Wikipedia talk:Smokers

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Origin.

Discussion concerning First Lady Laura Bush's smoking, and Senator Barack Obama's current attempt to quit smoking, led me to seek a broader audience concerning the status of smoking inclusion within Wikipedia biographies. The page's current text borrows heavily from comments by User:Tvoz at Talk:Barack Obama, with the nutshell de-Obama'ing of the text done by myself. Italiavivi 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that smoking is a rather trivial tid bit. It is a bad habit like nail biting. Unless there is some particular "unique" factor that would make it relevant and notable, it serve no point to include it. Agne 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

I can understand the mantra that just because someone is seen smoking at some point in their lives doesn't mean "this person is a smoker" should be added to their article, but if a reliable source has a non-trivial article on a person's smoking habits (say, a long-running struggle with the addiction), why not mention it in a biography? Fagstein 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the context and notability of the matter should be the primary consideration. An encyclopedia article is not meant to be an in depth biography, noting every character habit and quirk, but rather an overview of the most important aspects of the individual. I can think of very few individuals where their smoking habit is of more then a trivial concern. Agne 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking and popular image

Wouldn't smoking be relevant for celebrities who make it part of their image, or if they were from a time when smoking movies stars made smoking look cool and acceptable. For example, Winston Churchill's cigar smoking is clearly notable because it is such a big part of his image, as would be many B/W actors/Actresses.

perfectblue 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has smoking become part of their trademark image? I hardly doubt that much for many of the people in question. Basically this means that unless it's impossible to see that person without the cigar/ette, it's not that much a part of who they represent. Think Larry King and his suspenders. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking in seductive or seedy ways was a big part of the images of a number of B/W stars of old.

perfectblue 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is, are those people only associated with smoking? Can you remove the smoking and have the same image? If Larry King removed those suspenders everyone would be shocked and confused. If the actors have done roles where they didn't smoke, its not exactly part of thier image. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 16:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking is an integral part of Marlene Dietrich and Humphrey Bogart's images. Without smoking, most of the film characters that they played would be very different.

perfectblue 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What qualifies one's smoking as part of one's image, I mean? For a more recent example, would you say cigar-chomping Kinky Friedman's smoking is a part of his image, due to so often appearing photographed/on tape with a cigar? Italiavivi 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it becomes part of their type-casting, I suppose. Look at Bogart. He always played the same kind of character the same kind of way, and his smoking was an integral part of that role. He used a cigarette as if it were a prop or a costume to play those roles, and without it he wouldn't be himself.

perfectblue 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any feelings on the Kinky Friedman example? I'm just curious, being more prone to politicians' articles. Italiavivi 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman's always seen with a cigar in his hand, but I think that was purely because he was a big Texan guy, not because he was consciously making it part of his image, or using it as a tool.

I'd say that it was not relevant unless he received advice from a PR guy saying that he should smoke more/less or in a certain way.

As I said above, actors who are repeatedly cast in roles that make a big thing of smoking are probably the best examples where smoking is relevant.

perfectblue 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is quitting smoking more notable than smoking?

If an article's subject openly discusses their desire to quit smoking, should it be treated differently than smoking itself? Italiavivi 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking and premature death from smoking related diseases

A possible exception is when a subject dies from a smoking related illness. George Harrison died from the effects of a heavy smoking habit, as is commented in the text. The following quote

In early 2005, Katsulas, who, in the words of Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, "loved smoking with a passion that cannot be described," was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer; he died a year later, in Los Angeles, California, at the age of 59...

is taken from the article Andreas Katsulas. Both were from a time and place where smoking was a cultural habit. In that cause of death is deemed noteworthy, the effect of smoking on the health and eventual demise of a subject must therefore be valid. LessHeard vanU 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support the inclusion of this idea into the text. I'll default to allowing you to write it, as re-wording someone's comments earlier didn't go so well. Italiavivi 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in replying, I'll do it now. LessHeard vanU 13:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bennett

What about someone like William Bennett, who was White House drug Czar, supported execution of drug dealers, and was himself a tobacco smoker? In this case it would be notable or relevant because it illustrates (1) hypocrisy (2) how difficult or impossible it is to quit addicting drugs etc. Nbauman 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a quite silly essay, especially considering the amount of cruft that's stuffed into just about every biography page under a 'trivia' or 'personal life' headline. Just Another Fat Guy 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Mastelotto

The article shows a picture of him smoking currently. Does anyone think that per an extension of WP:BLP it would be a bad idea to show pictures of people smoking, as in this case? Just wanting some opinions...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]