Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive 2

message: Is there a reason why absolutely all external links and references where removed at 18:31, 28 March 2006 by 65.167.250.2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_smoking&action) ?
StephanieM 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason why all external links removed? 

message: Is an addiction (a compulsion to do something, a repeated pattern of behaviour despite negative consequences) the same as chemical dependancy (where the body requires the substance for proper function)?
This is implied in the article. 
If so should it be altered?
reply please. Benjaminstewart05 19:16 GMT 11/3/05
:Addiction is much more heavily dependent on social or psychological factors than is biological chemical dependency. As such, it is also more politicized.
:For instance, some psychologists are perfectly willing to discuss "sex addiction", where there is no sign of biological dependency, but rather simply the perception that the "addict" is compulsively doing something unhealthy. Naturally, how healthy it is to have lots of sex depends on the individual and the social context, particularly since some sex is medically risky, and some sex is socially stigmatized. So a married couple who have lots of sex are not likely to get called "sex addicts", simply because their sex is taking place in a socially approved context.
:(Note, I'm not saying this is fair or reasonable. It sure ain't! I'm describing the way people use the words; I'm not making normative claims about how people should use them.)
:In general, people don't want to use the term "addiction" to address compulsive behavior of a sort that doesn't seem connected to something biological -- be it sex, or a drug, or what-have-you. For instance, we say that a person who washes their hands constantly has obsessive-compulsive disorder, not handwashing addiction.
:Regarding tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamine, and other such drugs (but not, e.g., marijuana or LSD) we can identify specific neurological activity that is impaired in withdrawal, and specific other bodily harm which follows from heavy use. So it seems more reasonable to talk about a neurological dependency on a harmful dose of these drugs. --FOo 20:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction Vs. Chemical Dependancy 

message: This article is pretty long now, and some sections are of questionable utility.
 Contents [hide]
 1 History 
 2 Health effects 
  2.1 Tobacco and spontaneous abortion 
  2.2 Radioactive components of tobacco 
  2.3 Beneficial effects of smoking 
  2.4 Nicotine and addiction 
  2.5 Smoking and cardiovascular disease 
  2.6 Epidemiology of smoking 
  2.7 Effects on smokers 
 3 Smoking cessation 
 4 Moral aspects 
 5 Passive smoking 
  5.1 Effects on pets 
 6 Legal issues 
 7 Further reading 
  7.1 On the history of tobacco smoking 
 8 See also 
 9 External links 
  9.1 History 
  9.2 Prevention & Self help 
  9.3 Statistics & Studies 
  9.4 Pro-smoking 
 10 Notes 
I'd suggest that some of these become sub-articles. (I haven't yet checked if they already are.)  Then the section "Health effects" has Main article: Health effects of tobacco smoking at its head and gets summarised. Thoughts? brenneman(t)(c) 22:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is a lot of information in the article... It seems to me that there are some subject areas that might exist that could help break up the main article in a helpful way... For example, the Tobacco article is very focused on the plant itself... Should there be separate articles for how people use Tobacco (smoking, chewing, don't think there are any others...), and then other articles about the effects of smoking and chewing... and perhaps the effects of smoking article is broken up into two articles - one for what happens to smokers - and one for what happens to non-smokers in the vicinity... just thinking out loud here... I guess I think it would help if each new article created had a very well-defined focus and that duplication between articles would be minimized... How much of this informaiton in this article is already is duplicated in (or from) some other article? Snowcat 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large reduction in article size 

message: i just thought it would be good to point out that this article sounds slightly anti-smoking
reply: HARDLY "slightly". it's almost purely and entirely and anti-smoking ad...
this article contains little to no information about actually smoking (ie methods, how-to, general info etc), and is almost completely about the adverse health effects.
reply: there is so much more to smoking than the health effects!  i have half a mind to go rewrite the article.
:I don't think anyone's being fooled when smoking is portrayed as a primarily negative thing.  The adverse health effects have been proven in countless studies.  In fact, I think that trying to put as many positive things about it as negative is misleading, because there are so many more cons than pros. TheArmadillo 02:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: reply - it's EXACTLY this kind of bias that creates stuff like this. Seriously, this is supposed to be an informative articel about smoking, not an anti-smoking campaign. No one is saying smoking is good for you, but alot of the research against isn't exactly 100% either. Recently it has started to boil down to "individual freedoms" movements, taking similar form to the legality of smoking marijuana. The thing is smoking tobacco being portrayed negatively IS fooling people, it makes people think smoking is oh-so-evil. We need informative unbiased info, not "ZOMGZ zmoking is t3h badz fer yer healts QUIT NOW ZOMG", which btw is also true because almost all the link are "quit-smoking" or "smoking is bad for you" type links. try this: http://www.FORCES.org
Due to the massive negativity surrounding smoking, I think more "anti-smoking" stuff will find it's way into the article than neutral stuff. It seems inevitable and I don't think this will change.--Bigplankton 05:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: I've added the POV tag due to pro-smoking bias found in the Passive smoking section.  For a very small example of views excluded from this section, see . --Viriditas  | Talk 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro-smoking bias? The whole article reeks of a stale, non-smoking environment and a definitely anti-smoking POV. And in the "passive smoking" section even the dangers of occasional exposure to other people smoking are referred to. What else do you want? It should perhaps be pointed out that the section in question is entitled "Passive smoking", not "Passive smoking in the United States" or "Judge Osteen's views on passive smoking and his opponents' rebuttals". <KF> 09:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point about the heading.  It should certainly be changed to reflect the geographical location.  However, this section is biased, as it is written from a non-neutral, pro-tobacco perspective.  --Viriditas  | Talk 10:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: reply: are you insane? from a PRO-tobacco perspective? Seriously, this is TOTALLY an anti-smoking article. It is biased, yes, because it is ANTI-smoking.
The majority of the scientific community (and most other people) seems to agree that smoking is bad for your health. When taking this skewed ratio in account the bias is negligible. Views (pro AND con) could be attributed more clearly to better indicate to the reader where this bias comes from. Zanaq 12:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag 

