeling you're trying to trivialize or cast in doubt the well-proven health hazards of smoking. This strikes me as somewhat odd, since the article doesn't really condemn smoking. It only reports that the long term effects are extremely likely to cause poor health and eventually premature death, which are very well-established facts in the medical community.
Peter Isotalo 14:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact I inserted is not a random fact. It is the correctly related bigger context, because life expectancy data include current smoking patterns. The problem is actually not my sentence, but the sentence before - because it doesn't state exact data. It does not tell how many years those men are really supposed to lose and how many will be left. Therefore your argument is actually to be used against that sentence, it's dubiously inserting possibly exaggerated anxious feelings without honest numbers. The fact that smoking is unhealthy does not justify providing tendentious information on Wikipedia.
Yes I took notice of that. The article is not generally condemning the habit, because Wikipedia is not supposed to judge over it. I am not criticising the article, actually in general I think it's fine.
TeamWinter (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most edited DYK?

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

Yes... it's indeed rather unusual that such a controversial article would've appeared in the DYK at all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually a little surprised we didn't have an article here until a week ago (that is, I'm surprised it even qualified for DYK). Nifboy 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit count for medieval cuisine was actually slightly higher when it appeared as a DYK in September 2006, and that was without being particularly controversial. I think both DYK and Wikipedia in general attract far more readers (and goodwill) with topics that aren't as absurdly obscure as rebracketing or Aspergum, even if these articles might not be all that bad per se. That it took a whopping 6 years to figure out that it might be a good idea to have a general article on smoking rather than a bunch of POV-forks says so much more about the flaws of Wikipedia than it does about the topic.
Peter Isotalo 19:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and BCE

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

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

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

I don't see how this article was "established" in the BC format. Most of us aren't Catholic, and many are not Christian, so why should we describe past points in history according to the supposed life and death of a religious figure? Since no one wants to go and change the entire year-numbering scheme, let us at least move out of the dark ages and simply declare this the "current era." I'm happy to once again change the BC's back to BCE's, which would work better with the CE's marking current era dates. Also, the ref's I re-added are accurate--the other book called Smoke, Introduction. by Sander L. Gilman and Zhou Xun doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. That is simply a poor reference job.TeamZissou 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
BC is a two-letter term that happens to have a certain history related to Christianity. There are plenty of equally gratuitous arguments against using BCE as well, and this is not the place to settle the issue. More importantly, though, far more readers know what BC means and very few object to its use. That includes staunch atheists raised in Protestant and Russian-Orthodox countries, i.e. myself. This is about as irrelevant a dispute as bickering over whether one should use US or Commonwealth spelling, and those conflicts are usually settled by using the standard that the person who got the article going decided on.
As for references, notes are supposed to be shorthand specifications of sources, and in the case of Smoke, it's very useful to our readers to point out that it's an anthology and to reference the authors of the individual chapters, not just the editors or the simply the title of the book. The full details of the print works need only be mentioned once, in a separate section, which makes it a lot easier to read all those footnotes.
Peter Isotalo 18:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree on the use of BC, as opposed to BCE. I feel it simply panders to archaic notions, has an easy replacement, and takes very little time to amend. As to the references, I'm used to the CBE, Journal of Wildlife Management, and (to a less-used extent) MLA. Wikipedia is supposed to use the Harvard style, but the page describing that isn't as clear as it should be, so I tried the best I could. Also, I placed references verifying those statements with fact tags, some from your source and some from others. TeamZissou 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Harvard referencing hasn't been ordained in policy and guidelines as the one standard to be used by everyone because most editors prefer footnotes. It's not that much different from the academic world, where standards vary between different countries and disciplines.
Peter Isotalo 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Please don't be obtuse. The vast majority of authors and historians who use the term "BC" are not devout Christians. And before we get into even sillier hairsplitting, it is the birth of Christ (even if it was miscalculated by a few years) that is the basis of this chronology.
Peter Isotalo 10:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Smell image

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

Blnguyen, thank you... Dragonbite 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had included mention of the fact that smoking in 17th century art was used as a representation of the sense of smell (which was also often illustrated at that time by depicting defecation). I guess I forgot it, but I did add it after Freakofnurture posten on my talkpage. It is also a very good illustration of how smoking was initially depicted as being very rustic and crude. The painting wasn't picked at random either, since it was scanned from Smoke.
As for Mayan art, there's already one pic included at the start of the history section, and while I would like to include pics of smoking on pottery, I can't, because photos of 3D objects are unfree images and I don't know where to find Mayan pottery depicting smoking that I can take pictures of myself.
I think the page protection should be removed now. It only serves to make it harder to explain the use of the picture.
Peter Isotalo 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

Cannabis info revert, 25 August 2007

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

If there is no dissent regarding replacement of the cannabis info, then I'll re-insert it in three days. TeamZissou 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Cannabis is used much less frequently, is less public and has had less influence on culture and society than tobacco. I'm just under the impression that its popularity trails so far behind tobacco that it isn't prudent to mention it in the lead.
Peter Isotalo 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It was included under the phrase "most commonly," and compared to, say, opium or DMT, cannabis is a lot closer to tobacco than to these drugs in terms of number of users and social acceptance.TeamZissou 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So, any objections to re-adding cannabis to the sentence by the end of today?TeamZissou 16:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cancer, please

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

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

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

The article is about smoking, not cancer, and it isn'nt even the most common form of death caused by smoking. But you might want to consider trying to add information you feel is missing.
Peter Isotalo 06:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

research... second hand?

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

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

The cost on the health care system

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

Request for comments

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

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

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

This article does not comment second hand smoking in any way. The only reference to it is in the form of a see also-link to passive smoking. This link has been removed several times by Nacaats in favor of Smokers Rights, as have URLs to links that have been deemed to be too negative of smoking. At the same time the link to NACAATS (North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers) has been placed on top of the external links list. The front page of that site is now headed by an appeal with the title "Your Help Needed: Wikipedia" which encourages people to start questioning information that is unfavorable to (the health effects of) smoking by citing articles found at FORCES International Liberty News Network.
As for the fact tags, it's rather odd that these are added at all, since the article doesn't actually lack sources. Rather, it seems as if Nacaats is simply rejecting the sources in favor of the one presented at FORCES. In fact, the tagging seems to have been a general denial of random negative traits or associations related to smoking.
There's also the following rewording (additions and changes are bolded):
Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.
Nacaats' version has made the information much vaguer, and in some cases outright falsified:
Tobacco-related diseases are (according to some studies) some of the biggest killers in the world today and is cited as being one of the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to lung cancer and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.
I feel that this is for the most part nothing but misguided POV-pushing. Figures can alwaus be debated, but doing things like simply replacing "smoking" with "lung cancer" smacks of opinionated ranting.
Peter Isotalo 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naacats 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not decidedly anti-smoking. It's just not as pro-smoking as you would like it. You're entitled to your opinion, but what you're attempting here is to force your pro-smoking activist views on others. You're removing or slanting information to favor your own agenda without even trying to check out the sources provided, and this is not the first time you've done so. Your suggestions to remove any and all content that isn't related to tobacco is not in the least neutral as it would simply marginalize any forms of smoking that aren't related to tobacco instead of presenting smoking in all its forms. Please note that the article doesn't exactly give undue coverage to cannabis or opium smoking just because it happens to mention it.
Peter Isotalo 07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Naacats 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By introducing weasel wording which makes it seem as if the idea of smoking being an obvious health hazard is something being propagated solely for political-moralistic reasons, rather than being the widely held consensus of the medical community. This is an indirect way of giving a rather marginal and highly politicized opinion undue coverage. Right now, the article contains completely false information by claiming that lung cancer kills 500,000 Americans a year.[2]
And as for "drug references", it should be noted that tobacco also is a drug, although not classified as a narcotic. This article was created not merely to become an appendix to tobacco smoking, but to cover all forms of smoking. People who want to check out tobacco smoking in particular will only have to read two paragraphs of the lead to encounter a non-oblique link to that very article.
Peter Isotalo 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is not health effects of tobacco smoking, but a general article on all types of smoking. Nor is this a discussion of deaths due to lung cancer, but deaths related to all smoking-related diseases. You were the one who changed "due to smoking" to "due to lung cancer". The problem is that you changed the wording in the first place, not that the figure was wrong. And what really makes no sense in this is that while you're disputing the 500,000-figure for all diseases (of which lung cancer is only one), you have no problem in agreeing for over 400,000 deaths due to lung cancer alone. The paragraph you're proposing to add now may be interesting in a more detailed discussion, but I can't for the life of me understand how it is relevant here. The citations you've provided seem to slightly nuance certain aspects of the health hazards of smoking, but there's really nothing that indicates that smoking is one of the biggest threats to public healths in the world today (along with other forms of drug use, obesity, pollution, automotive accidents, etc.)
Peter Isotalo 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry Naacats, the antitobacco opinion IS the consensus amongst the medical community, at least here in UK, add to that Europe and the World Health Organisation. It is UK Department of Health policy, supported by recent introduction by the Government of a ban in restaurants and pubs supported by the British Medical Association[3][4], and universal advice from every Cardiologist, Respiratory physician and Vascular surgeon I have ever heard in the UK and indeed the World Health Organisation.[5]. Fine to look at the underlying research papers' methodologies, but wikipedia reports current accepted understanding (even if factually wrong) under NPOV, not WP:SPOV, and minority viewpoints is not granted equal space to that of the majority viewpoint (see WP:UNDUE). David Ruben Talk 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extremist sources

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

Naacats 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Naacats post of 24 September above:
(1) Removing links to other articles because in your subjective opinion "the information in that article is inaccurate" is staggeringly presumptuous, POV, and WP:Vandalism. Wikipedia is not somewhere you can rock up and declare yourself an arbiter of what is and is not accurate, and remove links to articles on that basis - there are clear guidelines (WP:Cite, for instance) on what qualifies as such. If you think the passive smoking article is in some way inaccurate, you need to work on improving that article, not unilaterally remove all links to it you can find.
(2) FORCES is, as I've just explained in detail to you on another talk page, completely inadequate as a wikipedia source, and the overwhelming majority of what the article says is dishonest and unscientific. I will not repeat the explanation here, and suggest that you post any comments on it on the other article's talk page.
(3) Covering the use of illicit substances which are smoked is self-evidently appropriate in an article on smoking.
(4) Your opinions on merging should be and presumably are being discussed elsewhere. Suffice to say that merging an article of this length with a number of others could be said firstly to increase the sizes of the other articles beyond what is reasonable and to fragment what is and should remain a unitary body of evidence.
(5) Changing the wording of the text to variants of "some sources say" is WP:Weasel words. If you disagree with those sources, find other sources which meet the criteria in WP:Cite and countermand them - otherwise you have no business changing them, particularly not in a way specifically forbidden by an entire wikipedia guidelines of its own.
(6) "Antitobacco opinion" very much is the consensus among the medical community. You don't have to take my word for it - nip on to [pubmed] and see what you turn up by searching for smoking and any one of the diseases under discussion here.
(7) You claim that "The CDC, WHO, and POSSIBLY the BMA (again I need more information to be sure) really can't be used as a source for this topic. Under wiki's own guidelines they are considered an extremist source." This is so staggeringly ill-informed and ridiculous I barely know how to respond - but perhaps it's best to stick with what's available on wikipedia. Nowhere in the CDC article does the word "extremist" appear, and under WP:MEDRS it would qualify as a secondary source. The WHO produces both primary and secondary sources, and the BMA would, through the medium of the BMJ, qualify as the source of one of the top ten medical publications in the world (it is actually probably in the top three with the Lancet and the NEJM). Your claim is, as I've said, ridiculous, and had you taken the time to look at information readily available on wikipedia, or even to read the guidelines on citing sources, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of having posted it.
Nmg20 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding these citations (A lot more are needed):

  • Ever since smoking was introduced outside of the Americas, there had been many vehement protests against it. -- This is blatently untrue. Tobacco usage was universally accepted in society until late in the last century.
  • Many arguments were presented to the effect that smoking was harmful, and even if the critics were in the end right about many of their claims. - Find me a quotation saying this. The critics were not "right in the end" - at the least the end of this sentence should be removed.
  • It was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies.... - There has yet to be a serious medical study into this.
  • But this was a pleasure that was to be confined to a male world; women smokers were associated with prostitution and was not something that proper ladies should be involved in. - This seems to indicate this was a universal truth. This needs a source.
  • While the symbolism of the cigarette, pipe and cigar respectively were consolidated in the late 19th century, it was not until the 20th century that artists began to use it fully. - Smoking has been depicted in art since before written history. Find me a citation that shows that there was no "fully realized art" regarding smoking prior to the 20th century.
  • ...a pipe would stand for thoughtfulness and calm. - Where did you even get this from?
  • It was not until the 1970s when the negative aspects of smoking began to appear.... - Quote? If anything this should read "It was not until the 1970s when some people began to act on a perceived fear of smoking" - or something to that effect.

