Talk:Hookah

message: Removed the part:
Damages
Form the last news (American onsite) the effect of water pipe is more than cigarette. As dry john’s says smoking for 45 min is equal to using water pipe for 1 week. If you want to find out how this effect is true, call 457543902958 and you can get your right answer. Also there is a possibility to have a blood test in our laboratory which will be held next week.
Euand 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: Damages 

message: Would it be possible for someone to write on how the water filters out anything? The study in the article implies that some things are filtered, however, I could not find anything that says how. My guess was that --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, it's a complicated process involving both solvency and condensation. It's, of course, a very important chemical and industrial process as well. Scrubber Gzuckier 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How it Works

message: who says this in the second line of the introduction? this is just wrong.
response: yeah I agree, I think someone was sabotaged the article, the very first hookah's came from India and were made from coconut shells as proven from uncovered archeological evidence, the modern high quality hookahs that you see today are from the arab world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.83 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originating from turkey??????? 

message: The Hookah
Is there no way to get a better picture than this? Intrigue 20:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Do we really need four different links to commercial hookah/tobacco vendors?  Since they add no intrinsic value to the academic content of the article, I've been bold and removed them.  Wikipedia is not an advertising medium.  Dewet 07:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links 

message: what kind of research, if any, has been done about hookahs being used for illegal drugs? Is there any way to tell if deionized water really absorbs toxins? I am not sure about this most recent addition to style and health. NPPyzixBlan 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hookahs are incorrectly-classified as drug paraphernalia in some jurisdictions and that has lead other jurisdictions to follow suit. As for actual research, I've searched high-and-low for actual research on the subject and have come up empty. It's likely a case where 'if it looks like a bong ... it must be one, right?' I know that the US Customs Department doesn't treat hookahs as drug paraphernalia and the 'traditional use' of the apparatus is what is generally recognized. In fact, I use this case, along with the actual wording from the U.S. Code when I have problems with companies who do not want to work with our company because of the nature of our products. As hookah becomes more popular, I think it will even out and become publicly-recognized as an apparatus for tobacco (akin to English-style pipes). --Cobrabyte 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal drugs 

message: I see that the article makes claim that water actually filters the tar and nicotine from the smoke as it travels through the water. Though I have no doubt that the smoke is cooled by the water (probably via condensation or the micro climate within the base), I have serious doubts that the water is 'cleansing' the smoke of any substantial levels of nicotine or tar. The smoke passes, rather rapidly, through the water and, due to past and present hookah designs, the smoke is actually contained within a bubble (see: cavitation) that protects most of the smoke from the water. Is there credible research to show otherwise? --Cobrabyte 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Concerns 

message: Isn't this line
You can find some exotic flavors like caramel and chocolate mint at this online hookah store http://www.customhookahs.com/Hookah-Tobacco.aspx & also http://www.aladin-shisha.com/
blatant advertising?  I don't know exactly what is and isn't against policy, but it doesn't seem appropriate to me.  Anaraug 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  advertising 

message: In the social acceptance section I have noticed that this alternative has been addressed, i was wondering if anyone knew of information as to where one might acquire such products
:Try a google search for "herbal hookah tobacco".  You should also read this famous essay on asking questions on the Internet. --Mgreenbe 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INquiring about tobacco free and herbal alternatives 

message: In the Function section: However, recent studies have found that hookah smokers inhale more nicotine than cigarette smokers due to the massive volume of smoke they inhale.
In the Style and Health section: In addition to fewer carcinogens being produced, nicotine production is reduced by the lower temperatures at which the tobacco is heated. Lower nicotine production, when compared to cigarettes, means addiction to tobacco, among hookah smokers, happens significantly-less frequently —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.9.47.180 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 February 2006  (UTC)
:The two are not contradictory at face value (per volume, there is less nicotine in hookah smoke than cigarette smoke, but much more hookah smoke is inhaled than cigarette smoke).  In fact, I would say that my own experience bears out this fact.  You are correct, however, that "recent studies" is a weasel word.  Feel like looking it up? --Mgreenbe 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Ghalyun being just another version of the hookah, I'd suggest merging it into this page as a section Hookah in Iran or something. Maybe, in parallel, make separate sections for various other regions as well. The content of that page doesn't add anything over and above this one, even to try to distinguish ghalyan from hookah. cab 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that the article should be merged into this one. The ghalyun appears to have overwhelmingly similar construction and could probably be considered a Persian word for "hookah". —ptk✰fgs 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Ghalyun]] 