message: The smoking ban article has extensive lists of what restrictions are in place (it's badly organized, but I plan to change that).  This article duplicates most that data.  Should we just have it in once place, such as having this article reference that one rather than enumerate different laws in different areas?  Ocicat 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of smoking ban data 

message: On line 6, the article states,
"Tobacco smoke contains the stimulant nicotine,..."
Then later, in the Effects on smokers section, the article states,
"Nicotine is an unusual chemical because when absorbed slowly, it can act as a sedative and when absorbed quickly it can act as a stimulant. Pipe and cigar smokers usually experience more of the sedative/relaxation effect while cigarette smokers usually experience more of the stimulant effect.
Is nicotine a stimulant or a sedative?
And if both (depending on how fast it's absorbed), then why label nicotine a stimulant near the beginning of the article?
Just wondering... Snowcat 05:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicotine is classified as a stimulant, but can also act as a mild sedative.  I don't see a problem, here.  Perhaps this could be made clear in the lead section. --Viriditas 05:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then perhaps in Effects on smokers it could instead state: "Cigarette smokers usually experience stimulant effect of Nicotine. Pipe and cigar smokers usually experience more of the sedative/relaxation effect, even though Nicotine is classified as a stimulant." Or some variation of the above that simply notices the sedative effect while also noting nicotine's classification as a stimulant. Snowcat 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on smokers 

message: <I>"In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. Lead 210 is a product of the decay of radium-226 and, in turn, its decay product, radon-222; lead 210 then decays to bismuth-210 and then to polonium 210..."</I>
In the above text pointers are made to lead-210 or radium-226. Should these get a REDIRECT to the correct page, or should it be changed in the page here? I'm not a Chemist so I'm not sure how bad it would be to point these to the lead or radium page respectively. Webhat 11:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Radioactive components of tobacco

message: Can't source it (...), but I've heard teenage smokers are 5:1 more likely to develop fear of public places.  Trekphiler 07:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Data 

message: I've removed many links from the Prevention & Self help section of external links for a variety of reasons.  The motivating factor was that it was so long.  Here is an itemised list with my reasons for doing so:
*Smoking Prevention Strategies for Urban and Minority Youth
Removed, as some of its points are ludicrously biased. 
Example: Adolescents smoke for many of the same reasons that they use alcohol and other drugs. Urban community disorganization, crime, violence, poverty, and inadequate schools can lead to a variety of problems for youth, smoking included.
What?  So smoker's are poor, criminal hooligans?  Right...
*Free advice to help you to quit smoking for good
Removed as site seems to be not working, so currently unusable.
*Action on Smoking and Health
Removed, as again it uses dubious facts for its cause.
Example: It’s the most addictive drug known;
What?  Is that excluding heroine and other narcotics?
*StopSmoking.biz - Products and Services for Smoking Cessation
Removed, seeming promotion for the business.  Wikipedia is not bill-board!
*Stop Smoking Support and Discussion Forum
Removed, the forum seems to be dead and most posts are utter tosh.
*How to quit smoking  by Mike
Removed, adds absolutely nothing to the discussion on quitting and prevention.  Repeats many well-known facts about smoking.  Seemingly pointless addition to external links.
I'll be interested to hear your feedback, thanks - Welshy 16:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good. as far as I'm concerned this lengthy justification is unneccesary, a simple editsummary like "rm linkspam" would have sufficed, but again: well done! Zanaq 17:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was.  It's a bit of a hot topic, so I think the removal of things need justification.  Maybe I went over the top a bit, but I just wanted to show some zeal for the matter at hand :) - Welshy 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removal 