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

Naacats 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give a few detailed replies to some of your fact tag criticisms, but I won't bother with doing the whole lot as most of them are really just attempts to ignore sources by pitting them against your personal opinions:
  • Tobacco usage was universally accepted in society until late in the last century. - Absolute nonsense. It was neither universally accepted nor universally condemned (few things ever are). However, several rulers in many cultures reacted with very harsh legislation against smoking and so did many religious leaders. European examples of these persons are James I of England and the Jesuit theologian Jakob Balde. See more examples in the section “The tobacco revolution”, which I encourage you to actually read in its entirety.
  • This seems to indicate this was a universal truth. This needs a source. - This statement, like every other statement you have questioned, has a source. You can find it at the end of the section.
  • Smoking has been depicted in art since before written history. Find me a citation that shows that there was no "fully realized art" regarding smoking prior to the 20th century. - The article claims nothing of the sort. If you actually read the sentence from beginning to end, it says that the symbolism of cigarettes, cigars and pipes weren't fully realized until the 20th century. The citation is once more already provided.
  • Quote? If anything this should read "It was not until the 1970s when some people began to act on a perceived fear of smoking" - or something to that effect. - The sentence speaks of the portrayal of smoking in art. This statement is included under the sub-heading ”Art” which is under the heading ”Smoking in culture”. Actually reading things in their proper context would be a boon to your understanding of, well, anything.
In conclusion, I must say that unless you start working on your inability to conduct intellectually honest discussions and objective analysis of sources, you have no business questioning the hard work of experienced editors. Please leave articles alone until you can distance yourself from all those strong opinions of your's.
Peter Isotalo 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few revisions to the article in a sandbox, and plan to replace the existing error-filled article if no one has any objections. If anybody wants to have a look, it's here: Thanks! TeamZissou 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Splitting the Article

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

Naacats 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, everyone...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naacats 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your username stands for "North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers," which has a website that appears to be written by one person in a political commentary blog-lie setting. All of your edits--every one--has been undertaken to further the views espoused by the sight from which you take you username, including replacing the a medical reference external link with a link to NAACATS site. I'm a smoker. Pipes, cigars and cigarrettes. I think User:Peter Isotalo is a smoker too. But, I'm also a biologist. Smoking isn't good for you, and the studies aren't cooked just to send boogymen after you. I'm sorry if you're pissy because you can no longer smoke in some restaurants and bars, or if it seems that the whole world is out to get you, but altering or removing factual information to support you opinion is futile and wrong. You have your own website--please stop harassing us with constant and unwarranted criticism here. Even as a smoker, I am not interested in misinforming people or ignoring honest scientific evidence. If I were, I would have joined the clergy. In our efforts to present an article as unbiased as possible, we've sought out a broad variety of credible sources. I'm sorry, but smoking isn't good for the human body. It is associated with many health problems and decreased longevity. That's the truth, and saying so doesn't make the article biased. Your approach to changing the content of this article to support your movement is bears a resemblance to the techniques applied by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's in his recent speech at Columbia University. No matter how many times he asks why we can't investigate the very existence of the Holocaust further, or when he claims that homosexuals doesn't exist within Iran, it still won't make his opinions true or the people he challenges "biased." Please. Stop. Editors and admins have better things to do than repeatedly justify reality. TeamZissou 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes my username does stand for that. The group was created SPECIFICLY for fighting falsehood in places like wiki and other online places (theres actually about 8 editors, but only one posts to the public blog). It is fair to say however that perhaps I do have a COI conflict here. That does not change the fact that everything I have stated here is truth. I will however, for the time being, concede as consensus here at the current time appears to be on your side. At least for now.

Yes Smoking is not good for you - I've said that multiple times. I'm not arguing that its not good for you (as some people in the smokers rights movement would do), but instead I'm simply challenging the study that was used to come up with the numbers and other facts cited in this article. I still believe at a minimum a paragraph needs to be added showing that there is indeed argument with those numbers. I have a well cited, informative paragraph written above that I think you can agree is very neutral on the issue (it even quotes the CDCs own people!)

I'll re-paste the paragraph below.

As an aside if you look at the edit history of Peter, he is clearly biased against smokers rights. If he smokes himself or not is irrelevant.

The article is biased. I will not change it further until consensus is on my side however. Please consider the paragraph below for inclusion however. Naacats 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph for inclusion

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

This is an unbiased, factual paragraph. All it does is show that the data is not universally agreed upon. Of course feel free to reword if you feel its necessary. Naacats 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it appears to imply support for your general arguments and opinions? Why not fill the whole article up with "this is questionable", "those claims are likely untrue", "though this is questionable" and "there are many problems with the way it was presented." How unbiased it would be for the whole of collected knowledge to be choked with disclaimers so as to not hurt the feelings of people whose opinions it shows to be wrong. Notice the study was unpublished--the concerns brought up in your citation clearly demonstrate critical review and why we cite scientific and historical research instead of feelings. It does not, however, demonstrate how one should present an unbiased viewpoint. TeamZissou 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all for filling up the article with "This is questionable" statements as many of them ARE questionable. This paragraph isn't a disclaimer, but a counter-point. By denying that there even is another side, you are making this article represent a single POV. The paragraph does not show the Smokers Rights movement to "Be wrong" as you stated, but tries to show that there "is no opposition to this information" The study was unpublished, but is publicly available. The reason it was unpublished was because it was intended for the US congress, and not the general public. Naacats 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, there might be "another side" to the whether-or-not-there-was-a-holocaust debate, and there might be "another side" to the whether-or-not-evolution-occurs debate, but the evidence that supports the position of the prevailing side in either argument is so vast, thorough and testable that to argue otherwise is absurd. From your website, it is obvious what your opinions are, and it is also obvious that it does not matter what the medical or academic communities have found if what they have found conflicts with what your personally believe. Rewording the article to persuade others is as intellectually dishonest as the claims you have attempted to place in this article. Again, since the majority of complaints about this article have come from the anti-smoking camp, and considering that this article has more references than most others its size, and since your suggestions for this article are driven by a desire to promote your views rather than to make it more factual, seriously: please stop. Even a dozen studies showing some weak possibilities in favor of your opinions aren't enough to outweigh the libraries of studies showing that smoking is harmful. Jesus Christ! ...I need a cigarette. TeamZissou 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet even those topics have information on the other side of the story. For example from Evolution: [6]

Did you even bother to read the articles before you claimed that they ignore the other possibilities as well?

It is a FACT that there is another POV (weather my POV is correct or yours is) It is a FACT that we have substantial scientific evidence to back up our claims It is a FACT that a substantial portion of the earths population believes that smokers are entitled to the same civil rights (including the right to smoke) as anyone else

Ignoring these fact throughout the article is absurd. They go right to the heart of what this article is about. Instead this article only supports one side of the story (suggesting that women who smoke are whores (changed later to prostitutes) using faulty information to back up its claims, sourcing information as fact when the studies themselves admit to being faulty.) This goes against the very essence of wikipedia.Naacats 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There apparently is another POV. Okay then. That's what the "intelligent design" crowd says too. Of course. But this article isn't about your uphill political battle, not is it a forum for propaganda. And, obviously the article does not say, nor has never said "women who smoke are whores." What the article really says is: Smoking a cigarette or a cigar would also become associated with the bohemian, someone who shunned the conservative middle class values and displayed his contempts for conservatism. But this was a pleasure that was to be confined to a male world; women smokers were associated with prostitution and was not something that proper ladies should be involved in.[citation needed] It was not until the turn of the century that smoking women would appear in paintings and photos, giving a chic and charming impression. Have you heard of Torches for Freedom? Why would a tobacco company have to hire the world's foremost marketing psychologist to persuade women that smoking was a form of liberation if there wasn't a social stigma attached to it? Read this book, and then you can deny that any of that can be considered factual too. The article also mentions the tacit communication between Edo-period Japan prostitutes and their clients, which involved a cigarette. Sorry if that make you look bad, but it happened. Deal. Thanks for building a straw man, though.

On top of it all, you're trying to merge the section on opium over to the opium page. Since this article is about smoking in general, why ever in the world would you want to do that? Is it because opium has a negative connotation in the public mind, and you don't want that associated with good ol' healthy tobacco? It fits perfectly, it stays on topic, it is referenced, and it is a necessary part of any article concerning the whole of smoking in human history. The same goes for your support of merging the smoking and culture section with the smoking culture article. You wrote on the smoking culture talk page quote: "Smoking is a horribly written biased article that contains very little actual fact. Almost the entire article needs to be merged into other articles. This is a good place for that section to go. Move it. Naacats 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)" Is it? This was given much praise the second week it was up for how well written and well-referenced this article was. It has improved in many ways since then, but the unbiased presentation has continued and been made stronger and more factually correct. Why would you wish to destroy this whole article when it places in high importance with Wikiproject Sociology and given a B-class rating? This is Wikipedia, not The Ministry of Truth, and the year is 2007, not Nineteen Eighty-Four. TeamZissou 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess making refrence to the whore line was a bit much. Thank you for finally agreeing with me about including the paragraph. I don't mind if its changed signifigantly to appear similar to the evolution bit if that helps anyone else.