message: "What anti-hookah advocates fail to realize is when you smoke a cigarette, you smoke every thing; there is nothing left but ash. When you smoke a hookah for 45 minutes, if made properly, the charcoal does not burn the tobacco like a cigarette. It more bakes the tobacco, rather than a burn. If you took off the aluminum foil after a hookah session, you will see not ash, but blackened, hard tobacco, where the moisture has been cooked away. You're smoking the flavour substance; the "goopy" fluid the tobacco is soaked in. "
That's interesting, assuming it's accurate. Similar to products I've seen that vaporize "smoking material" with a hotplate or such, rather than letting it smolder. Ought to be much less carcinogenic, give that it's the anaerobic high heat that cooks up the nitrosamines, etc. Gzuckier 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can smoke a hookah like that but it makes the smoke extremely rough (I've done it). Also I've heard of traditional smokers placing the coals right on the me'asel and forming some sort of natural screen with the burnt tobacco. Again I've tried both these and found that coals on foil with holes is much more enjoyable. Plus would you rather have someone walk in the room and seeing you relaxing with your hookah or bent over it, trying not to burn your fingers looking like your lighting a bong. Shishasmoker 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cooking rather than burning 

message: Given the documented info we have on actually smoking the burning tobacco through a hookah, this info ought to be added to it, not put in place. I don't know enough about hookah smoking in official hookah establishments, etc. to know if it's the case and whether there's a difference between the Middle East and the Western world, but the amateurs I see playing the home game just fire the stuff up like a pipe. Gzuckier 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can smoke a hookah like that but it makes the smoke extremely rough (I've done it). Also I've heard of traditional smokers placing the coals right on the me'asel and forming some sort of natural screen with the burnt tobacco. Again I've tried both these and found that coals on foil with holes is much more enjoyable. Plus would you rather have someone walk in the room and seeing you relaxing with your hookah or bent over it, trying not to burn your fingers looking like your lighting a bong. Shishasmoker 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: similar edits nov. 14 2006

message: Hello everyone,
I just wanted to notify you that I added a quote from Martin Booth's Cannabis: A History to the Etymology section. It has relevant information to the mention of hashish. I added the citation prior to the section break. This is my first edit so if I did anything incorrect please notify me. 
Thanks,
D.researcher 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology addition 

message: Citation needed for the claim that hookahs started in India -- Alfred Dunhill claims they started in Persia, stimulated by the marijuana trade with East Africa.
:Yes, different sources have different claims, ranging from Africa to India and even China! However the basic form is most widely accepted to have its origins in India. It later sperad to present day Iran and the rest is history. There are two citations given in the article at the end of the statement. Please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin? 

message: Is it possible to link to hookah sites about hookah information. Sites that are about the history and maintenance of hookahs?
:You can read a brief history on the Hookah from here and maintenance tips from here. Also please remember to sign your posts the next time you use a talk page.  S3000  ☎ 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hookah 

message: MESSAGE FROM KAMAL CHAOUACHI
Yes, I am realising that the information provided in this section is highly biased. However, I am confident that the readers are not so ignorant and will be able to understand the other issues at stake beyond the health aspects. 
For instance, the following sentence has been deleted by Wikipedia vandals who are trying to impose their views to the general public: 
Other researchers have raised objections to the methods used in these studies, most notably Kamal Chaouachi, author of early comprehensive writings on the subject 
In these conditions, I am submitting it again and I will check on it from now onwards. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia, not the medium of crusade-minded people. 
Apparently, some people dislike this project and do not want people to know that there are a serious debate on most of the "health aspects" surrounding hookah smoking. You will note that I limited myself to inserting only one link to a few personal pages (the Publisher of my first book on hookah smoking - 1997). I did not insert links that are quite clear on the degree of false information some people are trying to sell on this site. For instance, I could have inserted a link to my evaluation of the multi-expert WHO (World Health Organisation) report on hookah smoking, the first ever published by this institution on this subject. I preferred not to do so.
A critique of the WHO report on hookah smoking
If the above sentence –that brings a minimum of balance on this page- is deleted again, I will feel obliged to cite many counter-studies for each of the given references.
I hope the Wikipedia supervisor will keep a watchful waiting eye on this. Thank you.
Kamal Chaouachi,
Researcher and Consultant in Tobacco Control
Paris, France, 4 February 2007
... could use some work. I'm not familiar with the medical literature, but this section seems to be anti-hookah. In addition, the sentence about the study cited sets off a red flag... you can't estimate the amount of nicotine entering the body by measuring the time spent smoking the hookah and consider that equivalent to chain smoking for the same amount of time. Plus, a lot of this controversial material is uncited. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and health section... 