message: I have carried on my effort to streamline this page.  Here are the changes I've made:
Removal of Health effects of tobacco smoking to its own page
The page, originally, was 54kb, which is above recommended size of a page. By removing this section to its own page (and placing a holding link in the section on the tobacco smoking page), it was reduced to 34kb.  That in itself justifies it.
Removal of passive smoking to its own page
This lengthy section seemed a bit out of place after the removal of the above.
Removal of the anti-smoking links section
Seeing as there was no "links to pro-smoking sites" along with it, the bias seemed a bit dubious.  Removed and placed on the above two pages.
I also removed the notes that were for the above two sections, and placed them on the relavent pages.
I look forward to your feedback - Welshy 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you ought to have waited before doing such a major move. Comments may take a little while. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that, we'll just have to discuss them when people wake up to the New Year.  I would just like to note that no content has been deleted, they have just been shifted around - Welshy 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifting around of content 

message: I've removed a few self-help links: Wikipedia is NOT a link source featuring how to give up smoking, so stop posting unverified links please.  I will remove any further links to self-help pages, unless they show and provide statistics to prove they are different to the others.  Please post your reasons here for adding them.  Wikipedia is opinion neutral, so please don't force your anti-smoking agenda on users. Thank you - Welshy 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added (restored, really) a link to WhyQuit.com.  This site is non-profit (non-commercial), extremely popular, and probably the most comprehensive site I know of concerning smoking and nicotine addiction.  It is, IMO, one of the very best sites of its kind on the internet.  Since there is a section for "selp help and prevention" already, and this site is a particularly excellent example of that type of site, I included it.  Vis-vis the above comment, I can't see how it possibly adds bias to this entry, and is a useful resource in its category. StrangeAttractor 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: JFW, I agree.  The questions you raise are very valid, and untill they are answered in full, I will keep on removing unwarrented links.  I have removed all links not to official government-sactioned web sites (the end url is my judgement criteria).  Cheers - Welshy 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-help links 

message: I removed many statements that I thought to biased, this included suspect choice of phrases and words.  If you want to reinsert some of the removed clauses, then please post here why they should be re-instated and if an unbiased consensus is reached, then they will be reinserted.
Note, I may have made some grammatical/spelling errors.  If I did, I apologise, I'm only human after-all and it was a large edit.  Please correct it as you see fit.
Thanks - Welshy 04:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of bias 

message: Various parts of this article have been removed and split into seperate articles with the (i believe) intended effect of creating a page that seems more biased towards positive effects of smoking. Most effects on health have been removed. This is actually a clear breach of policy in Wikipedia and I will be looking at the article closely and considering a re-merge of some of the data. I have experience with editors doing this in other articles and I am fully aware of how to counter it. I will be contacting administrators and Sysops regarding this. I should also note this topic is clearly not a POV-less article and I will seek to have it A) removed from the good article list, B) this talk page will point out its controversial nature.--Manboobies 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete whitewash of this article 

message: The Hepburn film screenshot can hardly count as "PD since first published in USA before 1923". Neither the Hepburn screenshot nor the Swedish king screenshot (both presumably are fair use claims) are being used to critically commentate on the films themselves; I therefore suggest they be removed. This article should only be replaced on the good article list if this criticism is dealt with as well as Manboobies'. TheGrappler 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image licensing 

message: This quote seems dodgy to me, and POV (pro-smoking):
:However, successful ex-smokers are often quite happy and relieved, as well as proud of their success. One case was Edward R. Murrow as mentioned above who, after leaving CBS and joining the United States Information Agency under President Kennedy was diagnosed with lung cancer. Despite the death sentence this implied, Murrow was able to quit in the time remaining to him and was very open about the benefits he experienced.
It needs a source.  Also, "benefits he experienced"?  Huh?  You mean, there are benefits to cancer? 
At any rate, without a source, I think this should be deleted. Fieari 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV is anti-smoking - even after being diagnosed w/ cancer, quitting smoking yielded some benefit to Murrow.  However, I think a POV problem exists for the whole "Reasons for smoking" section, in part for the reasons you give.  Citations are missing, and some of the reasons given are highly speculative and condescending (for example, writers being susceptible to the "fictions" of smoking - even if the Klein source makes some sort of argument to that effect, it hardly seems encyclopedic).  Finally, no mention is made of "positive" reasons for smoking that smokers might give - temporary boost to short term memory and concentration, stress relief, social interaction, or intentional / rebellious disregard for more conservative social mores, for example.  Although there is something of vaalue to the discussion of the use of tobacco as an "image" tool, this section needs to be more or less gutted and re-done from scratch, neutrally and with sources.  I'll do it myself if others see the same problem.--Evilbatman 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citation 

message: I'm not being biased here, but a statement like that (or the opposite) needs to have some supporting evidence. Note for instance: ; if every one of these works is the product of antismoking activists, that's a heck of a lot of stuff to prove. Gzuckier 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dependency/addiction research, non-anti-smoking activists