As for the opium comment - thats why smoking needs to point to smoking (disambiguation) and this article should be titled something like "Smoking in History". I made a stub article called the History of Smoking if you'd like to remove the info there and use that. As it stands now it is primarily about tobacco smoking, and not the smoking of anything. Naacats 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

As a general notification, I have proposed a topic ban of Naacats (talk · contribs) from smoking-related articles for tendentious POV-pushing, off-wiki solicitation of meatpuppets, etc. The discussion can be found at the community sanction noticeboard. MastCell Talk 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sad thing is that if he hadn't pushed his agenda so zealously, he may have been able to write-up a good piece on the issues surrounding the smokers' rights movement, and that would have been informative... TeamZissou 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to make / References to add

{{editprotected}} Under Smoking#Smoking_in_culture, "Art" subsection, third paragraph (slightly re-worded for clarity):

But this was a pleasure that was to be confined to a male world; women smokers were associated with prostitution, and smoking was not an activity in which society thought proper ladies should be involved.[citation needed]

I would like to add the following refs to the end of that statement:

  • Greaves, Lorraine.(November 2002) High Culture: Reflections on Addiction and Modernity. Edited by Anna Alexander and Mark S. Roberts. State University of New York Press. pp. 266. ISBN 079145553X
  • Rudy, Jarret. (October 2005) Freedom to Smoke: Tobacco Consumption And Identity. McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 18. ISBN 077352911X
  • Walkowitz, Judith R. (October 29, 1982) Prostitution and Victorian Society: Women, Class, and the State. Cambridge University Press. pp.26-27. ISBN 0521270642
  • Lock et al. (January 1, 1998) Ashes to Ashes: The History of Smoking and Health. 2nd ed. Rodopi. pp. 81. ISBN 9042003960

Thanks. TeamZissou 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Under Smoking#History, "Social stigma" subsection, change:

It was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies[citation needed] began to be conducted and one of the true breakthroughs came in 1948, when the British physiologist Richard Doll published the first major studies that proved that smoking could cause serious health damage.[24]


Although physicians such as Benjamin Rush had claimed tobacco use--including smoking--negatively impacted one's health as early as 1798 *ADD REF HERE, it was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies[citation needed] began to be conducted. One of the true breakthroughs came in 1948, when the British physiologist Richard Doll published the first major studies that proved that smoking could cause serious health damage.

  • Goldberg, Ray. (May 26, 2005) Drugs Across the Spectrum. 5th ed. Thomson Brooks/Cole. pp. 147. ISBN 0495013455

Thanks, again. TeamZissou 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Under Smoking#History, "Social stigma" subsection, change:

Ever since smoking was introduced outside of the Americas, there had been many vehement protests against it[citation needed]

Ever since smoking was introduced outside of the Americas, there has been much vehement opposition to it. *ADD REFS HERE
  • Proctor, Robert. (November 15, 2000) The Nazi War on Cancer. New Ed edition. Princeton University Press. pp. 176-178. ISBN 0691070512
  • Tyrrell, Ian R. (August 2000) Deadly Enemies: Tobacco and Its Opponents in Australia. New South Wales University Press Ltd. pp. 1-45. ISBN 0868407453
  • Boren, Mark Edelman. (July 24, 2001) Student Resistance: A History of the Unruly Subject. 1st ed. Routledge. pp. 253. ISBN 0415926246
  • Rubin, Vera. (June 1975) Cannabis and Culture. Mouton De Gruyter. pp. 96. ISBN 9027976694
  • von Bibra, Baron Ernst. (February 1, 1995) Plant Intoxicants: A Classic Text on the Use of Mind-Altering Plants. Reprint from 1855. Translated by Hedwig-Schleiffer. Healing Arts Press. pp. 177. ISBN 0892814985

TeamZissou 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Under Smoking#Smoking_in_culture, "Art" subsection, first paragraph:

At first smoking was considered lowly and was associated with peasants. *ADD REF

  • Lock et al. (January 1, 1998) Ashes to Ashes: The History of Smoking and Health. 2nd ed. Rodopi. pp. 78-81. ISBN 9042003960

Thanks yet again. TeamZissou 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like progress is being made to resolve the reasons this page was protected. Once that's done, the page can be unprotected, and then you can edit it normally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, CBM. I went through the article and fixed a few minor discrepancies with linked terms and such. TeamZissou 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern, but appeasing the fact tagging of one stubborn POV-pusher with citation overkill strikes me as being rather pointless. The fact tagging of the "vehement opposition" was especially uncalled for, since a bunch of examples of that opposition is exemplified in "The tobacco revolution" (which is sourced).
And while I'm more inclined to agree that the statement about the 19th century opinion of smoking being inappropriate behavior for women might merit a separate citation, having an additional four is just odd. Overall, I don't like the idea that readers should require additional citations for rather uncontroverisal (unless one is ignorant of it, that is) and general statement just because certain editors can't be bothered with reading through an entire section and checking citations already provided.
Peter Isotalo 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Where are the archive links? Or is this the entire history of talk:Smoking? JayKeaton 09:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup--this is it. TeamZissou 11:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, Tobacco smoking is the older article. Which is, uh, a little confusing really :S JayKeaton 17:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bongs and Hookahs

What on Earth are Bongs and Hookahs???? --jojo 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They're both a type of water pipe. Next time I suggest you actually look up the terms yourself (links are bong and hookah) before using talkpages to inquire about stuff.
Peter Isotalo 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What this reader won't find in those articles is any warning that the burning chambers (craters) on almost all such items are unreasonably large, and should NOT be recommended to smokers who inhale (meaning most cannabis users). Jojo, you'll only harm your windpipe and, at the very least, waste your precious herb money by hotburning away most of the THC. (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for GA nomination

Is the RFC discussion finished? Because the tag, and thenceforth the listing, is still present. VanTucky Talk 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The conflict was resolved, so I removed the request.
Peter Isotalo 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is written in a clear language, easy for the reader to go through and understand. Just when you go for a WP:PR, get one or even two experience copyeditors that have not previously worked on the article to go through it, just to be sure.
2. Factually accurate?: Sections Smoking substances, and Smoking tools and paraphernalia are missing cites. I assume this information is covered in the references section and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here due to the impressive extensive citing in the rest of the entire article. But please do add inline citations to those sections.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very, very thorough. I know how some people don't like "popular culture" articles, and some love em, but the Smoking in culture section could be spun off into its own article, and just briefly summarized in this article in a paragraph or two. This article will have a tendency to get longer without that information anyway.
4. Neutral point of view?: To me the article did read like a neutral, historical account, I could not detect POV judgements being made through use of language.
5. Article stability? I noticed you recently had an issue on the talk page, but the RFC was completed before I came to review. Looking at the edit history back, I do actually see some anon vandalism which even led to protection, but only minor edit warring between established editors, and all edit summaries looked pretty civil. This passes here, but please do be wary of these issues going forward.
6. Images?: A whopping (17) images. One that I saw is even a featured picture, all are free use, all save for one GFDL image are transwikiied from Wikimedia Commons. Very impressive.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. —

  • A well done job, good work. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review and your helpful comments, Curt. Peter Isotalo 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You're most welcome, and please do address some of the points from above, specifically the Smoking substances, and Smoking tools and paraphernalia subsections. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Could you be a bit more specific about what you feel needs detailed citations? I'm assuming it's not the statement about how cigarettes are constructed or that cannabis is illegal in most of the world. Peter Isotalo 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is NAACATS relevant?

I noticed that the link to North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers is still among the external links. Aside the disruptive campaigning by it's founder, is it actually notable enough to keep?

Peter Isotalo 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. The group hasn't received any new coverage or done anything notable, other than spend a few days vandalizing Wikipedia articles. If that's where the energy was deemed best spent by the group's founder, I don't think they will receive any news coverage in the future either. How many members does it have, and how do we know? Does signing the guestlist make you a member? Are there meetings held anywhere other than in the founder's basement (if he has a basement)? It's all bullshit. TeamZissou 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There is rarely more than one person on the site at a time, and most of the articles are simply lifted from other news sites. Not notable in the least. I'll take the initiative to remove it from this article. TeamZissou 22:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some with edit ability

Should revert the "colin is ledge" vandalism by user Duffman612. (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

done. Thanks for the note! henriktalk 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

List of health hazards in lead

Do we really need the list of health hazards in the first paragraph of the lead? The fact that smoking is bad for health is already mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Nburden (T) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Anyone who wishes to expand on the health hazard is encouraged to do so in the sections dedicated to that topic. If anyone insists on having that type of specific information in the lead, it should at least be mentioned in the same paragraph as the general info.
Peter Isotalo 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know the trends of smoking over the last decade? Has it went down? Do you think over the next couple centuries smoking will be eliminated? dearly (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: cigarettes. Down in North America, up in Asia. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Article configuration: inhale vs. noninhale

The issue of inhalation is relevant to any discussion of health consequences of smoking, indeed arguably articles should be divided, with one featuring inhalant smoking and another noninhalant smoking.

The typical big-bowl tobacco pipe is widely associated with non-inhalers, who supposedly receive their nicotine into the brain through the mucus membrane instead of via the lungs and bloodstream, and thus escape most of the health damage.

The tragedy begins with heavily addicted inhalant smokers doing what industry advertisements tell them to do, i.e inhale from short, hot-burning overdose cigarets which burn at 860 degrees C (1500 F) just 7 inches (20 cm) from your trachea.

The real cannabis trap-- it's not what you think

Youngsters checking out cannabis are lured into using the hotburning "joint" or "blunt" (which contains addictive nicotine) or the big-bowl bongs, chillums etc, offered by "head shops". This is tobacco-based overdose culture masquerading as a "cannabis culture". Beginners with cannabis, mostly interested in inhaling, suffer hot-burning overdose problems which are then conveniently blamed on the cannabis-- as a pretext for prohibition which benefits Big Tobackgo.

Article lacks information about harm reduction options

My complaint against the "Smoking" article is that it contains almost no information about the above issues. I have seen some attempts to enter such information into this and other articles rejected. The Wikipedia proudly announces its intention to "change the world" but lets scruples about "objectivity" or "neutral point of view" deter it from providing health information vitally necessary especially to youngsters confronting the smoking dilemma.

(I can understand that editors need to avoid antagonizing the tobacco industry, which casually "snuffs" 5 million of its loyal patrons each year-- what would it do if it could identify and hunt down a real enemy? I don't mean someone who fusses and fumes helplessly about the tobacco problem, but someone who proposes a genuine solution.)

Smokeless tobacco

Since it is almost always smoking that causes the tragedy, a Wikipedia "Smoking" article should include references to smokeless tobacco (ST) and other remedial alternatives (see Rodu, Godshall: "Tobacco Harm Reduction: an Alternative Cessation Strategy for Inveterate Smokers", Harm Reduction Journal, Dec. 21, 2006).

Not discussed by Rodu and Godshall are the following options for inhalant smokers who are not interested in quitting:

Anti-overdose (minitoke) utensil

A narrow crater (1/4"/6mm. is best) provides lower burning temperature, smaller dosages (a 25-mg. serving is possible compared with 700-mg. commercial cigarets) and total elimination of side-stream smoke (ETS). A long flexible extension tube gives smoke more time to cool down before reaching your trachea. You can continue to use your favorite cigaret brand by simply tearing a tiny amount of tobacco off the tip of the cigaret and putting it in the screened crater.


This traditional long-stemmed Japanese pipe has a narrow enough crater to permit 25-mg. servings. It has its own Wikipedia article. The present Smoking article suggests, debatably, that it is no longer in use. A website,, has over a dozen models illustrated, all elegant, ranging from Y700 to over Y20,000 in price and in my opinion worth it.


This narrow-crater middle-eastern product has a short stem, but a flexible extension tube (such as those used with a hookah) could be attached. It is currently discussed in a Wikipedia article, Smoking Pipe, alone among many oversized hot-burners. Websites say it is gaining in popularity as smoking prohibitions reach Dubai and youngsters try harder to conceal their smoking. This could have the semi-unintended fortunate consequence of reducing mortality from cigaret-related diseases.