message: The template at the end of this article may be misleading; it seems to show that illegal drugs smoking in the main use for hookas... What do you think ?
FiP Как вы думаете? 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Cannabis Resources" template

message: From what I've seen of people using a shisha is much more of a high than smoking, I've grown up around them and seen/ see the effects first hand often. I've always attrbuted that to the fact that while using a shisha people take in soo much smoke it's lack of oxygen thing. Since it apparantly only gives the user 1/200th nicotine of a cigarette per 45mins and the effects I've seen happen instantly. If it also only give sthe user a fraction of a single cigarette why is the effect so much more pronounces? I've seen papers where they conclude (using VERY high temperature coal 700°c compared to 100°c) that it produces more nicotine CO etc, in which case the results would be better explained, but usually criticism of these papers is that usually the coal is much cooler. Is it that the coal is truly much hotter than 100°c? Or am I missing sometihng? Wolfmankurd 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the high?

message: Could someone please reference me to the following study (Stated in article):
"One study found that a session of hookah smoking which lasts about 45 minutes is similar in nicotine tar and carbon monoxide intake from 200-300 cigarettes."
I've been searching for such and haven't found any research claiming 45min*hookah ~ |200-300|*cigarettes.
Also, I have been conducting my very own research for many years... which, uhh, involved way more than just 45 minutes of smoking hookah :)... 
Consider the following:
Between 2003 and 2006, almost every weekend (Thursday, Friday and Saturday) I have been smoking approx 2-3 hours per day. This excludes all other smoking during the rest of the week,
The research mentioned above suggests that I have consumed <B>at least 600 cigarettes per weekend</B>.
Most surveys and researches I've found, using Google, state that average cigarette smokers smoke approx 100-120 cigarettes in a week.
Even if such a research was conducted, I find the conclusion exaggerated. I think I should have had several nicotine poisoning cases by now.
     I agree, that statement seems pretty absurd - Circler
::I also agree but you also have to remember that hookah consists of inhaling more smoke than cigarrete smokers because hookah is designed to be smoked during a long period of time where as cigarettes are made to be smoked in a short period of time.. So, depending on how big your "hits" are, it may very well be 200-300 cigarettes. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13538&Itemid=1Helloallen (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 - 300 cigarettes 

message: The section currently reads: "Health benefits and risks
Health effects of tobacco smoking are widely known. But don't believe all the lies too much. Smoking Hookah (Shisha) isn't like smoking cigarettes or weed. It's very good for health. It has vitamin A, B, C and even D!"
First, this doesn't sound like an encyclopedia.  Secondly, it's totally wrong.  Recent studies show a significant, negative impact on the health of the smoker.  In fact, it's many times worse than cigarette smoking.  It needs to be revised.    128.241.109.243 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Section? 

message: Why is there a separate page for the same thing? I suggest the shisha article to be merged into this one. Funkynusayri 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me...go for it?  Just take the new content (Arabic words, for one, but we need proper transcription), and set up a redirect. --Mgreenbe 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with shisha 

message: This article seems a lot more focused on tobacco hookah smoking when in fact hashish (cannabis resin) was the original product that was smoked. Hashish has never refered to tobacco and I will modify this as well. Zachorious 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  This article claims that the hookah was first used for tobacco, whereas the Wikipedia article on tobacco reports that tobacco didn't reach the eastern hemisphere until the European conquest of the western hemisphere.  The Wikipedia tobacco article also reports that a Persian word similar to tobacco may refer to certain herbs; perhaps these may have been used in a hookah. AgedCare14 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hashish vs Tobacco........too much focus on tobacco 

message: Additions such as "Hookah ('vesipiip' in Estonian) has also gained major popularity in Estonia, where it has caused contoversy amongst the troubled parents. Still, you can hardly find any party or (youth) gathering without a hookah." are completely unnecessary in my opinion. Anecdotal information like this doesn't add to the discussion at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.194.106 (talk) 19:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
Speaking of anecdotal opinion; I've removed this from the ma'asel section...  "Some arabs are mildly offended when you call it anything else. ".   raining girl 11:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the article not necessary 

message: I've noticed there is alot of controversy regarding nicotine etc in the above discussions and I'm not getting into that debate at all, but this sentence in the introduction is very clumsy, unreferenced and doesn't seem an accurate reflection of the discussion above. I have removed it and placed it here because of its poor wording (I'm just doing a quick copy-edit of the article) but if people feel that it belongs in the introduction, please improve the sentence before replacing it. 
:Also there are a lot of controversies, on the fact if hookah has nicotine in it or not. (Harvard University studies have proven there is no nicotine in the Hookah. There is a flavored tobacco which gets steamed away from the filter.However there is no nicotine).
Thanks, JenLouise 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicotine controversy (in introduction) 

message: I have no idea about this subject, but I saw this nice picture. Perhaps u guys wanna put it in, or help correct it if it has any mistakes. I could translate it if u give me the names in english. --Canislupusarctos 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  svg image 

message: Someone who is knowledgeable on the subject should add Mada'a, the yemeni water pipe. http://www.google.com/search?q=mada%27a+water+pipe --Rajah 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mada'a, yemeni water pipe 

