Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive 3

Removal of Photo
I propose the removal of the photo with url.

It seems to add nothing to the article, and the caption has nothing to do with the photo.

What do people think? - Welshy 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look more closely you will see that the sign in the background reads "Northwest Cancer Specialists". It might need to be made slightly larger to make the sign more readable, but it certainly illustrates the topic of the section nicely. Rasmus (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone flag this for lack of neutrality. Whether you're for or against smoking tobacco, you cannot deny that this article is indisputably biased.


 * Can you explain in what way this article is biased? It seems fine to me --Check 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the second sentence of this article cites a 15 page propaganda pamphlet (hardly a good source) which cites no sources. "For some people it can...".  Heroin isn't even as addictive as people think, this is just propaganda (misunderstanding? ).  They are trying to convince people that smoking tobacco is like smoking crack and as everyone knows, you become addictive in an instance (or something like that).  I don't think this should be in the introduction of the article.  The first part of the introduction is basicly about nicotine, not tobacco.  I also think this article lacks counterarguments .  Why doesn't the introduction include a little about it's long history of use and importance in culture? --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am debating the neutrality of this page. The article is very biased. It focuses on showing the harm of smoking, and hardly covers the benefits of smoking. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In another discussion about this article, this comment was brought up:  That lead really isn't great. It launches into an examination of one aspect of the subject matter, rather than providing an overview of smoking culture. The rest of the article (thankfully) doesn't bear this out, but the lead gives the impression that it's going to be an article about the evils of smoking - it's skewed and dangerously close to non-NPOV, nor does it even really explain why people smoke.  Seb Patrick 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the benefits of smoking? (Not trying to be facetious, I honestly have never heard of any.)--Derco 05:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Immediate reward, stress reduction, potentially prevents Alzhiemer's disease and Parkinson's disease. It is also a cultural norm in many regions and among amy ethnic groups. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming you have some good sources, put the information in. Although, I'm not sure that being a cultural norm is really a benefit per se, or how much stress reduction/immediate reward can be quantified.  (Indeed, isn't it possible that the person is somewhat stressed to begin with because they want a cigarette?  Having never smoked I can't really comment on this too much.)  I was intrigued by the possibility that it helped to prevent Alzheimer's disease, and in a quick Google search (although I admit hardly a scientific way of conducting research), I found a few sources that seem to indicate that either there is no link (http://www.newstarget.com/004587.html) or that smoking may in fact increase the chance of developing Alzheimer's (http://www.wisegeek.com/is-there-a-link-between-alzheimers-disease-and-smoking.htm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/115829.stm).  I also found several other sources advocating non-smoking as it can lead to cardiovascular conditions that may later lead to Alzheimer's (http://www.thebestisyet.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/pando19/start.cgi/weekly20.htm, http://alzheimers.about.com/od/diagnosisissues/a/alz_risk_factor.htm).  I only found one source (so far), that seems to support that non-smoker's are more likely to develop Alzheimer's (http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol16.htm), which was located on, in my opinion, a rather dubious pro-smoking site whose purpose is apparently "proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel."  If you could, could you show me some of your sources that indicate that smoking decreases the risk of Alzheimer's?--Derco 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm rather confused as to why you seem to have supported the article on the featured article candidate page as being "well cited and balanced" if you don't actually think that it's balanced....--Derco 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was somewhat balanced until I saw people commenting on the featured page that it's not. Sorry about that. --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey smoking ban
New Jersey also recently passed a new law which bans public smoking. I feel this should be added to this article, as it is the only piece of information absent that I can think of when it comes to tobacco smoking. but I am afraid I lack both the time and expertise, so hopefully someone can add this information when they get a chance.

Psychological/Physiological Effects
It seems that the article plunges straight into issues of addiction and dependence, and makes little to no mention of the effects it produces on the human body. I know this is addressed in the [tobacco] article, however it must not be forgotten that one reason for tobacco smoking is the nicotine buzz, etc. In addition, smoking tobacco causes many other things to happen in the human body, with effects ranging from bowel relaxation to mental stimulation. These should not be left out, and would seem congruous to leaving the dehydrating effects of alcohol out of its own article.
 * I fully agree. It seems to be quite biased to start out the "neutral" article saying "tobacco is deadly+addictive". Alcohol is not in any way related to tobacco smoking and should be excluded. I personally think it should be changed to this order to maintain its neutrality:


 * What is smoking?
 * History of smoknig
 * Methods of smoking
 * Effects of smoking on body (immediate)
 * Benefits of smoking
 * Side-effects of smoking
 * Smoking and various cultures
 * Legal-issues of smoking


 * They categories don't have to have the exact names that I have written above but something similar to that should be nice. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes of death
This page is listen in the category of 'Causes of death'. Tobacco smoking is not a cause of death. Tobacco smoking does not cause death. It is one of the several factors that leads to some diseases that cause death. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragaph
Since the title of the article is "tobacco smoking", the current lead paragraph should describe what tobacco smoking is before delving into the health issues related to tobacco smoke and nicotine. Most of the nicotine details belong in the "Health Effects" section-- putting all of that detailed info in the lead paragraph creates an NPOV problem. The lead paragrapgh should capture the major idea in each of the sections that follow and not spend too much detail on any one idea or issue. Here is my stab at a new lead paragraph -- I prefer to put it here and let someone else put it in the article if they choose (an attempt to get peer review).


 * "Tobacco smoking is an activity where the dried leaves of the tobacco plant are burned and the resulting smoke is inhaled. Tobacco smoking, using both pipes and cigars, was common to many Native American cultures and was introduced to the rest of the world by sailors following European exploration of the Americas.  Tobacco smoke contains the stimulant nicotine which gives the user a "boost", however, it also forms a strong physical and psychological chemical dependence.  Medical research has also found that smoking is a major contributing factor towards many health problems, particularly lung cancer, emphysema, and cardiovascular disease.  Many countries regulate or restrict tobacco sales and advertising.  Many municipalities now ban smoking in a variety of public venues due to health impacts on non-smokers."

Badocter 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely concur. Your paragraph seems good, although the quoted "boost" bit may be a bit too casual.  Suggest "Tobacco smoke contains the stimulant nicotine, which temporarily improves alertness and memory, however it also forms..."  --Nephtes 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't too happy with "boost" either. What you suggest sounds more encyclopedic.  I am also not happy that I started two consecutive sentences with the word "Many", but nothing better came to mind at the time. Badocter 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Applied your paragraph with a few aesthetic changes. It's a big improvement to the article, I think.  I would have liked to work in a sentence or two about lobbying and PR effots by the tobacco industry, as per the copy just replaced, but couldn't get it in with sounding stilted.  I'll go back and review if I have any ideas.  I think this could be enough to justify removing the "bias" template, what does everyone think? --Nephtes 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph is a good start, but there are other areas that need NPOV work. I have taken a stab at cleaning up the section on Native Americans -- part of NPOVing that section is to keep in mind that the purpose of that section is to present their cultural use and beliefs and not making judgement statements about whether they were right or wrong or whether or not their use had a higher moral ground than use by other cultures.  I do not want to pepper the article with "citations needed" flags, but suffice to say, citations help establish the credibility of the content here, and are more necessary in the disputed topics.Badocter 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your general idea, but something about the very first sentence seems awkward. I took the liberty of changing it to "Tobacco smoking is the act of burning the dried leaves of the tobacco plant and inhaling the resulting smoke."  If you really don't like it you can just go ahead and change it back.--Derco 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggest the following be appended to the lead paragraph: "The tobacco industry now takes in sales of over one hundred billion USD worldwide, and has resorted to often controversial methods to protect its interests in the face of growing evidence of the health risks associated with use of its products.  Many lawsuits have been filed as a result, some successfully, alleging dishonest marketing in the full knowledge of the consequences for smokers."  This would make the lead pretty long, though, and I'm not sure if it should be broken, or where.  --Nephtes 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Parkinson's
Is there a source for the info on Parkinson's?--Derco 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8196685&dopt=Citation --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From the abstract of that hyperlink: "These results do not support the hypothesis that smoking protects against PD; rather they strongly imply the converse, that PD reduces smoking." It is a bit odd that you added material to the article that affirms the benefit and then provide a citation that refutes it.Badocter 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong article. Here is the one I meant to show you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10942038&dopt=Citation --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Smoking Journalists
This is section is a bit too narrow in focus to stand alone in this article. If we are going to break them out by occupation here, we should start with world leaders and Hollywood actors who arguably have higher global exposure and recognizability than US network news anchors.Badocter 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Change it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
The References portion of the page is a mess. It needs clean-up. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the reference. Disregard the former notice. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)