Talk:Pipe smoking

What about those pipe smoking competitions? Someone who knows could add it.

This article is crap

Just read this article and it sucked. Nowhere near up to wikipedia's standards. I might get to work on it sometime but until then, just letting everyone know, it sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.222.246 (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health problems associated w/ practice?

Why is there no reference to the serious health risks that pipe smoking presents? While not as damaging as cigarettes, there are many health problems associated with practice (e.g. mouth, tongue and throat cancer, dental problems, et. al.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have added a section and properly sourced it with medical resources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed your edits. There's already an article for that. Frotz 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is, but has little-to-nothing specifically about pipe smoking. I think my edits should come back up (it was a short section) with a link to the main article cited above. I have done so. If anyone thinks it should come down, please comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Then put your edits in Health effects of tobacco smoking. The question of whether or not to have a health section was already settled some months ago. We do not need health warnings littering every article that has to do with smoking. Furthermore, this article is only about pipes in general, not tobacco. So, please do your edits in the article I referenced and leave the other smoking articles alone. Frotz 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like I touched a nerve. I wasn't aware of a dialogue regarding a health section under pipe smoking. To be frank, I think we de everyone a profound diservice but not "littering", as you put it, every smoking article with at least some note of the specific health threats it poses. It is, after all, probably the most profound health related problem to affect all societies and people groups. Finally, if you want to remove the section, fine. At least put a link to the aforementioned health effects article in the 'See Also.' To do otherwise would leave a critical piece of information out of the article and would like not be NPOV. Fair enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That isn't quite appropriate either since this article is about pipes in general, not tobacco, whereas your additions presume tobacco use. Frotz 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short article references tobacco EIGHT times and then has a 'See Also' link to tobacco smoking. It is appropriate and it should stay. Both articles need a simple 'See Also' reference to the health article.

I looked up this article specifically because I wanted to know whether the health risks involved with pipe smoking were at all different than those involved with cigarette smoking. I was surprised not to find an answer to my question here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. I've added an expansion request to the article.Obscurasky (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some infomation to this section, but my knowlwdge doesn't extend to commenting on the differences in health risks of pipe and cigarette smoking. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we keep going over this again and again. The health additions are needlessly specific (risks of tobacco smoking) to a general object (pipe). Shall we include commentary on the health effects of smoking crack cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, opium, or bananas? Furthermore, nothing you added on risks of tobacco smoking are significantly different from what's found at the Health effects of tobacco article. Frotz (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think you have a point, but removing any reference to health risks makes no sense either. Pipe smoking does carry with it some associated health risks, and this is an aspect which should, quite rightly, be covered on the page. I've re-inserted the Health risks section, in a less specific form. If you're not happy with it, you should edit it, but please don't remove it Obscurasky (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about tobacco smoking. That's why the section on health does not belong here. Frotz (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. I agree the article is not about tobacco smoking, but as far as I am aware, there are associated health risks involved with all the substances commonly used in pipes. Health risks are an important aspect of pipe smoking which deserve mention in the article; The solution then is to agree a form of wording that covers all the substances commonly used, or deals with each separately. I've, reinserted another revised form of this section. If you're still not happy with it please edit it, or discuss it here and we can come to some agreed form of words. Obscurasky (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the risks. The point is that they're not relevant here. We already have an extensive article on health effects of tobacco smoking. Your addition needlessly clutters up this article. My suggestion to include commentary on the risks of smoking other substances was a reductio ad absurdum. There has been previous discussion on this subject and you offer nothing new. Frotz (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can be aware of the risks - which are Ipso facto an aspect of pipe smoking yet still be of the view that the topic is not relevant.

And, I don't accept that the inclusion of 'health risks' clutters up the article; in my opinion it's an important aspect of pipe smoking which many visitors to the page would expect to see. Obscurasky (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand the question, the article is about the procedure of smoking various things through a pipe. All of these things pose health risks, but not all the same health risks. The health risks are best left discussed in the articles about the different substances themselves. It does not make sense to say, as has been stated above, that we are doing anyone a "disservice" by omitting the information here, as if we should expect that readers who fail to see health-risk information on this page would be encouraged to start smoking pipes because we didn't tell them it was unhealthy. Wikipedia is not a user's manual to any of the subjects it details. --D. J. Cartwright (talk) via 64.128.166.210 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Frotz (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frotz's assertion that Since we cannot justify listing all the health risks of everything one could possibly smoke in a pipe, this section [Health risks] needs to go is nonsensical. It's like saying 'since we cannot list every aspect of pipe culture, we shouldn't list any'.