message: "Malaysia
Malaysia too has seen an increase in hookah use and cafes offering hookah more commonly known as shisha pipes. Nonetheless, this is only to cater the increasing number of tourists from the Middle East. Malaysians are smart enough to know that smoking kills. [6]"
That last sentence adds nothing to the article and should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.252.226 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thanks for the note. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Line 

message: so, IS it bad for you? is it like smoking cigarettes or something? I'm just wondering, not sure. i don't really know anything about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.255.14 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  just to clarify 

message: I've always wondered, the hose is very flexible, and (somewhat) hot smoke passes through it.  WHat is it made of. nowadays, synthetic rubber?  And what was it made of historically?  When sugar cane mentioned in the article wasn't available. 64.252.11.134 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many guys here in Israel use a plastic hose, those used in A/C units which can be bought at about 1 usd per meter. but most hoses consist of a thin flexible metallic coil with synthetic stuff around it (can be clearley seen here: http://www.mr-bills.com/images/Hookah%20Hose.jpg) 79.177.126.11 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A friend who went to Turkey came back with a camelskin hose, so I guess that's a possibility too. Of course, it might not have been camelskin -- neither of us would know the difference -- but it seems at least mildly plausible. Squareintheteeth (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: A plastic hose is defenitely the best. It's cheap, easy to get and easy to clean. A transparent plastic hose has the nice effect of seeing the smoke going through and you can see when it's dirty and needs cleaning. A "flat" plastic hose will not be elastic or comfortable so a plastic hose with a wave pattern (Like the one in the picture 2 comments up) will be a lot better and much more elastic. Besides plastic and leather hoses there are also hoses with metalic composition (As described 2 comments up). In my opinion they are the worst kind of hoses since the metal collects a lot of residue and it's difficult to clean due to corrosion by the cleaning meterial. Also you can't see defects in the metal since it's completely covered. I also dislike leather hoses because the seams rarely provide good blockage (אטימות) for air. If you really want a leather hose it's better to wrap a plastic or metallic one in leather. --80.179.212.193 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hose composition 

message: I think Online Hookah communities should be listed somewhere on the wiki.  Online communities are a hugely popular place to go, to learn about hookah's from regular hookah users.  You can get tips, tricks, find vendors or products and get many discounts for community users only.  A couple communities include www.whookah.com, www.hookahforum.com and www.hookahpro.com.  Each one has very useful articles for any hookah user, whether they are a pro or just beginning. You can find topics on how to get your smoke thicker to topics on peoples opinions on the ever growing question, "Are hookah's safer than cigarettes?".
We can't leave the online hookah communities out of the wiki.  The Wiki is an online source of information so why not include the best places online to get info on hookah.
Nroph (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Hookah Communities 

message: i've corrected the page. It Italy it is legal to produce and sell tobacco for hooka  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.9.8 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SITUATION IN ITALY 

message: In the Tobacco / Merchandising section, a list of brands is mentioned in the firt paragraph, and afterwards it is said that they are all Egyptian. Al Fakher is based in the UAE (at least according to the manufacturer's site, they have a factory in Ajman), as is mentioned in the second paragraph. I'll be bold, and remove the meniton of Al Fakher from the list in the first paragraph. Also, in one video on Youtube, some kind of controversy concerning Al Fakher is mentioned, so maybe there are actually two Al Fakher brands?--Cynebeald (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Fakher comes from the UAE, not Egypt 

message: Maybe I'm blind, but where is the history section? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: The nicotine part of the health section is wrong.
The sources it uses say:
20:http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/327
"Conclusions: More scientific documentation and careful analysis is required before the spread of waterpipe use and its health effects can be understood, and empirically guided treatment and public policy strategies can be implemented."
21:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12078938&cmd=showdetailview
"Following a single run of HB[Hookah] smoking, plasma, saliva and urinary nicotine and cotinine concentration increased to high values."
Further more there are other sources more reputable sources that show hookah as having significant levels of nicotine, such as
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265
"Hookah smoking also delivers significant levels of nicotine — the addictive substance in tobacco. "
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2456.html
"Nicotine: The addictive chemical in tobacco products. While the pipe's water absorbs some nicotine, research suggests that hookah smoke delivers enough of the drug to potentially lead to addiction. "
Clearly this should be changed.
Thanks
The Omnipotence (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicotine Miss Information 

