Talk:Tobacco smoking

Merger proposal
I propose to merge tobacco smoke into this article. It seems redundant to the topic of this page. 150.250.5.26 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In my mind these are two quite broad topics that are independently notable. I think there is a lot to say independently about the act of smoking vs. the content, distriubution, history, and social and cultural connotations of tobacco smoke. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the page isn't that big and would fit right in with the rest. Good proposal. It would clean up a bit. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merging Tobacco smoke in Tobacco smoking, or to delete Tobacco smoke. I have the impression that it was created as a WP:POVFORK to minimize the addictive potential of nicotine, please see concerns expressed at the talk page.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already a kind of long article, and I'm not sure that adding to its length by merging in a table of chemical components would improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think PaleoNeonate is right that Tobacco smoke was created as a biased fork article to downplay health risks. I've done some editing to counter this, removing content based on 1970s sources. I think there is a difference between tobacco smoke as a topic and tobacco smoking as a topic, so if the other article can focus on what is in the smoke rather than being about smoking then there's a purpose to a separate article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this, — Paleo Neonate  – 12:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's much more that can be written about tobacco smoke, including filtration of air contaminated with the smoke (eg - using HEPA/ULPA filters), remediation of sites, testing for presence of constituent particulates, etc. Even if this article was a POV fork (likely so, given sentence fragments such as "determine the taste and quality of the smoke", though I notice user Fences and Windows has already removed some questionable material), there's likely sufficient material and reliable sources to transform it into a comprehensive article in its own right. Mind  matrix  23:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mindmatrix. Jusdafax (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Illustration of Tobacco Use by substitution of photograph of Jean Jacques Susini
Jean Jacques Susini (' a French political figure, militant and co-founder of the Organisation armée secrète (OAS), a paramilitary organization opposing Algerian independence from France' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Susini) was an ultra-colonialist, Fascist murderer and founder of the OAS, 'meaning Secret Armed Organisation) ..... a far-right[1] French dissident paramilitary organisation during the Algerian War. The OAS carried out terrorist attacks, including bombings and assassinations, in an attempt to prevent Algeria's independence from French colonial rule.[1][2] Its motto was L’Algérie est française et le restera ("Algeria is French and will remain so").(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_arm%C3%A9e_secr%C3%A8te ).

The article under discussion here attempts to be a sober chronicle of the history of Tobacco Smoking: the illustration of Susini (taken from his Wikipedia page) has nothing to do with this discussion: it is an attempt to infiltrate far-right propaganda onto Wikipedia and should be removed at once.

Paxton Quigley (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is all irrelevant. This article is on tobacco smoking, and that is what he is doing in this photo. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:390F:5103:7184:18C (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's completely relevant, particularly as this IP user is a block-evading extreme right-wing vandal. I've removed the image. Graham 87 07:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Smoking
What are the causes of smoking? 2001:4450:4647:1D00:8939:49B6:5989:A6DE (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ingesting?
First sentence: "Tobacco smoking is the practice of burning tobacco and ingesting the resulting smoke" - ingesting is odd and implies smoke goes down the gastrointestinal tract. But I don't know a better word for absorbing through the oral mucosa and/or the lungs. CyreJ (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A good point. I've also failed to come up with a more suitable word. We could turn to a phrase, like (e.g.) "Tobacco smoking is the practice of burning tobacco and processing the resulting smoke via or in the mouth", but it will be a struggle to compete with the conciseness of the current form. AlexGallon (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)