Nasal salve

Not something I'd try, but consider grinding old-fashioned snuff powder into a drop of olive oil and rubbing it into your nose instead of inhaling the corrosive dry powder. (Same idea applies to cocaine.) (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-inhaling smoking is a very marginal activity. It's largely confined to cigars and newbie smokers. As for suggesting that the article should include tips on how young people should avoid overdosing, I don't believe this is really something that is appropriate to include in an encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 12:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Thank you for your comment. There are still millions of alleged non-inhalers worldwide, such as my pipe-puffing dad who lived to age 92. (Not to mention George Burns with his cigars who made it to 100.) Well, that doesn't mean I would ever do it!! Besides, most of them inhale it anyway, as ETS when they smoke indoors or in their car. So you're right. Probably over 90% inhale.
A prominent right-wing talk-show host, Dennis Prager, boasted on his show last month that he taught his son cigar-smoking before the latter reached age 18. (I've heard Prager say, "I don't inhale.")
2. The discussion, how youngsters can learn non-overdose alternatives, I consider relevant-- and encyclopedic-- because, as widely achknowledged, over 50% of all present cigaret addicts (of whom it is said almost half, or over 20 million in USA alone, will die prematurely) started before 18, i.e. before it was legal to own or use the product they were already hooked on. The problem exists and is a gigantic part of present world history. Find another on-going genocide killing 5 million a year.
This is also surely the outstanding medical hypocrisy of our era. 800,000 are arrested in the USA yearly on cannabis "violations" but try to find any law enforcement whatever on equally illegal tobacco use by minors (nearly a million get addicted every year).
3. Don't forget Big Pharma feeds off Big Tobackgo, by selling billions of dollars worth of drugs and medical treatments for unnecessary illnesses caused by chronic overdose tobacco inhaling. Usually this happens in the last decade of the victims' lives, after they have spent a career making money which they can now throw away squeezing out just a few more years and disappearing into the "normal"-lifespan statistics. (The poor can't afford it.)
4. It is said that misprescribed drugs or side-effects etc. kill 100,000 Americans a year, or almost 1/4 as many as cigarets do. When this happens to smokers, who takes the credit, the tobacco or the medicine?
(Well, I'm not criticizing wiki-editors for not wanting both Big Tobackgo and Big Pharma on their tail. I only hope someone smarter than me can find a way to sneak more ethics into this Smoking article.)[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics about smoking

I would like to read some statistics about smoking in countries around the world. I would like to know which countries smoke the most and which smoke the least. Does anybody know where I can get those statistics I am looking for?

ICE77 -- (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The WHO has some great info on smoking prevalence globally. Doc James (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

electronic cigarette

After the electronic cigarette was commercial it is nice idea to add some word about it. (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Physiology Section - correction?

Is the following (from the "Physiology" section) correct?

"There are several other toxic compounds in tobacco that constitute serious health hazards to long-term smokers from a whole range of causes"

Perhaps the writer meant "in the tobacco in industrially manufactured cigarettes"? Unless tobacco just naturally has these toxic compounds. When you harvest tobacco, does it have these toxic compounds already in it? More on these toxins would also be good. There's those "Natural American Spirit" fags that apparently have no junk in them. Or is that marketing junk? Enlighten me.


Does anybody know? The writer/s of the article?
"There are several other toxic compounds in tobacco that constitute serious health hazards to long-term smokers from a whole range of causes; lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, impotence, low birth weight of infants born by smoking mothers"
- does this mean naturally occurring toxins? Also, are these things (heart attacks etc.) caused by the toxins? That would mean that if we could remove the toxins, tobacco would be safe?... see my point? In my opinion, the article should say that "Serious health hazards affect long-term smokers: lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, impotence, low birth weight of infants born by smoking mothers..."
or something similar, and then mention the harmful toxins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite to BMJ on why people smoke (because addicted)

Cross sectional studies show that most smokers in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States report that they want to stop and intend to stop at some point.1 The rate of attempts to stop is high—78 attempts per 100 smokers per year in the UK—with many smokers making several attempts in a year.2 Nearly half of all smokers expect not to be smoking in a year's time,3 but only 2-3% actually stop permanently each year.3

The most common reasons smokers give for smoking are stress relief and enjoyment,4 but the main reason is nicotine dependence. Nicotine acts in the midbrain, creating impulses to smoke in the face of stimuli associated with smoking.5 Consequent changes in brain chemistry also produce "nicotine hunger" when a smoker goes without nicotine. A third mechanism underlying nicotine dependence is nicotine withdrawal: unpleasant mood and physical symptoms that occur on abstinence and are relieved by smoking.6 7 Nicotine dependence is the main reason that most unassisted quit attempts fail within a week.8 We give evidence based recommendations and new treatment options for healthcare professionals to increase the success rate of these attempts. Most evidence for treatment comes from randomised controlled trials summarised in the Cochrane reviews for tobacco dependence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Social stigma -- NPOV

This lacks NPOV as it does not include the opposite side or opinion of the people reportedly stigmatized. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That was extremely vague. Considering that very little of the article is devoted to the modern anti-smoking movement, I'm curious as to what you're missing. If you want to slap an NPOV-tag and remove a picture of an early anti-smoking campaign, you should try motivate it with more than just a single sentence. We've had enough complaints from both the anti-smoking and pro-smoking sides to establish the article as reasonably neutral by now.
Peter Isotalo 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see something in this section in line with "smokers who are faced with this new increased social stigmatization have felt a need to at times lash out against this stigmatization or get upset, calling opponents to their habit as (insert word: narrow-minded, oppressive, annoying, bigoted...)." See a Google search of "Smoke Nazi" to see how often this term is flayed around when smokers get their ire up about the anti-smoking crowd's "crusade" or "agenda" to puritanically snuff out the habit and stigmatize people who smoke. In other words, this feeling of oppression from stigmatization is not reflected, meaning in my view the section lacks a NPOV. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be interesting to include, though I'm really not keen about seeing rant-ish slogans like "Smoke Nazi" in the article. However, I don't feel that the lack of this type of detailed accounts of smokers' annoyance with being pummeled by propagana which for the most part is scientically sound and correct really constitutes a POV-problem. I mean, the heading is "The social stigma", which in itself clearly implies some type of more or less oppressive behavior against smokers. Considering that the article overall utterly and completely dominated by health and social issues without any real attempts at explaining the history of culture of smoking.
Peter Isotalo 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And why is it that smoking automatically takes on the tacks of health and social stigmatization issues, when there also is a culture involved with smoking?
RE: NPOV - I've added the following while aiming to explain neutrally : "However, on the counterside, in some countries with increased taxes, restrictions on where to smoke and 'quit smoking' advertising from groups aimed at squelching smoking, since the 1990s there has been a counterblast to this through smoking defense groups. Smokers likewise feel that new regulations and general atmosphere are oppressive and the stigmatization placed on them has crossed lines not seen before the 1990s. The smoking defense groups are both independent[28] or funded by tobacco companies.[29]"
The aim is to explain regulations have hastened to block smoking in the past 20 years, and to those having their former freedoms stripped, for better or worse, they feel oppressed or being damned by society for a lifestyle choice. Re: squelching smoking, that is the primary aim for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Truth campaign, among other anti-smoking groups. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read the entire article or ar you just focusing on that one sub-section of "History"? In "Social effects" there is information about some of the reactions from smokers against anti-smoking campaigns. True, there could be more information about the development of the anti-smoking movement in the history section, but that doesn't merit clearly POV:ed language like "squelching smoking" or "a counterblast to this". Also, I'm rather skeptical to using links to opinionated pro-smoking sites as a source.
Peter Isotalo 06:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly I am focusing on this exact area as it previously lacked the opposite side of this coin. Squelching smoking is a fancy way to say "some of these groups want a 100% smokefree society". In the rhetoric used by, for example, and other anti-smoking groups, the removal of tobacco smoking from society is their ultimate goal. "Smokefree" in itself means no more tobacco smoking among the populace.
As for my use of sources to back up examples of smoker's rights groups' financing, see how I am using them and the notes I put in. To show that pro-smoking groups are both financed by Big Tobacco and likewise independent, I used reference links to example groups. If you have a better (but neutral) source showing that pro-smoking groups both are independent and financed by Big T, go for it. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Squelching" is a bit too obviously emotional to be neutral. It's been reworded.
The section you've expanded is really not the place to take your beef. It's supposed to be a general history of smoking, and what you're talking about is a rather marginal phenomenon. Ridiculing of anti-smoking groups is nothing new, but the recent success of the anti-smoking groups at setting the public agenda is. This information really belongs under "Social effects", where this is already mentioned in some detail. I think you should move the content that isn't already mentioned there and try to use sources that actually support most (if not all) what you're saying, not just that anti-anti-smoking groups are either independent or sponsored by tobacco companies.
Peter Isotalo 10:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
See, this is tricky for me because I can see a reason for moving the entire section on social stigmatization of smokers down to the Social Effects area as a subsection there, but I also see reasons that the section needs to stay in the History section. That said, I also feel that without the counterbalance I've introduced to the section on social stigmatization, the area lacks NPOV within that section. However, I do agree that a better source that gives an overview of the rise of pro-smoking groups and the pro-smoking agenda should be included. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm a tad skeptical to information about the e-cigarette and e-pipe. It seems like a rather marginal novely to me, but I'd like more input rather than removing unilaterally. The mention of Ruyan, though, seems to me like a very obvious attempt at promoting a company that isn't really interesting in the context of such a general article.

Peter Isotalo 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

smoking seed?

In the first paragraph under "History" of this article is the statement "The Greek historian Herodotos also wrote that the Scythians used cannabis for ritual purposes and, to some degree, pleasure. He describes how Scythians burned hemp seed." Even if the quote is accurate, I doubt anyone intentionally smoked cannabis seed. If you doubt me, try it some time!--gnomeselby (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You misquoted the text. It says "burned", not "smoked", and the quote refers to a "vapour-bath", not inhaling smoke to get intoxicated. Whether Scythians actually smoked cannabis (leaf, buds, etc.) or not is another matter.
Peter Isotalo 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


How can there be nothing about television regulations related to smoking during prime time or advertising in this article? (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it's a very specific form of regulation. But a sub-section on tobacco advertising in general would be a nice addition.
Peter Isotalo 07:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Smoking Video?

Can someone put a smoking ad, as this would be a nice a feature. Shaunsomeone (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

recreational drug use?!?

Since when has smoking been considered "recreational drug use?" What a bunch of anti-smoking bull shit. That kind of garbage should be removed. (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is this description anti-smoking? Do you have a better suggestion for a common description?
Peter Isotalo 10:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article coordination

This article has significant ties with Tobacco smoking, Tobacco, and Cannabis smoking; using page view parameters we can find that readers diverse themselves among these several articles with Tobacco leading at over 3K[7], Tobacco smoking slightly below 3K [8], Smoking at 2.5K[9], and Cannabis smoking at .5K[10]. With these numbers we can infer that those arriving here in Smoking may quickly find themselves navigating away to Tobacco smoking, seeing to it that this better defines what they're looking for. This posses an issue as users may not receive receive the History of Cultural information from Tobacco smoking. In short my focus is coordinating the many sections of this series of articles to be more accessible and organized to the reader.

In the past, this article was a disambiguation, being effectively created in 14 July 2007. To my understanding: while this method open new avenues for comparative content—that is content that brings together almost sub-articles—it also serves the challenge of coordinating the numerous and more specific subjects. Because of this, I am proposing that the following:

  1. Creating a "Part of the series" infobox to link related articles. The main enteries will most likely be Tobacco, Cannabis, and so forth.
  2. "Smoking" can be ambiguous as is can refer to multiple substances. Often times people refer to tobacco, which we can observe from the page view statics. If we attempt to write the two articles independently, we may often find ourselves providing inconsistent coverage (which can be observed from Health effects [11][12]). The most effective method to my understanding is to do a main article with a specific focus, while adding a summery section often derived from the main article's lead into relevant articles. This is not a General to Specific design, subjects like this are more complex than that. In short it leads to two definitive actions:
    1. While the basic definition of "Smoking" used in this article is a method of consumption, this article focuses on "History" more than any other subject; and therefore there is a possibility of spinning off this section into its own article. From that we can prepare two summery sections: one going to Smoking, and the second going to Tobacco smoking. Readers will then receive this information whether they decide to stay or leave, and a method of acquiring all that we got in the main article.
    2. Likewise, the same can be done for Cultural impact, but to a lesser extent; and perhaps rather than being a spinoff from this article, we may be simply compiling the contents of each article, and then brining it together later on.
  3. "Smoking" can be define as a method of consumption, and therefore a new section can be created summarizing the numerous methods.