message: Herbal hookah is a safe alternative to shisha tobacco, it does not contain tar, nicotine or tobacco. Herbal hukka is flavoured molasses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.150.230 (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hukka Should be legal and everyone should have a hooka says all the people of the world and beyond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.230.109 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Inhaling burning anything is generally not healthy.  However, if you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion, it would be a good addition. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out in the article and the Talk page numerous times, what is used in a Hookah is not being burned, but roasted. So the "inhaling burning anything" does not apply here. 74.234.215.75 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "roasted" and "burned" are synonymous. If I "roast" something for long enough, it will eventually become completely "burned". What do you think is coming out of the Hookah when you "smoke" it, if not smoke? In any case, this is all irrelevant without sources (and the sources that are in the article say that hookahs are certainly not healthy). -- Atama頭 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Roast" and "burn" are related, but not synonymous.  Most cooks know this.  Frotz (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge that the main difference, which is applicable here, is that the material being roasted does not actually combust. However, it still produces smoke, and let's not forget that hookahs traditionally contain coals which do combust, and though efforts can be made to reduce the amount of ash introduced to the smoker it is still present. Again, this is all academic when we have already sources that contradict what is being suggested here. -- Atama頭 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbal Hukka (shisha/hookah) 

message: What is the reference in response to?  The link is a patent for a non-tobacco substance that can be smoked.  
The last sentence: "Tobacco-free flavors can be purchased anywhere." is not supported by the reference.  Just because they can be made does not mean that they can be purchased anywhere.  
The rest of the paragraph covers the safety, or lack thereof, of tobacco free flavors.   The reference claims that the patented substance is safe (however it never shows this).
As a result I would suggest the removal of the reference.  
Ender8282 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah#cite_note-30 |Reference]] 

message: Please respond here & also insert your response into the article as its not covered XD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.94.243 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects of fruit/honey-based, non-tobacco, no tar, no nicotine shisha with non-carbon monoxide coal  

message: ANTISMOKING INTERPRETATION OF OUR PIONEERING STUDY ON HOOKAH SMOKIGN AND CANCER, the first aetiologic one, at the molecular level, is unacceptable
AUTHOR OF VANDALISM: "20:12, 2 November 2009 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (29,751 bytes) (Reverted to revision 323379691 by 75.158.135.187; rv inappropriate tone. (TW)) (undo)" 
IMPORTANT NOTE FURTHER TO RENEWED VANDALISM : The ethics of Wikipedia cannot be violated by leaving antismoking hacktivists delete such references or interpret them as if they were their authors and as if they had not enought with their control over most of the biomedical journals. The rule should be that when a study saying black is cited (and this is excellent), any other study coming up with unexpected results should also be cited side by side (KC, author, co-author of the deleted then pirated references).
The following paragraphs should remain. Wikipedia is not a place for antismoking propaganda.
Otherwise, not only the full abstract of our study on hookah smoking and cancer can be pasted there but also a long list of peer-reviewed articles and studies that debunk antismoking propaganda and claims. 
Most of the above mentioned studies have been criticised in depth for their numerous errors and flaws by the author of the Critique of the WHO report on hookah smoking. This critique was published in the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the BioMed Central Group.
In the first aetiologic study on hookah smoking and cancer, Pakistani doctors have found much lower levels of CEA (Carcinoembryonic Antigen)(a cancer marker) in hookah smokers vs. cigarette smokers. It is noteworthy that the patients in this pioneering study have been smoking, for decades, huge amounts of tobacco (the tobacco-weight equivalent of 60 cigarettes in each bowl) in their hookahs. Interestingly, this study also reviews and discusses extensively heatlh considerations. [29]. This study was published in the Harm Reduction Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the BioMed Central Group.Italic text
##########################  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.23.97 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health section 

message: I was very surprised in reading this article, to observe not a single mention made of the well established use , globally, of cannabis products alone or with tobbaco.
How can this be?
Is this a deliberate attempt to obfuscate an 'undesirable' social condition?
Surely the fact that millions of people, young and old from every culture, race and ethnic background smoke cannabis, and the use of the hookah features significantly in this practice is worthy of mention.
In the national 'roundup', The Netherlands was significantly missing.
Is that because the law there has to some degree 'accepted' the coffehouses and shops where hashish and marijuana are both sold and consumed?
How can this article profess to be thorough with this obvious deficiency?
There appears to be a bias here and I fear it reeks of revisionism.
There is nothing more abhorent than allowing cultural rewriting of history and anthropological facts, based on religous ideolgies.
Please don't let Wikipedia be hijacked by those who take offense with a sterotype and systematically remove all references to it's characteristics.
(a wiki user)
161.184.180.149 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common usage not mentioned 

message: The paragraph starts off '"hookah" is an unknown term', then ends with 'there is a special-interest magazine about hookahs available which is called "hookahMag"', which is a German magazine.
Obviously the first bit about being an "unknown" term is totally uncited and should be removed. 91.85.174.227 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in "Germany" section 

