![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What about those pipe smoking competitions? Someone who knows could add it.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Frotz 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) →
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)
suggesting merging Smoking pipes with this one-- Robert Treat ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What about those pipe smoking competitions? Someone who knows could add it.
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Frotz 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) →
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)
suggesting merging Smoking pipes with this one-- Robert Treat ( talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)