# Talk:Tobacco smoke enema

Are you sure that you're not just making this stuff up, Wikipedia?
-- Brian Boyko, 3/29/2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.147.88 (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 

Yes, but you can check for yourself by reading the references provided in the article.  Sandstein  11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this where the phase "Blow smoke up someone's ass" came from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.164.98 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 

Although I don't have much trouble buying the premise of this article, sources which can't be viewed in their entirety (or viewed without subscription) are of very limited value as sources.  Also, when you try to research this topic on the internet, many of the search engine results point right back to the Wikipedia article, a red flag if there ever was one for quality research and sourcing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.57.3 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 

I suggest you visit a library.  They're quite wonderful, although you need to use your legs to get there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sources seem to load just fine. The Lancet was the only source requiring registration, but the registration was free. Lloydsargent (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source cited (Eric Burns's book) does not actually attribute the etymology of "blowing smoke" to the book. His exact words on page 6 of the introduction is "To blow smoke up one's ass. Today it mean to compliment in a crude and obvious manner; in the past it meant to cure a manner even more crude." 
Since this is not a work of linguistic study or a text in that field, and the author makes no claim that it is, I feel attributing that "fact" to that book is specious reasoning at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.8.88 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 
Addition: The etymology for "ass" in its current meaning dates to the 1930's, far after this practice fell out of vogue.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ass  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.8.88 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 

Dear all,
I just read an article on this facinating advancement of modern medicine.  The date of 1811 was mentioned as the beginning of the end of said practice. In the Netherlands, this is incorrect. A decree in 1840 specified its use (preferably for those who suffered from drowning, along with other usefull measures such as bloodletting and "bodily heat".
Please see the source http://www.engelfriet.net/Alie/Hans/tabaksklisteer.htm which is in dutch (translate using google) and has some nice pictures and a scan of several newspaper clippings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.212.103 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 

Title	Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization
Author	Iain Gately
Edition	reprint
Publisher	Grove Press, 2003
ISBN 0802139604, 9780802139603
Length	416 pages [1]
gives a couple of examples of liquid Tobacco (tea) enemas. p. 8 Columbian shaman's clyster in his A.D. 500 tomb, medicinal and spiritual South American example, etc.
and p. 162 (briefly) cure for hemeriods in 1820's soon after nicotine was discovered.
A search of Google books for "tobacco enema" gives 850 results, mostly full view old medical journals, which I suspect are mostly about liquid enemas.  Any interest in just changing this to Tobacco enema (link comes back to this article)? Smallbones (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great expansions, but we should now rethink the scope of the article. Much of it is now about tobacco as a medicine generally, or as a liquid enema (as also noted above). The general medicinal use especially would seem to belong in a more general article (see sidebox), but does not seem to be covered in any existing article. Maybe we could repurpose this whole article as "tobacco in medicine"?  Sandstein  06:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with any of this being copied to such an article, but the uses of tobacco as a medicine seem to be quite far-ranging.  If we were to write in detail about each use, as I've (mostly) done here, I think we'd have an article with about 100k of prose.  The early use of tobacco is intended to give an idea as to why people used tobacco, and not just any smoke.  I'm still finding material to add. Parrot of Doom 08:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tobacco smoke enema/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi PoD, I've signed up for this review, and will have comments up in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting and humorous (excuse the pun) article. I have a few minor comments, and think the refs could be a bit fuller, but otherwise it looks very good. Sasata (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

perhaps some (approximate) dates could be added for Nicot's and Monardes tobacco uses to help set the background, and align the reader for the "contemporary medical science" statement which follows.
The source doesn't give a date.  I could investigate further but I'm not sure its that important, this section is a brief introduction to help the reader understand why some thought that tobacco could be medicinally valuable.
I would argue that the average reader (or at least me) would be interested to know the century when some thought this could be useful treatment. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Tobacco is capitalized in one isolated instance, not sure if it's intentional
A typo, fixed
panacea currently links to the article on the Greek goddess, in an easter egg sort of way
Fixed
"Tobacco was also used to fumigate buildings, to discourage disease." needs fixing
Fixed
date for Thomas Syndeham's early example?
Added
link to bleeding (bloodletting?)
Linked
"pouring hot cordial down her throat" link cordial? (I do not know what this is, suspect it's something Brits drink?)
Linked
"On the advice of a passing sailor, the woman's husband inserted the stem of the sailor's pipe into her rectum, covered the bowl with a piece of perforated paper, and "blew hard"." lol
link Thames
Linked
Source Anon1 should have volume #
Done
Anon3 should have journal title, volume, number (click "show full citation" at the Jstor page); isn't the author Frederick Walter Lowndes?
It has all that, barring the author who I've now added.
Curry 1805 needs location, and volume #
Done
Dick 1847 needs volume # (and issue# if they use it)
I can't supply that right now, I'll investigate further to see where I found it.
location for Hurt et al., 1996
I am uncertain which edition Google Books have used, so will not enter this right now.
Hughes 1982 = vol. 285; Kell 1965 = vol. 78; Long 1847=vol 11; Japiot 1844 = vol 7
Sorry I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Volume numbers are already included.
My apologies, I see it there too now, don't know why I missed it the first time. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
location for Sydenham 1809
Done Parrot of Doom 14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot all about this.  Will address tomorrow! Parrot of Doom 22:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, everything looks to be in order and I'll promote the article now. Thanks for the entertaining read! Sasata (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

snopes says that the saying have (most likely) nothing to do with the practice described in this article. Maybe a correction/expansion is needed? --DaB. (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)