message: i smoke hookah everyday... shisha is the tobacco that you put in the hookah, not the hookah itself... shisha can be made with either tobacco or sage, and if necessary to prove my knowledge, i can explain how to make shisha as well... either way, this should be edited because it is wrong. if you would like reference pages to back up my story: www.hookah-shisha.com http://www.smoking-hookah.com/category/12001/ http://www.socialsmoke.com/
on all of these sites you will notice that when you click on shisha it takes you to where you buy the stuff you put INTO your hookah... thank you for your time, and i hope you enjoy your day!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortis1369 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the shisha reference is just wrong 

message: The article states "It's a myth that hookah smoking is safer than smoking cigarettes." and "Although many believe that the water in the hookah filters out all the "bad stuff" in the tobacco smoke, this isn't true" but the link given  at the end (http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19) contains various paragraphs that challenge these statements, e.g.
"However, and in striking contrast with cigarettes, hookah does generate almost no side-stream smoke because of its peculiarities (charcoal topping the bowl and less elevated temperatures). So, the only smoke that should be taken into account is the one rejected by the smoker, i.e. the one filtered by the hookah at the level of the bowl, inside the water, along the hose and then by the smoker's lungs themselves. Consequently, the resulting smoke is expected to be less toxic for non-smokers than cigarette side-stream smoke. Notably, a great proportion of irritants, mainly aldehydes and phenols, are removed [19]. A team led by Guillerm in France early found that when passed through water (50 cm3), the combustion gases of cigarette smoke have no inhibitory effect on the respiratory epithelium cilia. The researchers concluded that narghile users can, "without apparent disorders, smoke dramatically greater quantities of tobacco than ours in our countries" [37]. Wynder et al have established that water filtered cigarette smoke is less toxic to clam gill tissue and that "a flask containing 200 ml of water dramatically can reduce the dose of ciliatoxic agents delivered to the ciliated epithelium" [38]. Weiss also reported that the effect of bubbling tobacco smoke through 15 ml of water was "equivalent to the effect of the better charcoal filters" [39]. Zaga and Gattavecchia have shown that the water in the vase of a hookah acts as an antioxydant against some short half-life free radicals [40]. Other substances are supposed to be affected by the water obstacle because of their solubility or the low temperatures: e.g. HCN, nitric oxides, etc. As for particles in the mainstream smoke, and particularly ultra fine ones (0.02 to 1 μm), a recent study shows that hookah smoke is up to 3 times less concentrated than cigarette smoke: 74.4 109 for a 1000 ml hookah (machine) puff and 9.24 109 for a 45 ml cigarette "puff""
92.239.17.213 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can condense all that succinctly and cite it properly, then I think it's a worthy addition to the article.  Frotz (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions regarding Hookahs vs. cigarettes 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been replaced with text from earlier in the article's history and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: In Lithuania hookah bars (locally named kaljanas) are popular among young and middle-aged people. It usually costs 30-200 euros.
- That can't be right!!!  I'm not an expert but 30- 200 euros seems waaaaaay to much. Does anybody know for sure.. I think this information is wrong and should be removed Rozafaaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price in Lithuania 

message: The Kalian is apparently a well known alternative name for the Hooka - not mentioned in your article.
Reference - www.thefreedictionary.com/kalian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.41.25.57 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names for HOOKA - The Kalian 

message: Why do you want to call this an "implement for smoking?" It's a pipe with a water filter and it should be called that. Rees11 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me inthis phrasing. What was not OK is that it was called "water pipe". BTW, please provide a ref for the definion, whichever you choose, since I am not sure it is a "pipe". - Altenmann >t 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that it's not a water pipe. The first two refs I found call it an "instrument" and a "machine." They also say it consists of a bowl, tobacco holder, etc, and a pipe, but they don't say the hookah is itself a pipe. So maybe "implement for smoking" isn't so bad. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Instrument" or "device" sound best.  "Machine" implies complexity and/or significant moving parts. The little ball in the purge valve doesn't count.  Frotz (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone re-added "waterpipe" (one word). Here in the US if you say "waterpipe" most people think of a one piece glass device, much smaller than a hookah, used for smoking marijuana, so I don't think of a hookah as a waterpipe myself. Rees11 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to have a look at Pipe smoking#Water pipes, where it lists a hookah as an example of one. Granted, that's unsourced so I'm not saying that justifies its inclusion here, but we want to stay consistent, so if it's removed here it should be removed at the other article as well. -- Atama頭 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: To further confuse matters, the bong article claims that "water pipe" is an alternate word for a bong. The only reference they use for this claim is this one which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. There's also the water pipe percolator article which describes a part of a bong, but it has no references at all. I searched Wikipedia for other articles using "water pipe" as a term for drug paraphernalia, and have come up empty. The Rhode Island Department of Health says that "water pipe" is another name for a hookah, and references the American Lung Association, so that might be a potential reliable source for it. CNN, the Orlando Sentinel, and a few other news outlets use "water pipe" to describe a hookah. Google Scholar has a lot of support for this as well. So despite the scanty sources in Wikipedia right now, it seems that there's a lot of credibility to the term. -- Atama頭 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implement? 