I know this is a lot, and there are bound to be more; however before I begin action that can be classified as unilateral, what do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordination is good, especially when it comes to a broad and fairly controversial subject like this.
  1. Templates are useful and practical as long as they don't mutate into something like Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar.
  2. I don't really see the larger amount of information about tobacco as a problem. It's only natural since it's so much more popular. There are more studies done on its effects, more books written on its history and just more reactions to it in general.
    1. "History" needn't come as the first sub-section, and it could probably be trimmed somewhat, but what exactly does and doesn't belong? I should add that it's also still a little light concerning the modern anti-smoking movement.
    2. I assume that you by "Cultural impact" are referring to "Smoking in culture"? That section is rather general in its coverage, so I don't know exactly what parts of it that could be moved elsewhere. And considering that the current article size is well under 60k (including code and references), there's definitely room for expansion, especially if a lot of history is lopped off.
  3. I think methods would go rather well together with the smoking tools and substances, either as a sub-section or under a more general heading.
Peter Isotalo 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Right now I'm just going in order, the infobox is done and I've just finished the documentation for it {{Smoking}}. The concept on how we're going to lay it all out is still a work in progress, it took me two times to get Tobacco right, three for Health effects of tobacco, three times for Ebola, and likely four for Rabies. History is a fairly important subject, and right now my thoughts are as follows: (1) copy the content from this article to History of smoking and prepare a summery section, (2) my assumption is that we can likely get all the essential points for a summery section in three subsections: "Emergence", "Poplariziation", and "Contemporary"; however how we're going to do so will likely be discussed in action. Also what do you think about the discussion below? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've migrated the history section from this article Smoking to History of smoking. This may be a little early, but there'll be subsequent updates until this section is complete. It may appear a little undercited at this point, the references are there, however they are dispersed throughout the main article (the one I just moved) and the several articles I am trying to sync (Health effects of tobacco#History, History of tobacco, Opium, so on). ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute... The history section of the article was one of the most interesting and needed to tie together the whole phenomenon of smoking and humans. If I had been aware of this discussion, I would have been dead-set against it, as I am now. I believe it should be replaced, though I doubt it will at this point. TeamZissou (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a bit uncalled for, ChyranandChloe. You stated in your first post that you didn't want to make unilateral edits, but did just that anyway. I didn't see anything in you suggestion that precipitated such a bold move. The history section can be trimmed, yes, but there's absolutely no need to create a whole new sub-article for it. That's something you usually do when the article starts getting unwieldy in size. I thought you were talking about fleshing out existing article like cannabis smoking and tobacco smoking with some information taken from this article.
If the synching you're talking about here is to consistently move out most of the cultural and historical information from main smoking articles, then I'm strongly opposed.
Peter Isotalo 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I stated in my last post that this may be a little fast. However, undoing at this point seems counter-productive. The issue is not WP:SIZE, I've never raised it as such. The issue is Article coordination, which is a much more challenging concept. Both Smoking and Tobacco smoking need a history section; and the most effective method to my understanding is to have a centralized main article, History of smoking, with summery sections flowing into the articles that need it.

There are three reasons for this method: (1) as discussed earlier the alternative method is to write the two sections independently, but as we can observe (point 2 above), it is too easy to get grossly inconsistent coverage; (2) the article "History of smoking" is notable; (3) this opens the possibility for expansion. Peter, you said it could be trimmed, I do not believe that the section should be trimmed. As TeamZissou stated, this section is one the "most interesting" subjects in this article. The difference in opinions though, is that rather than trimming it, my plan is to move the entire section into its own article, add the omitted topics from the articles I am current syncing, and reflow a summery section back into this article. The summery section, of course, will be likely be fairly large.

I have this worked out, Peter, TeamZissiou—from verifiable page view distributions to the holistic layout design—if you're concerned with the current history section, please don't. I don't intend to leave it as it is. Now, away from this, one thing I haven't really gone over is that I'd like to know your thoughts a little better. You stated what you wanted, and good reasons for it; but I can't read your mind, and I can't weigh an empty scale. I can't meet your goals unless I know them, and know them well. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree about the upsides of your modus operandi. Creating a common history article is all good and fine, but I don't understand why it has to be done by zapping 90% of the history in this article. The reason I brought up size is because I think the history section in its previous condition was not very excessive for a main article. It could be trimmed to allow further expansion of other topics, but that should preferably be done when there's an actual need for it. If we want to create a unified smoking history article, I believe it should be done mostly by writing new material, not by moving information from articles that aren't in need of trimming.
I'm also not all that positive to the new headings. They're mostly just new names for old headings or very vague bonus headings; "Emergence" is pretty much the same as "history begins here", which is wholly unnecessary; "Popularization" is more interesting, but it also implies that smoking either went from being an elite to a wide-spread habit, or that it could only be considered genuinely popular outside of the Americas; "Cannabis" makes an odd break from chronology to substance, and for some reason also covers opium; and "Contemporary" is a rather non-historical term which would be better replaced with "Modern period" or "19th/20th century".
Peter Isotalo 10:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Most of the material is coming from at least half a dozen articles; we don't necessarily need new material just yet, however it would be useful. Part of the reason why I decided on this method was that it creates opportunity for new material, which in my opinion is a measure before the ends. Without it, adding new material feels feels stifled as it would seem unreasonable to add to an already lengthy section. We can probably observe this premise by noting the omissions in the old history section. In short I could regard this action as preemptive, the article was around 56kb[13], half of which was composed of the history section. WP:SIZE defines this as "May need to be divided". Of course not all of it is readable prose, but a good amount is.

I think Emergence (now Early usage) should be the first subsection, otherwise it would give the appearance as the lead to the section. Other than that the sections have been slightly redefined. I understand that you probably don't appreciate the method I am using. As the primary contributor, you wrote a good amount of the material in this article—and in the midst of these controversies, I don't want to take this away from you. You did a good job. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The history section was one of the most well-integrated parts of the article and contained some of the best-sourced and most worked-out material. It could probably use an additional paragraph or two on the development in the modern period, and at the same time be trimmed a bit. But a complete rehaul is not a constructive solution. And as for size, please look around at similar GA articles. Doing a slash 'n' burn routine because of 56k is exaggerated. I usually try to rein in my own work at about 80k, and I'm very conservative in these matters. 100k or more is quite common for promoted articles and raises few eyebrows, especially for articles with a large scope.
I've been trying to tell you for quite a while that I'm against your wholesale removal and restructuring of a very workable history section. Could you please try working with the existing material instead of zapping it and doing your own thang? I don't feel you're paying much attention to my arguments, and I'm very close to reverting you wholesale on this.
Peter Isotalo 09:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not a slash and burn or wholesale removal process; the content was moved not removed, and now I am in the process of returning it. I am working to a tremendous degree with the existing material. For example, the first and second subsection, are taken almost entirely from the existing material. Furthermore, this trend will likely continue to the remaining subsections. Certainly you have read WP:SIZE, and using direct quote from the guideline, "May need to be divided", is not an exaggeration. Promoted articles are often much larger, and I agree, but I am not depending on this argument exclusively. WP:SIZE doesn't condemn this action, you are. You have stated that my edits are unconstructive, however you yourself have provided little beyond unconstructive criticism. I can't weigh an empty scale, and I can't hold your arguments to be self-evident. You need to articulate what you want to do. You need to pay attention to my arguments as well. Wikipedia is not "your work", it is not mine; rather than reverting, explain what you want to revise. Look, I want to help accomplish what your goals; but fixating that we should trim, and calling revert: isn't helpful, and it isn't constructive. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know what you're doing anymore. You moved out almost all material and now you seem to be in the process of moving it in again, but without the geographical organization. What was wrong with the old structure? Why aren't you using sandbox pages for these experiments? What is the point of all this?
Peter Isotalo 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I talked past you, sorry about that. Rather than dividing the history along geographic lines, I've redivided them along chronological lines. This makes more sense than geographical lines since the reader could more easily see the practice, smoking, progress along a common timeline. Of course, geographic divisions would make sense in certain circumstances, however to tell the history of smoking five times (the number of division in the old structure) would consume too much space for a summery section. Instead, I'm planning on using a geographic based structure for the main article, History of smoking. Now, and in retrospect, a sandbox would have been a better idea, and would have circumvented a large degree of confusion or as you can call it disruption; at this point, however, the history section is almost complete. Next time we'll do it your way. So please, have patience. If I lost you, I'm sorry. As much as I would like to speak in past-tense and explain each what, how, and why things happen as they did. The focus of this talk page isn't on what I did, but instead on what we're going to do. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The new version is better in that it has more information on modern period development, but it also spends way too much time on obscure developments like the Nazi anti-smoking movement.
The old structure was not just geographical, however. It was an attempt to include both and trying to avoid the problem of basing the periodization entirely on European premises. And it was most certainly not an issue of telling the history five times over. It was also less focused on the West and had a much more cohesive structure.
I think the old structure should be mostly reinstated and I think we should work on a working more carefully with the existing material and motivate edits in somewhat more detail. For example, what needs to be cut and why? What needs to be kept? I know you're keen on synchronizing related articles, but that should not come at the price of degrading existing material.
Peter Isotalo 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I understand, I try to do my best not to lower the quality of specific sections. This is one reason why I keep a detailed log of what I have to cut out (if I need to cut something out) and what I'm planning on doing in the talk, Talk:Health effects of tobacco is probably my best example. The developments in Nazi Germany are not obscure, they're stigmatized. There in an entire article articulating this matter, which expresses its notability. Furthermore, it provides good context to the environment subsequent anti-tobacco movements operated in. For example, during the Second World War, anti-tobacco movements in the UK and United States were unpopular as they polarized themselves to their enemy. Following which, the necessary level of evidence for authorities to condemn the practice as a health hazard were enormous. The best example I can think of that illustrates this point would be that: in order for the US to condemn liquor by amendment in the 1920s, all they needed were the notion of its adversities; however, for tobacco to be condemned, they needed twenty years of statical evidence coupled with a tremendous amount of work in the pathogenesis. Only about two-thirds of the first paragraph is really tied into the developments in Nazi Germany, the rest were "preludes" leading up to the event, and the subsequent down fall (paragraph 2). For these reasons I do not believe we have allocated too much.

You have a strong point about being Eurocentric. However, as you can define it, it's a real challenge to determine for any specific action to be done to remedy this. Right now I can see several locations from which we can look at. The first is in the last paragraph of "Social stigma". As tobacco consumption declines in the developed world, the emphasis moves away to the developing. The World Health Organization has a report going over their plans on reducing tobacco consumption, which is likewise expanded on their website. The second zone is "Other substances", Cannabis seems to be making a comeback, but my knowledge begins to decline in this area. I can't write the last section without more background. So far I've cleaned up a little in Social Stigma; but if you have ideas rather than grievances I'm interested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct section to place this in (I've never actually written in a discussion page before), but I noticed a phrase that could use some clarification. In the "Social Stigma" section of the article, there is a phrase "In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link. With the rise of Adolf Hitler during the Great depression, he condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money..." I can't understand if it was Hitler who condemned smoking or if was Lickint. Could someone who knows fix this? Thanks Zav (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) The information is attributed to Hitler himself, who was heavily against smoking. Lickint spearheaded the first anti-smoking campaign of the 3rd Reich. --Nahome (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of ref templates

Reference templates have been applied in the article not just for notes, but also the list of references as well as the external links. Applying templates that alters the presentation of text, in this case a smaller font, is not a good idea. It makes some sense for notes, which can be very bulky without them, but not a list of a mere twelve references. If the issue is to make bodies of references easier to identify for editors, then it should be done without using templates like these.