I'm a pipe smoker of over 40 years, but I can't understand why some people seem so obsessed with keeping any reference to health risks out of this article? I accept we can't list all the health risks, including those for non-tobacco smoking, but I do know that health risks exist and are therefore an aspect of pipe smoking - and thus deserve, at least some, mention in this article. Obscurasky (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we include a discussion of the health effects of all the things that are consumed with the use of a cup? With a fork? Should all articles on sharp objects contain warnings against their careless use and details on stabbing and slashing wounds? The problem is clutter. Frotz (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not for one moment advocating that we include a 'warning' in the article. And I'm afraid your analogy about cups and forks demonstrates the weakness of your argument. These things are objects, whereas this page is about an activity - one which carries with it some associated health risks. And even in the context of your (albeit flawed) analogy, these risks don't arise through careless use of 'objects'; but through their normal use. Of course health risks deserve some mention here. Obscurasky (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that health risks are immediately associated with the subject, and the corresponding summary section is relevant to this article. Mukadderat (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks are only fleetingly relevant to this article, which is about pipes in general, not tobacco. Frotz (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. The article title is "pipe smoking", i.e., it is about the habit of smoking, which is widely agrreed to be harmful. Mukadderat (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about smoking, but smoking what substance? You're focusing solely on tobacco. Frotz (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I am not focusing on tobacco. I am focusing on your removal of relevant information. At the same time, the article does not focus solely on tobacco either. Mukadderat (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to discuss this recent edit. I'd like to verify this source before adding it, and give both this and the current studies in the article consideration with due weight in the section to maintain NPOV. Any takers? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an important source for health effects of exclusive pipe smoking, a long-term (18 year) study published in 2004 with a large sample of American men (130,000+) by the American Cancer Society: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173269. I'm not sure how to work it in as it might contradict some of the other claims in the section(like "the overall health risks are only 10% higher in pipe smokers than in nonsmokers" - a vague- and evaluative-sounding claim anyway), for example it concludes that risk of lung cancer in pipe smokers is 5 times higher than in nonsmokers. BuffaloBill90 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the forking

It's bad enough that people are insisting on POV-forking any reference to non-tobacco smoking from what was once smoking pipe without these kinds of splits. The usage of an object should be explained in the article about that object, especially if that article isn't full to begin with. And I dread the very real possibility of us soon having separate "pipe smoking"-articles for tobacco and non-tobacco...

Peter ^Isotalo 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seemed to have been settled in February. I've been meaning to clean up things for a while. Look at Talk:Smoking_pipe_(tobacco)#Requested_move and see if there's something there you can do. The concensus then was that we have Smoking pipe (tobacco), Smoking pipe (non-tobacco), and pipe smoking. The split was made because the the two camps of smoking tobacco versus other things are very different. Here's what I think should eventually be done:

Have a single "pipe smoking" article for describing pipes and their history. No significant coverage of what is smoked will be included. At the top will be references to "pipe smoking (tobacco)" and "pipe smoking (non-tobacco)".
smoking pipe (tobacco) and smoking pipe (non-tobacco) will be renamed to pipe smoking (tobacco) and pipe smoking (non-tobacco). This odd naming is a messy leftover.
Smoking pipe is unnecessary and awkward and should be removed.
If the editors of the non-tobacco article want to fork off something, then it should keep the same naming scheme, so we'd have "pipe smoking (cannabis)" and so on. These should be linked from the non-tobacco article; not the main pipe-smoking article.