message: I cut back the paragraph sourced by the USA Today story to just what the story says. There was some more stuff that implied the story was wrong, but none of the sources given actually contradicted the USA Today story as far as I can tell. Rees11 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Today 

message: rv some things, Palestine and Arab world, no explanation given for Palestine's change and Arab worlds removal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv  

message: After the Arab foods, and Arab line dance (dabke), Israelis claiming Arab culture to create their made up artificial culture have continued to smoking: 
Palestine section: "Smoking hookah is not only a tradition, but a culture" , IP just removed the word Palestine and replaced it with Israel. I have therefor removed that sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the intro states "Originally from India,[1][5][6][7][8][9] hookah has gained popularity, especially in the Middle East and is gaining popularity in North America, Europe, Australia and Brazil.[", as if smoking it in the Middle East is somehow a recent fad. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial culture  

message: This article seems to point to the hookah being invented by India in the 16th century or so, and it was invented for mainly smoking tobacco. However the consumption of cannabis in the Middle East and South Asia was quite widespread way before that era, and didn't they use a device similar to a hookah to smoke the hash? Or was it normal pipes and such? The origin of smoking cannabis in the common era is hard to trace, since it is unclear whether cannabis was ever smoked prior to the introduction of smoking to India through tobacco smoking from the west. But it's still interesting to know for sure....weren't there any similar devices during the middle ages in the middle east that were used to smoke cannabis or hash? Zachorious (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hashish and Cannabis 

message: The article states the following under health effects:
"Reports by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society have shown that, in a one-hour hookah session, users consume about 100 to 200 times the smoke and about 70 times more nicotine than they would in one cigarette."
I confirmed the source, and that is what it says; however, this is completely ridiculous. It's understandable to state that the volume of hookah smoke is considerably larger than smoking cigarettes (maybe even 100 to 200 times because of the deep inhalations and fairly watered down smoke), but to state that the hookah smoke contains 70 times more nicotine than in one cigarette is completely absurd. We are talking about consuming the nicotine content of well over 3 packs of cigarettes in a one hour period here! I'm pretty sure you could die from that, considering the effects nicotine has on your heart.
I would suggest changing this because it obviously makes no sense. SilverDrake11 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventy times more nicotine than they would consume in one cigarette? 

message: The section reads:
"Diffuser
the smoke-filtering process, creating a cleaner smoke and a subdued noise. It is used as a luxury item for a premium smoking experience and is not a required component."
but I don't know enough about the topic to fill in the blanks.  Overall, this article is a bit of a mess and I've cleaned it up a good bit but I simply lack the subject knowledge to be of any more help.  --Kitsunegami (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of "Diffuser" Section is Missing 

message: A study on hookah smoking and cancer in Pakistan was published in 2008.[26] Its objective was "to find serum CEA levels in ever/exclusive hookah smokers, i.e. those who smoked only hookah (no cigarettes, bidis, etc.).". Levels in exclusive hookah smokers were lower compared to cigarette smokers although the difference was not statistically significant between a hookah smoker and a non-smoker. The study also concluded that heavy hookah smoking (2–4 daily preparations; 3–8 sessions a day; 2 to 6 hours) substantially raises CEA levels.
* Is it just me or is this completely contradicting itself? Personally - and I make this judgement rashly because I haven't read any of the sources - it seems like the first claim is some lie that's been inserted to defend the activity for whatever reason. This confuses me. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: So there is no justification for beginning this article with "See also: Health Effects of tobacco", which is essentially stamping a Surgeon General's Warning on the article.  Such things should obviously be included, but in a way that's integrated with the body of the article.  PenitentWhaler (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a pulpit 

message: I am tagging the claim in the "Health effects" section that "The water used to filter the smoke does not remove harmful cancer-causing chemicals from the smoke as is believed by some" as dubious. This is contradicted by a MAPS study cited in the bong article, which states: [the study] "found that when alveolar macrophages were exposed to unfiltered smoke, their ability to fight bacteria was reduced, unlike exposure to water-filtered smoke. It also found substantial epidemiological evidence of a lower incidence of carcinoma among tobacco smokers who used water-pipes, as opposed to cigarettes, cigars, and regular pipes. 'It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from cannabis smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area.'" Alereon (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After further review, I deleted this claim as it is directly contradicted by the cited reference. Alereon (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Did you read the MAPS-study? It made reference to a very old study from Hofmann (1962). There are more recent research papers on this topic, I will search in the library. Shisha-Tom (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water filtration and carcinogens 