Using it on external links, though, is just odd. They're further reading, not references.

Peter Isotalo 23:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The rationale that I am using to justify this action are as follows:
  1. The the target attribute allows for quick highlighted jumps that can be useful in cases where a short footnote containing the page number and title of the usually lengthy work links to the main reference. For example, this has been used in the "Notes" subsection of Health effects of tobacco where the second footnote "Guindon & Boisclair" 2004, pp. 13-16. links to its main references: "G. Emmanuel Guindon, David Boisclair (2003). "Past, current and future trends in tobacco use"... This feature is available to my knowledge for Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari. I hold that this justifies the the template for the "References" section.
  2. Although the template is titled "refbegin" and "refend" their usage as defined by their internal code work can easily be generalized other applications.
  3. The standard appendices are not necessarily part of the article, specifically speaking the main body. Because of this, shrinking the font-size reduces scrolling and relative screen-size of the article.
  4. Because the "Notes" and "References" section of the standard appendices both have smaller font sizes, it seems somewhat awkward to return back to the default font-size. This is for consistency among the last three sections of the article. I hold this and the preceding two to justify the inclusion of the template for the last section.
Nonetheless, if you feel strongly that the template should not be used for the External links, please say so; and if possible I would appreciate if you also explained why. I am not interested in wasteful edits whose purpose are specifically designed to revert or revise another editor's edit. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm generally not in favor of using templates more than absolutely necessary, and especially not when they alter the layout of the article. Making the fonts smaller also makes the text less legible. That we're talking about sections that are somehow not part of the article isn't really true. Refs and external links are subject to just about the same guidelines and policies as the rest of the article. Reducing their size makes sense in articles like horses in warfare, but not for short lists of books or links. The current standard is that external links are treated the same as article text, and the same goes for short reference lists.
I'm not sure exactly what advantages the ref templates have code-wise, but if it's only a matter of potential usefulness, it can just as well be added later on. As for internal jump links to sources, the usefulness of these is very limited. They require absurd amounts of code clutter to achieve the same thing as a quick scroll down to a very short list of titles. It would be very useful for a digital book with hundreds and hundreds of notes and sources, but it's not that interesting in an article.
Peter Isotalo 01:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right, however I usually try to either incorporate the external links into the references or exclude altogether. They are in several cases (specifically Tobacco advertising) prime targets for spam links or advocacy. I have a good amount of experience with the de facto method for the standard appendices, I've helped document it on several occasions in WP:LAYOUT and WP:PEREN—however how you may define it as a "good" and "actual" practice can be quite subjective. Essentially speaking there are no policies for defining this practice, and the guidelines defers it to the editor under the stability clause of the WP:MOS. I do not approve of the current entries in the EL: all four are centered on health effects, and the last entry "life span calculator" appears to be both unencyclopedic and bordering with advocacy. What are you're thoughts on the necessity of that section in this article? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If this is a subjective issue, there's really no reason for going in an changing the layout against the will of primary contributor. There's nothing in the guidelines that comes down on either side of the template issue either, so in this case I think it should boil down to upholding status quo.
Concerning external links, last I heard, the amount of links in tobacco advertising would be called a "link farm" and be trimmed quite brusquely. At least if it was nominated for any kind of article promotion. I tend to stay away from the external links as long as there's no outright spam. If you feel some of the links aren't useful, do trim, but I think it would be better to add a few more links to balance things out rather than to toss the whole section.
Peter Isotalo 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually talking about the external links in this article, and rather than trimming it I'm talking about removing it altogether. All four links are concerned with health, and the last link especially appears to be bordering on advocacy. I don't see why this section as necessary. This isn't Health effects of tobacco, and rather than link farming, we can get our "further reading" across with the references used. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Health is one of the really major issues when it comes to smoking. Balancing out the external links by adding a few additional sites is not creating a link farm. I had a closer look at the last link and removed because it was a bit too spammish for comfort, but the other seem to link to major, serious health instiutions. I believe they should stay.
Peter Isotalo 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Smoking health damages include seizure

Smoking seriously damages the heart, lungs and brain, leading to an early death. If the damage spreads to the brain, you may have a seizure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Media section should include Tobacco industry's use of films to promote smoking to adolescents

" ... [A] study of 3,000 adolescents found that those who were most often exposed to smoking in movies were nearly three times as likely as others to try smoking. In a striking finding, the study concluded that in more than half the times that a child in the study tried a cigarette, the decision was linked to having seen smoking in a movie."

Harry Potter and the Pint of Liquid Courage Well By TARA PARKER-POPE NYT -- Published: July 27, 2009

the "study" link is PMID 12892958

Dalton, Sargent, et al.,

Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study. Lancet. 2003 Jul 26;362(9380):281-5. The PubMed summary concludes:

"Our results provide strong evidence that viewing smoking in movies promotes smoking initiation among adolescents."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a general article on smoking, and this is a very specific issue related to recent trends in anti-tobacco campaigning. It's probably more relevant to tobacco advertising or health effects of tobacco.
Peter Isotalo 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors not working for the tobacco industry are needed for this article.

Watching this article as it evolves makes clear that there are paid writers assigned to persistently rewrite the lead and restructure the organization of the body to subtly and unsubtly favor the initiation of smoking. It needs editors who will just as persistently return it to focus.

As it stands, it is a continuation of the efforts by which the tobacco companies

"'have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs,' Judge Gladys Kessler, of the Federal District Court in Washington, wrote in a 1,653-page opinion after a nine-month trial."

This Wikipedia article on "smoking" is likely to be consulted by youths who have been driven by product placement and other marketing to consider experimenting with tobacco. It should be completely rewritten to start with and focus on the health effects (and the fact that tobacco is not free, but is addictive and marketed for a hefty profit) which form the most salient information for someone consulting an encyclopedia about "smoking."

Ask yourself: what information would it be most lamentable to omit or marginalize in an article about smoking?

Here, health risks and product cost information has been minimized and marginalized, and thus effectively concealed from a quick reading by the preteen and young teen who is the target of tobacco marketing. As an especially blatant example, "Health effects" is marginalized as a subpoint under "Social effects."

Maintaining freedom FROM tobacco addiction is profitable self-interest. But again and again, the article portrays it as only purposeless social conformity.

The article as it stands needs a complete rewrite. The current lead and overall organization is ad copy for initiation of smoking. Once rewritten, it needs the protection of vigilent editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talkcontribs) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I meet the qualification of "not working for the tobacco industry," and I just added the following to the article:
"According to a study of more than 20,000 Israeli military recruits that was published in 2010, smokers have a lower I.Q. than non-smokers. Those who never smoked had an average I.Q. of 101, while those who smoked more than one pack per day had an average I.Q. of 90.[1]"
Grundle2600 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Among the other glaring problems that I don't have time to list, there is a problem with this sentence:

"The inhaled substances trigger chemical reactions in nerve endings in the brain due to being similar to naturally occurring substances such as endorphins and dopamines, which are associated with sensations of pleasure."

First of all they say "dopamines". There is no plural, there is only one dopamine. I think the word they are searching for is catecholamine. Additionally, nicotine, for example, is not really that close structurally to endorphins or dopamine, and it acts on nicotinic receptors, not dopaminergic receptors.

Problems, problems.Grouphug (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fix the image that was broken

(cur) (prev) 15:40, 7 April 2010 Svr21121 (talk | contribs) (56,319 bytes) (→Early uses) <-- broke the image under Early Uses by removing too many square brackets. FIX IT! FIX IT! FIX IT! ACCCCCCCCCC (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Smoking is the most popular habit. billions of people died because of tobacco. some kids start smoking at the age of 17 because other kids make them smoke that's why we try to stop them from smoking. smoking makes you old and yellow teeth.smoking can cause lung cancer.It also makes wrinkles.IT can cause many kind of cancers like(lung cancer,heart desies and other. ADDICTION - Addiction means when your brain needs a drug which they have become used to.manny of the drugs that creat an addiction are harmful to your body. ( SECOND HAND SMOKE)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Smokers likely to be depressed, and depressed adults have much higher risk of depression.

Depressed Adults are Nearly Twice as Likely to Smoke as Those Not Depressed

Pratt LA, Brody DJ. Depression and smoking in the U.S. household population aged 20 and over, 2005-2008. NCHS data brief, no 34. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010.

Depressed People Smoke More, Quit Less As Depression Deepens, Cigarette Smoking Increases By Daniel J. DeNoon WebMD Health News Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Survey shows how depression and smoking intertwine

Many Smokers Suffer from Depression By Psych Central News Editor Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on April 14, 2010

Many smokers are depressed April 14, 2010 | 8:54 am "Among men ages 40 to 54, a whopping 55% of those who smoke have depression. Among women ages 20 to 39 who smoke, 50% have depression." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vague wording

". Tobacco smoking is today by far the most popular form of smoking and is practiced by over one billion people in the majority of all human societies. Less common drugs for smoking include cannabis and opium. Some of the substances are classified as hard narcotics, like heroin, but the use of these is very limited as they are often not commercially available."

which substances, needs rewording, or just remove the last sentence, nothing of value would be lost :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reworded to make more sense: "Some substances smoked are classified as hard narcotics, like heroin, but the use of these is very limited as they are often not commercially available." -- (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Smoking vs. smoking tobacco

Isn't it possible to differentiate between the effects of smoking in general and smoking tobacco in particular? The article seems to mix the two a lot. For example the IQ study (101 vs. 90), was it due to the smoke or to the type of smoke (i.e. tobacco). Will people also get stupid from smoking other drugs than tobacco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HVMC (talkcontribs) 12:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Non smoking accommodation and accommodation for non smokers

In the UK the smoking ban of 2007 [ ref ?] established that it is illegal to smoke in a public place, bar, restaurant, club, shopping centre, hotel,bed and breakfast and even working vehicles.

Provisions have been made in many places for smokers to stand in groups outside under shelters that have been constructed with 50 % of the walls open to the air[ by the law but ref?].

The rubbish left by the smokers in the form of packets and butts/stubs has also to be kept tidy in large 'ashtrays' and fireproof containers with a fine for those who throw onto public places.[ref law and litter law}

Despite all the provisions for the smoker especially in accommodation there doesnt appear to be any provisions for the NON smoker. They have to suffer the smoker's haze even if they dont have to suffer the immediate smoke. The UK has over 40 million non smokers [ref?]so how many places exist that a non smnoker can go to stay withoutsmokers being around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobobriggs (talkcontribs) 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Looking at the pages history, there has been a lot of uncontstructive edits from IPs recently. I would suggest perhaps semi-protecting this page for a couple of weeks, so that the spam can die down? If people want to make good edits to this page, they can log in. Neobenedict (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the pending revision system is there, but it isn't really doing much. People who do want to make legit edits, due to all the spam going on AND the pending revision system, aren't really getting a chance. Neobenedict (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'Smoking and IQ'

I'm deleting this section. It presents no evidence that smoking 'lowers intelligence' and brings nothing to the debate, as causality isn't demonstrated (an educated person knows not to smoke, for example, rather than a smoking person being made less intelligent by their habit). Lots of stupid people don't smoke and lots of clever smokers are intelligent. Racooon (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reuters Health) - Cigarette smokers have lower IQs than non-smokers, and the more a person smokes, the lower their IQ, a study in over 20,000 Israeli military recruits suggests. [2] talk

Another bad clause, removed

"As tobacco is also not an illegal drug, there is no black market with high risks and high prices for consumers.[original research?]" is not relevant to the entry it was filed under ('health concerns') nor is it correct (a black market for cigarettes can and has existed, as they are smuggled to avoid taxes between US states and differing nations). Racooon (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco is illegal in Bhutan. There is a lot of smuggling and a black market in Canada as we tax them higher than the US.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is a POV violation. Again, the tobacco marketers have removed all reference to health effects. It is ad copy.