Frotz 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New page

This page, previously a redirect, has been creating by copying the page Smoking pipe which was inaccurately titled, and a tpoic duplication of the page smoking pipe (tobacco).Obscurasky (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hookah

I don't think Hookah is in the right section, as it doesn't appear to be a 'substance specific' pipe. I was thinking of expanding the 'Equipment' section myself, as it overly weighted towards traditional bowl pipes. Perhaps Frotz, or someone else could consider taking this on as a project? Obscurasky (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Specific types of pipes" work? My thinking is that a hookah is so radically different from a common briar pipe and I didn't pay much attention to the header. Frotz (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does work, as it begins to duplicate the Instruments section.

Another problem is that the page covering pipes used for smoking non-tobacco substances has not been written yet and at least one page; Smoking pipe (non-tobacco) links to the specific section Substance-specific pipes. My knowledge of smoking doesn't extend to non-tobacco pipes, so I don't feel confident about expanding the section Instruments. Would you consider this as a project? Obscurasky (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's important to have a bulleted list down there for general categories. I'll defer to your position on this.

I created the Smoking pipe (non-tobacco) article a couple years ago because Smoking pipe was turning into a big, messy article on smoking tobacco with little bits of smoking of other substances and history sprinkled here and there. It was initially pointed at bong. The editors who frequent cannabis-related articles played with it and somehow it ended up pointing to pipes in general. Please look and see if my recent edit to Smoking pipe (tobacco) makes sense. Frotz (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mukadderat's edit

From talk page it is clearly see that there was no consensus to delete "health risks" section. Also, I removed some unjustified statements of original research and arbitrary rearrangement of images. The latter issue is insignificant, and I am not against reshufling of images. However I am strongly against deletion of "health risks" and adding arbitrary unreferenced opinions. Mukadderat (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain things a bit. What happens here is that every now and then someone cruises by engaging in a WP:MISSION to right WP:GREATWRONGS and takes it upon himself or herself to warn everyone about all the possible hazards of tobacco wherever and whenever possible. However admirable a goal that is, it still abuses the structure and integrity of Wikipedia. Please explain why allowing that sort of behaviour to continue is a Good Thing. Like or dislike of tobacco is entirely irrelevant. Yes, things have dangers, but we document those dangers appropriately. Including paragraphs wherever the thing is discussed is not appropriate. Frotz (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this general concern about WP:MISSION and I agree with it. I've seen this many times.

However I disagree with your solution. I may be wrong, therefore please explain why you think the particular section "abuses the structure and integrity of Wikipedia". Please keep in mind that wikipedia has a specific rule to handle the cases when a particular topic may be relevant to several articles: wikipedia:Summary style, as I mentioned in edit summary. Please explain why you think it is inapplicable here. Mukadderat (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse comes from redundancy. It makes little sense to duplicate chunks of material from elsewhere that could easily be handled by a link of "see foo". The reference to summary style is inapplicable because health is not the subject of the article. An example of applicability is an article on tanks which contains a summary of German tanks during World War 2 and then a link to an article solely on German WW2 tanks. Frotz (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very little duplication, almost trivia. Yes, health is not subject of the article, but "health related to smoking" may well be argued subject of the article. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is the subject of Health effects of tobacco, not this article. Frotz (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please be also aware that your intention to delete something from almost everywhere may be also viewed as WP:MISSION activity, sponsored by tobacco industry (the last part is a joke, of course, to demonstrate possible absurdity of accusing people of WP:MISSION without sufficient evidence.) Mukadderat (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen the messes people have made of Cigar and Smoking pipe (tobacco), have you? Those articles periodically get people who drive by and plaster warnings all over the place. Some of those have made accusations that Wikipedia is in the pockets of "Big Tobacco". Frotz (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't monitor all tobacco articles and don't very care. If you have issues with some trolls, deal with these trolls. I have a specific objection about unilaterally deleted text without finishing the corresponding discussion in talk page. Then you started a revert war and after that started harassing me in my talk page. Please confine your activity to article content. If you have specific objections against people with WP:MISSION, you are welcome to start RFC and other proceedings againts them in the corresponding venues. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trollery that goes on here, as I have already stated, is typically in the form of drive-bys by people on some sort of anti-tobacco evangelical mission. Their typical actions are to copy something from Health effects of tobacco or restore someone else's addition from some time earlier. I or someone else revert it, pointing out that there is already an article for that. Said trolls demand their additions be included because "it's relevant" but don't seem to pay attention to the given reasons why their additions are deleted. After a week or so of this, they go away and their remaining messes are cleaned up. I haven't really considered these people trolls until you mentioned the word just now. I always assumed in good faith that they were people who naively didn't think that evangelism isn't particularly welcome on Wikipedia. When you did exactly what earlier trolls did, my reaction was similar to my previous reactions. Rather than calmly considering this, you chose instead to attack me. There is no need to start proceedings against those others. They have moved on. I am, however, considering one against you because you continue to disrupt this article with matters that were settled a long time ago no matter how they are pointed out to you. Frotz (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are false. One may easily verify from this talk pages that the issue was stopped in November 2009 without consensus to delete the text. That is why I restored it in the first place. Please keep your threats to yourself. I know quite a few alphabet soup myself, such as WP:OWN, etc. Once again, please stop discussing editors, please discuss the article. Mukadderat (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to write a section which covers all effects of pipe smoking. As to health effects, a relevant issue would be arguments whether pipe smoking is better or worse than other smoking methods. I believe I've seen something mentioned about this elsewhere. But again, such comparison is a matter of a separate article, since it may potentially belong to articles related to all compared methods. Therefore this case is best suited to "summary style". - Altenmann >t 23:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To that end I created a section stub in Health effects of tobacco on pipe smoking. I'll fill that in perhaps tonight. Feel free to add something yourself. Frotz (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference quality