message: This link got added in at the bottom of the article: Business at hookah-less cafes go up in smoke. It may need integration into the rest of the article, so if you know about the topic, it'd be great if you could add it somewhere. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: The entire section on Bangladesh is unsubstantiated by any sources, and seems to be poorly written English overall. 175.156.156.114 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh 

message: "One report in 1566 described the use of the narghile (coconut) in Indore. Narghiles were coconuts that were mounted on silver or other metals (Pritchett 1890). This was probably used for cannabis products. The hubble-bubble or hookah was a Middle eastern invention and the chilam appears to have been taken from the top of the water pipe and used independently. One variation was the panchachilam (five pipe) in which five bowls, each containing a different substance (including several types of opium, Cannabis, tobacco, and probably datura), were smoked together. One occasionally hears of this in use today. Mushiran (1961:298) also mentioned that the smoking of tobacco, the substance now combined with ganja (Cannabis), was introduced by the Portuguese." (pp. 142–143 of the book Orgies of the Hemp Eaters, Autonomedia, 2004)
I cut this huge quote out of the India section. It uses non-Wiki-style citations, contains contradicting claims, and is not introduced or integrated in the section at all. Also, the references noted are not listed in the References section at all. Some of the information might be able to be used somehow, though. 24.240.38.84 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random quote in India section 

message: The Mu'assel article seems to consist almost entirely of excerpts from this article but with a differing introduction. I think something should be done about this either a merger or have Mu'assel simply redirect here. Eopsid (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mu'assel article

message: Hookah/shisha offered in public cafes can transmit chest disease - most commonly  tuberculosis  if used by an infected person and had not be sanitized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.118.38 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuberculosis  

message: Under Bowls is the Sahara Smoke Vortex bowl really important ? I think Vortex bowl would suffice  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.80.57 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement unnecessary 

message: I'm leaving the following text here until someone is able to clean it up & reference it adequately:
===Brazil===
Consuption of Hookah in Brazil started when Arab and European imigrants started to arive, however, it spread when a soap opera called "O Clone" was airing back in 2002. It gained more popularity in late 2000s among young adults. According to studies, people around 13 and 24 years are the ones that use hookah at most. Around 300.0000 people uses hookah frequently."O Uso de Arguile Preucupa Especialistas" Hookah bars and shops started to spread around the country, but the use of tobacco and smoke is limited to outdoor areas, since smoking is prohibited indoors with exeption of tobacco shops.
Although a ban was tried by the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency, it was overruled since it is a cultural rite.
--Technopat (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed original research/substandard content (Brazil) 

message: I think this article could do with some deeper research. I mean South Africa pales in comparison to Ethiopia. Where it was almost all Muslim and then cross-cultured to everyone else. You get large areas in almost every Muslim restaurants smoking this stuff. It is called Shisha there. Somalia and Eritrea are no different. Not sure about Sudan but hard to see it in Egypt but not Sudan. --Inayity (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Africa esp Ethiopia and other Muslim regions 

message: This information is included in the source article which is referenced for CEA levels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.56.136 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added blood levels comparing CEA's for cigarette smoking , non-smokers and Hookah smokers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hookah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724190114/http://www.ecs.com.np/feature_detail.php?f_id=176 to http://www.ecs.com.np/feature_detail.php?f_id=176
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hookah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116123140/https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/776b63cbb110 to https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/776b63cbb110
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120919133210/http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2008/10/29/4908dae9de4c4 to http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2008/10/29/4908dae9de4c4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404003541/http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/tobacco-control-advocacy/reports-resources/cessation-economic-benefits/reports/hookah-policy-brief.pdf to http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/tobacco-control-advocacy/reports-resources/cessation-economic-benefits/reports/hookah-policy-brief.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615061103/http://influxnews.com/is-hookah-sickness-just-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/ to http://influxnews.com/is-hookah-sickness-just-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are you sure is Hookah a generic and international name for it? I have been travelling in several places (some 300 journeys in 55 countries of the world), been living in three continents and 15 visits to Turkey for instance; I never heard the word Hookah; I heard Nargile, Shisha, Cachimba or WaterPipe instead.    --AlexanderFreud (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hookah names 

message: SA just got into this thing. Everywhere you go on Wikipedia you see SA as the only African country mentioned. What about Ethiopia? Who been using it longer? And when you check it is the Somali and others that made it popular in South Africa among non-Indians. --169.0.56.107 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder who is pushing SA 

message: I accepted an anonymous editor's reversing the order of the Devanagari and Nastaleeq renderings of Hookah, as it did not seem like obvious vandalism, but would be unsurprised if I were to learn it constitutes a form of nationalistic WP:POV, or if it goes against a consensus such as at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Let me know if it becomes an edit war. Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hookah&diff=1031018561&oldid=1029531703 --Anon423 (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindustani: Devanagari vs Nastaleeq scripts