This page is ad copy. Again, the tobacco marketers have removed all reference to health effects.

There is a tremendous amount of money that wants to censor health effects of tobacco, to try to get new paying customers addicted.

It removes all references to health, and glorifies tobacco use, again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a real weakness of WP that info germane to a neutral POV is censored whenever there is enough money at stake. Unpaid volunteers can't keep up with SEO and ad departments with large black budgets. Ocdnctx (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, this article is about smoking -- not just tobacco smoking. I've been engaged in reverting many, many edits which are blatantly propaganda and overwhelm the article with tobacco and health information when the focus of this article is neither. And no, I do not work for a tobacco company -- in fact, I'm currently not working at all, and although I was a tobacco smoker I am no longer. The original authors of this article as well as interested editors such as myself have been the ones trying to keep the article from becoming just another rabid piece of health propaganda in appeasement of anti-smoking activists. However valid their claims are, this is not the place for all of them at once. There are sections on Health Effects, Physiology and Psychology, plus links to larger articles on Health effects of tobacco and Prevalence of tobacco consumption -- both articles chock full of all the boring moralizing it seems so many fresh DARE graduates want this article to look like. In reality, this article is slanted in favor of the negative public opinion on smoking, but is far less one-sided than other similar articles. Reading about the same or reconstituted statistics about how bad smoking is for me, the fear mongering about second hand smoke as though vehicle exhaust pipes and industrial parks simply vanished from the environment, the repetition of what people "need" to know, what they "should" do is terribly tiresome, redundant, unneeded, and most importantly for Wikipedia, uninformative. This article tries to cover the aspects of smoking beyond the pamphlets. What if the articles on firearms or slavery or religion or atheism or television were nothing but redundant paraphrasing or how bad this-or-that aspect was? What value would those articles be? If you want to start a "This Is How I Think the World Needs To Be Wiki" go ahead, as there are many free wiki services out there. But the place is not here. TeamZissou (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

More links in reference

In reference 41 (MJ 1997, 315:973-80) I would add the following link to the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette in "see also" section needs to be added

'Electronic cigarette " very much needs to be in "see also" section . it really should have a subarticle on this page too. anyway It needs to be added asap. somebody do it for me , since i cant because im not autoconfirmed and you people felt the need to protect this page from changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talkcontribs) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Section on Depression vs. Suicide

Today I noticed a newly-added section to the Smoking article titled "Depression-Suicide". The content was as follows:

==Depression-Suicide== There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression. Studies have suggested that smoking cigarettes may have a direct causal effect on the development of depression<ref>[ Smoking Linked to Increased Depression Risk / Medscape]</ref> and that [[smoking cessation]] may have a therapeutic effect, ameliorating the symptoms of depression in smokers diagnosed with depressive disorders. There have been various studies done showing a positive link between smoking, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.<ref>Cigarette smoking and completed suicide among middle-aged men: a population-based cohort study in Japan. Iwasaki M, ''et. al.''Ann Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;15(4):286-92.PMID 15780776</ref><ref>Cigarettes and suicide: a prospective study of 50,000 men. Cigarettes and suicide: a prospective study of 50,000 men. Am J Public Health. 2000 May;90(5):768-73.PMID 10800427</ref> In a study conducted among nurses, those smoking between 1-24 cigarettes per day had twice the suicide risk; 25 cigarettes or more, 4 times the suicide risk, than those who had never smoked.<ref>Hemenway D, Solnick SJ, Colditz GA. Smoking and suicide among nurses. Am J Public Health. 1993 Feb;83(2):249-51. PMID 8427332</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Thomas Bronischa, Michael Höflerab, Roselind Liebac |title=Smoking predicts suicidality: Findings from a prospective community study|journal=Journal of Affective Disorders |volume=108 |issues=1 |pages=135–145 |year=2008 |month=May|pmid= |pmc= |doi= 10.1016/j.jad.2007.10.010 |url=}}</ref> In a study of 300,000 male U.S. Army soldiers, a defintive link between suicide and smoking was observed with those smoking over a pack a day having twice the suicide rate of non-smokers.<ref>Miller M, Hemenway D, Bell NS, Yore MM, Amoroso P. Cigarette smoking and suicide: a prospective study of 300,000 male active-duty Army soldiers JAm J Epidemiol. 2000 Jun 1;151(11):1060-3. PMID 10873129</ref> {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left; margin-left:1em; float:right" |bgcolor="B0CCE5" colspan="5"|<div align="center">'''Link Between Smoking Depression and Suicide'''<br></br></div> |- |bgcolor="FBF4CE" colspan="5"| 'Current daily smoking, but not past smoking, predicted the subsequent occurrence of suicidal thoughts or attempt.''<ref>Breslau N, Schultz LR, Johnson EO, Peterson EL, Davis GC. Smoking and the risk of suicidal behavior: a prospective study of a community sample. ''Arch Gen Psychiatry''. 2005 Mar;62(3):328-34. PMID 15753246</ref> ''It would seem unwise, nevertheless, to rule out the possibility that smoking might be among the antecedent factors associated with the development of depression.'' <small>(Murphy JM ''et al.'' 2003)</small><ref>Murphy JM ''et al.'' Cigarette smoking in relation to depression: historical trends from the Stirling County Study.Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Sep;160(9):1663-9.PMID 12944343</ref> 'Abstinence from cigarettes for prolonged periods may be associated with a decrease in depressive symptomatology.'' <small>(Lembke A ''et al.'' 2007)</small><ref>Lembke A ''et al.'' Depression and smoking cessation: Does the evidence support psychiatric practice? Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2007 August; 3(4): 487–493. PMCID: PMC2655079 []</ref> ''The stress induction model of smoking suggests, however, that smoking causes stress and concomitant negative affect. <small>(Aronson KR. ''et al.'' 2008)</small><ref>Aronson KR. ''et al.'' Smoking is associated with worse mood on stressful days: results from a national diary study. Ann Behav Med. 2008 Dec;36(3):259-69. Epub 2008 Dec 6. PMID 19067100</ref> |}

I think that there's some bias and misreporting going on here, in that smoking is far more common among people with mental heath issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia, but that the affects of tobacco smoking serves as a "band-aid" for the underlying issues. Also, this entire section was tobacco-centric, and we've gone rounds on this talkpage reminding contributers that there already exists a tobacco smoking article. Indeed, there's already a mental health section in the Health effects of tobacco article. Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles. The lay reader would interpret that in the same way a non-scientist would interpret a wording such as "Evolution is just a theory." The point I'm trying to make is that this is not the tobacco smoking article -- this article is on the practice, culture and history of smoking in general, and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project. 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

People like yourself crack me up, with your twisted logic and your rude mouth. The section is titled what? [edit] Health effects of tobacco. Invoking nonsensical words like "weasel words" is supposed to support your inane logic? "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," it's called simple English There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression and suicide. Multiple studies, one of which involved 300,000 people does make for factual articles. "I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve" what are you going to cry?

You should give the link for all these proves. I would also like to know if ancient societies suffered the same when they smoke tobacco or the inhabitants of Brazil before it's discovery suffered the same. Tobacco was used in many civilizations. As far as the 300,000 people you decline I didn't understand: did they commit suicide or were depressed? Also would like to remember that clinical trials and studies often show the hypothesis they want to prove and a lot of data is hidden and the way a study is done can manipulate the results. What is a shame is that medicine is claiming a lot is known when they are lost and serving the interests of corporations. Shame on the physicians who are helping kill their patients.--Justana (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project, some bias and misreporting going on here
What exactly is are comments like that supposed to accomplish?
People like yourself detract from the point of the Wikipedia project. Know-it-alls who take a proprietary position over articles, make statements they can't support with facts, and try to shut out everybody else. When I need someone to interpret things for me you will be the first one I'll call. The fact that there are two articles on Smoking and Tobacco smoking is asinine, especially because they have the same information slightly regurgitated.
Smoking and I.Q.
According to a study of more than 20,000 Israeli military recruits that was published in 2010, smokers have a lower I.Q. than non-smokers. Those who never smoked had an average I.Q. of 101, while those who smoked more than one pack per day had an average I.Q. of 90.[40]
Mentioning smoking and I.Q. is somehow deemed important, the fact that multiple studies including in Asia that smokers are at least twice as likely to commit suicide, without any underlying mental illness, isn't. I think people who smoke would find that interesting, but I'm not on Team Shitzu
I noticed a smart mouth isn't uncommon for you.
Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Your comment speaks for itself. Also, your user talk page was nothing but complaints for the sort of behavior you're still displaying and blocks from editing due to such behavior -- that is, until you deleted all of it today (see: User talk:7mike5000 at 18:38, 19 August 2010. You can personally attack me all you want, and even point out the times when I've acted in an unacceptable way just as you are now -- the section you tried to add doesn't belong in this article in the way you presented it, both in its limited focus (tobacco only) and narrow, misleading emphasis (tobacco makes people depressed/suicidal). Troll harder. TeamZissou (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what mouth, out of the millions of people who access Wikipedia the fact that you run into know it all, trouble makers like yourself is pretty much a given, it's like you people flock to Wikipedia, what is it not enough love from mommy?. If someone like yourself makes a comment I just happen to to respond to them.
I made an edit to a page, you delete it with out leaving an edit summary. Then you make a rude and condecending statement. Kind of like this one:
cur | prev) 20:07, 7 May 2010 TeamZissou (talk | contribs) (9,574 bytes) (added photo (again) -- it was removed by some zealot with a vague comment about it being (""out of context""). Hopefully that user is no longer active, and this useful image remains this time.) (undo
and this one
19:46, 2 September 2009 (diff | hist) History of Icelandic ‎ (I came here looking for sources, and found not one.)
23:11, 19 July 2009 (diff | hist) List of punk films ‎ (→U: not even a hint of tangibly relating to anything punk, either in the film or in any element of culture inspired by it)
06:19, 17 July 2009 (diff | hist) Meadow jumping mouse ‎ (Removed poorly written, unsourced material. Ref to Smith was a little distorted -- Good idea for a section, but a very bad section without better language and accurately cited statements.)
18:44, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Scythians ‎ (Undid revision 361068696 by Gabhala (talk) The pro-Iran rewriting is annoying. Undid revision--look @ previous page edits.)
You have a big mouth, your rude and you are condescending, and you also think a little to highly of yourself.