I hate to open a can of worms but the only reference to the health effects of smoking a tobacco pipe is from a relatively unknown Brazilian journal that itself does not give any information as to how the data was obtained. The are no references to the 10% number in the text of the cited material at all (edit: what I mean is while the paper does say there is a 10% higher mortality rate it does not give any indication of how the authors came up with that number, nor does it reference any other prior research paper where the number came from). Considering the vast amount of attention given to tobacco use over the last twenty years I would think we could come up with better sources. I'm a wiki-sloth so I won't make any promises but if I find anything in PubMed I'll try to get it in here. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many photo's

The article's become overloaded by photos, the most recent of which seem to have been added without any real thought. A large photo of Meliton Balanchivadze was added, for example, but the editor responsible didn't add any associated text to the 'Famous pipe smoker' section (would he even qualify anyway?). And now we have a second Native American pipe photo which, for some reason, has been placed top right. The article is about the 'practice' of pipe smoking. At the very least the top right photo should feature someone actually smoking a pipe. Obscurasky (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of the photos (including one which was previously removed) down to a Gallery section. If any one really hates this, it can be reverted, but let's discuss it first please. Obscurasky (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New photo

The recently added (unidentified) Bearded man smoking a pipe pic is striking but not very representative. Considering all the famous pipe smokers there have been, couldn't something more typical be used as the lead photo in the article? Here for example is a 2004 shot of Nobel Laureate Günter Grass, an inveterate pipe smoker. Sca (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC) →[reply]

Carl Gustav Jung

Where this article lists notable pipe smokers and has a list sub-titled "Men", should it include Carl Gustav Jung?There used to be a photograph of him in the Encyclopedia Brittanica smoking a pipe. Vorbee (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

proposed page merger

suggesting merging Smoking pipes with this one--Robert Treat (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the pipes themselves are independently notable. Smoking pipe is a Broad-concept article, with its most notable subtopic being the Tobacco pipe. The current structure is worth keeping, if only as the pipes themselves are of interest to collectors and for their artistic value. Klbrain (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dionís Baixeras i Verdaguer- Retrat d'un boter de la Barceloneta- 229.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this accurate?

The claim that pipe smoking's overall health risks are only 10% higher than non-smokers?[1] I am aware that smoking pipes and cigars may have slightly lower health risks; especially if in moderation, than cigarettes, but that seems very low to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Doc James -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More on the history of pipes

This article needs more details on the history of pipes. Different cultures pipes from around the world, how western pipes have different types and naming them, naming famous brands etc. It's very heavy on health risks and drug use. I'll see if I can add some to it but I feel this page is a shame for anyone wanting to learn anything about pipes and pipe smoking Thekickingmule (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]