If anybody goes through the 5927 edits I have made there are no rude comments like that unless it's in response. As for me blanking the my Talk page, that was laziness on my part. Anything on there doesn't faze me in the least. I have never initiated anything with anybody.
As for my character, the articles I have created or written atest to it, inconsequential articles like on the deadliest psychiatric disorder Anorexia nervosa, or child abuse murder victims Terrell Peterson, or Depression (differential diagnoses), or historical events like Wounded Knee Massacre. Here some other ones[14]
I realize that my contributions may not be important as some of yours:Triarthria setipennis all one line of it. Or Henry E. Dixey, the whole unreferenced paragraph. Here we have two sentences Myotomys.Plastic Utopia. Here have a look see for yourself[[15]].
I made an edit to a page nothing more, you took it upon yourself to create a needless confrontation out of it... and you don't have a leg to stand on. Displaying bravado and wise comments are easy to do when you sit behind a computer screen. Nobody died and left you boss, and if you want to try and belittle somebody, try harder. 7mike5000 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: The above discussion is part of a review at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility_by_user_7mike5000. TeamZissou (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remember that antidepressants SSRIs Prozac-like, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Luvox, Cymbalta, also is responsible depression, it is one of the side effects and also induces violent behavior that leads people to commit suicide or/and homicide side effects that can happen to healthy people that are prescribed these medicines because of off-label use such as headache or even the distress caused by human condition. I know that for sure a pharma representative will say that it is not right and will start doing the ad hominem argumentation that is shown above. They do it everywhere, they are everywhere telling these drugs help millions of people... blah blah blah... If you are interested you can search the web or read the British parliament 2005 review "The Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry"

" 5. Problems with Seroxat and other SSRIs Prozac and Seroxat are the best-known examples of SSRI and related antidepressants, but others are widely used. The introduction of SSRIs led to a threefold increase in antidepressant prescriptions between 1990 and 2000. Prescriptions for antidepressants now match those of the benzodiazepine tranquillisers at their peak, 25 years ago. Almost from the outset, there was concern about two main problems with SSRIs. First, there was suspicion (initially centred on Prozac) that these drugs could induce suicidal and violent behaviour – infrequently, but independently of the suicidal thoughts that are linked to depression itself. There was also concern (centred on Seroxat) about a risk of dependence; some users found it impossible to stop taking SSRIs because of severe withdrawal symptoms.

This review is a good resource but there's a book that explains the in detail the corporation crimes. It disappeared from the market and was never published again.

For those who are taking or planing to take any psychiatric drug: search the web. Not the first pages because they are the "official version". Always specify your search and you'll find those who are telling the truth in blogs or independent media.

Good health is a question of knowledge and you have to take care of yourself and be active in your treatment because physicians receive to prescribe and also to ghostwrite books or articles - it all in the link I left - saying good things about medicines that kill. Vioxx, Celebrex and many others were only took from the market because of those who fought for their health or the lost of a family member.

I'm not that amazed that this topic is full of ad hominem or ad personae arguments: when what you have no good arguments or need to destroy other people's ideas that the way these people do.

I wont even come back to read the attacks. Thank you for all you say about me because it is an honour to be attacked by hypocrites - from the Greek "hypokrites"= "actor". Good health for all of you.

There is a very good book about antidepressant by the psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen "The Antidepressant Solution" for those who want to quit. Never cold turkey. The withdrawal is hell and has to be done slowly.

For those who will say this is off-topic: not that much since those who suffer from a mental disease smoke too much and it is at the article. Yes they smoke but in case they kill themselves surely it was caused by psychiatric drugs. They also smoke to cope with some side effects caused by these drugs. Now you can start calling me the names you want. I appreciate and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talkcontribs) 20:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Article on smoking scrubbed of all health effects reference amounts to advertising

Smoking causes DNA damage in minutes Published: Jan. 17, 2011 at 11:00 PM UPI Health News —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in Health effects of tobacco. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the genetically modified food has the same power. Amazing! So human species have suffered a lot of DNA damages since tobacco is around since ancient times. I'm scared. I'm a mutant!--Justana (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

68.8% of adult tobacco smokers want to stop, 52.4% had made an attempt to quit within a year before surveyed in 2010

According to a large survey of Americans in 2010,

"68.8% of adult smokers wanted to stop smoking, 52.4% had made a quit attempt in the past year ...

It would all be solves with one single action: take tobacco from the market! Distribute patches for those who are addicted and the plague would be over. They don't do it. I don't know why.--Justana (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

The final paragraph under the "Psychology" section, which reads:

"However, because people who smoke are engaging in an activity that has negative effects on health, they tend to rationalize their behavior. In other words, they develop convincing, if not necessarily logical, reasons why smoking is acceptable for them to do. For example, a smoker could justify his or her behavior by concluding that everyone dies and so cigarettes do not actually change anything. Or a person could believe that smoking relieves stress or has other benefits that justify its risks. Smokers who need a cigarette first thing in the morning will often quote the positive effects, but will not accept that they awake feeling below normal levels of happiness (lower levels of dopamine) and merely smoke to return themselves to a "normal" level of happiness ("normal" level of dopamine)."

is a clear violation of Neutral Point of View, and needs to be removed. This is just the personal opinion of the author, giving a blatantly biased viewpoint on the motives of smoker. Krazykomrade (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the material. It had a citation request for coming up on one year. Dawnseeker2000 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

heart disease

Smoking one cigarette a day results in a risk of heart disease that is halfway between that of a smoker and a non-smoker. The non-linear dose response relationship is explained by smoking's effect on platelet aggregation
How should one interpret this? On Webmd I found:

A person's risk of heart disease and heart attack greatly increases with the number of cigarettes he or she smokes. Smokers continue to increase their risk of heart attack the longer they smoke. People who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day have more than twice the risk of heart attack than nonsmokers.
Those statements seem to contradict: I can't see how the risk can greatly increase with the number of cigarettes if one cigarette puts you halfway between the average smoker and non-smoker. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012

Paragraph 2 - remove "vaporizers" from the list of smoking implements. Vaporizers are not smoking implements. There is no combustion and no smoke is produced by vaporizers. Vaporizers are, therefore, alternatives to rather than forms of smoking implement. There should be a clear distinction made between vaporizers, which are not linked to smoking related illnesses, and smoking implements, which are.

The final sentence of Paragraph 3 in the 'Substances and equipment' section also needs amendment to reflect the important distinction between vaporizers and smoking implements. I suggest a change form this:

"A less common but increasingly popular form is through vaporizers, which operate using hot air convection by heating and delivering the substance without combustion; thereby decreasing health risks to the lungs."

to this:

"An increasingly popular alternative form of recreational drug administration is through vaporizers, which operate using hot air convection by heating and delivering the substance without combustion; thereby decreasing health risks to the lungs."

Any isle (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done No sources are provided for the claim that vaporisers present decreased health risks. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources for the claim because there is no question of it. Vaporizers do not produce smoke. They are, therefore, wrongly listed as smoking implements in this article and are not associated with smoking related illnesses.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vacationnine 23:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You have this backwards. There is no source establishing that vaporizers are smoking implements because they're not. The article states, already, that vaporizers operate without combustion.

N Not done and not likely to be done. Sources do support the claim. The sources in the article say that they are used for the (not exact quotes) smoking of cannabis, etc. It's on you to find a source or else you won't get this approved. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


×Million of users knows very well that "Smoking is injurous to health" even then they do not have any fear of their health injury and smoking day night. Though it is not at all advocacy of smoking habit yet I would like to point out a very sensative type of hyporicy and great contradiction being practicised in Pakistan i.e. mandatory printing of photograph of mouth cancer on the packet of cigrettes by the Ministry of Health with the basic theme to give clear picture of injury may caused due to use of cigrette but on the other hand said Ministry is earning billion of rupees through sales tax on said deadly product and do not have courage to ban this item instead of creating bad taste to user upon opening of each and every packet of cirgrete which is purely a mental torcher to those who are paying handsome tax on its use.I am of the opinion that said deadly picture of mouth cancer shoul not print on the packet of tobacco, however they can print some sort of warning to users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for 'tobacco addition' ?

Can we have a separate article for tobacco addiction. I am sure that there is lot of material for that article. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Drug that has the potential to treat smoking related lung damage

The commonly used blood pressure medication losartan has been found to prevent smoking related lung damage in mice. Clinical trials are underway to test the efficacy of the drug in people with smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the long-term consequence of smoking and for which, until now, there are no known potential treatments to prevent or repair the resulting lung damage.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbseven (talkcontribs) 22:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Cigarette camps section

Shouldn't this be deleted? "(I doubt if the GIs heading into Europe were taken in by any of that cigarette and city mumbo-jumbo!)" Cheers! (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a quote from the website (footnote 81). --Stfg (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

how to stop smoking should be a prominently displayed category..

How to stop smoking should be a prominently displayed category as many places as possible on wikipedia because smoking is so dangerous. Breeze2000 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

a SImple list and picture of the 1/18/2014 US Surgeon General's report on the multiple bad effects of smoking should be easily seen here.

Make an easy to see list of bad health effects. Sources. Surgeon General Report 2014. others too but keep it very simple so people will actually read it. Breeze2000 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

add news about smoking

Largest pharmacy in the US - Cvs, stopped selling cigarettes

Tobacco cos using treaties to stop smoking bans in poor 3rd world countries. Breeze2000 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of section cigarette camps

This section refers to obscure references to some specific cigarette brands, which I think is not notable. I therefore would like to have this section removed.

pls reword this "cause ADHD to a fetus" thing

"Smoking during pregnancy may cause ADHD to a fetus."

If you read the sentence objectively, and know what ADHD is (a diagnosis, not something one can scan a human for), then you know this is simply wrong.

Instead, it should be reworded like "Smoking during pregnancy may predispose the newborn to ADHD." or something similar.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxsowczjpt (talkcontribs) 16:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Harmful effects of smoking

I have just removed the word "harmful" at the very beginning of the article, because I think health effects are not part of the definition of the practice. Nevertheless, I then found out that the article at several occasions was not really objective on the health impacts of smoking; these effects were sometimes minimised ("It has been suggested that smoking-related disease kills..."). The fact that there has been clear evidence of these effects for more than 50 years was also minimised ("In 1964 the Report of the Surgeon General began suggesting..."). I modified these two sentences. Ydecreux (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


The section titled "Prevalence" actually says little about prevalence. Only the first line and the graph are about it. The rest is more about the reasons why people smoke and the creation of an identity as smokers, among other topics. Besides, the perception of the anti-tobacco movement is presented in this section with some bias: strongly negative reactions are not very frequent, except among smokers advocacy groups. It could also be mentioned that rejection and contempt were actually encouraged from the very beginning by the tobacco industry, as explained in the book Smoke (p. 133), by Matthew Hilton. Ydecreux (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Health risks

Can we mention the health risks as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?-- (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a good source. Please see WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Health effects and regulation

Nowhere is it mentioned that there are currently no national bans on the sale of cigarettes; only the bans on indoor smoking are mentioned. Still, some advocate sale bans, see

Perhaps that bans could be imposed just on regular cigarettes though, and not the electronic cigarettes (well at least not the sale of e-cigarettes to adults). This would be much more doable politically, and not cause as much opposition from civilians that still smoke. Also, the e-cigarettes don't cause water pollution/acidification, and all though still somewhat harmful, the amount of harm they cause in humans in nowhere comparable to that of regular cigarettes (see also ). Xovady (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Smoking Cigars

Smoking cigars are too dangerous to humans, cigars are made from a tabacco leave — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

I think this article is missing at least a single line about other substances that people have been smoking, e.g. tea. Kentmc (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No specific change requested PriceDL (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Please add after 'Water pipes are also fairly common, and when used for cannabis are called bongs.' : 'Tea is a less common thing to smoke and its exact impact on ones health therefore not yet known.' With source of information: Kentmc (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do you have another source, as I wouldn't deem that one to be appropriate. Preferably one meeting WP:MEDRS, though I suspect it will have to be of the popular press variety. PriceDL (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: No response to question. PriceDL (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)