Talk:Tobacco pipe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Invention

How could the pipe have been invented in Ireland in the Dark Ages when America (and therefore tobacco) had not been discovered by Europeans yet?Furby100 00:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pipes are not only used in tobacco smoking. Thebriarsage 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't, for example, the well documented Hopewell effigy pipes dating 2000 years BP. [1] Mesoamerican pipes as seen here- [2] - not sure of a date on those, but definately precolumbian. I assume that other examples can be found predating the "dark ages" from all over the world, but i don't have time to investigate right now. As such I'm removing the section based on this evidence and adding the expert attention template. Kaoticvibe 05:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested in this, someone created Pipe smoking which answers these questions. Frotz661 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

The text in the section "How To Pack & Light A Pipe" appears at the following URL: http://www.smokingpipes.com/information/howto/packing.cfm

Qwirty

Removed -- Jim Regan 02:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is no copyright infringement. I am the original author and copyright owner of How To Pack & Light A Pipe", and the owner of the www.smokingpipes.com domain.

Added -- Jon Tillman 11:56 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ideas for content expansion

• famous pipes and/or smokers in fact and fiction (Sherlock Holmes)
• slang (pipe dream, etc)
• ritual uses (peace pipe)
• varieties (briar (bruyere), clay, corn cob, Meerschaum, hookah, bong)
• similar devices (cigarette holder)
• some social context (historical use, acceptibility)
• expand on the "similar substances"...
• expand on the different types of tobacco used

Moved here to clean up look of main page. Dogface 22:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

History

I would like to know something about the pipe history. Eg. where found the oldest pipe known, and how old it was.

Health effects

219.77.96.182 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Each of the tobacco smoking articles I've seen on wikipedia appear to have been written by the sort of clowns who buy failing smoke shops in inferior university towns and sit in the back on their fat ass smoking Balkan Sobranie while selling drugs and porn to kids to balance the books. They seem to be written from the POV that there are no ill health effects from smoking, and there are, apart from the fact that it is an ugly and colonialist habit which blinds the soul. Par for the course for an "encyclopedia" sponsored by a political nutcase and ex-pornographer, maintained and monitored by convenience store clerks, God wallopers and Hitler youth.

Does anyone know more about the health effects? It would be nice to know how much nicotine and harmful substances pipe tobacco has compared to cigarettes. Also, when smoking pipes and cigars people just taste them, but when smoking cigarettes people inhale them, right? Would that mean that smoking cigars and pipes is generally not as bad than smoking cigarettes?

well, even though it's generally said that tobacco pipe and cigar users don't inhale, i believe most of them do. the difference is almost all cigarette smokers inhale every drag Iamnobody2 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You believe most cigar and pipe smokers inhale? Based on what? Frotz661 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

All the pipe smokers I know inhale (granted not on every pull), including myself. This is the first time I've ever heard the claim that they don't. JebusHCripes 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to what I see in alt.smokers.pipes, inhaling is rare. None of the pipe smokers I know inhale. Frotz661 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a 'See Also' link to the article dealing with the health effects of tobacco smoking. There is material there regarding the health problems related to pipe smoking. Hookah smoking is actually worse than both cigarettes and pipes. A single sitting is like smoking an entire pack of cigarettes [3][4].

Purportedly speaking for pipe smokers, the prominent right-wing talk-show host (RWTSH) Dennis Prager said on his program, "We don't inhale." He also bragged of teaching his son the art of pipe-smoking before age 18.

Actually, though, they do-- the ETS (side-stream smoke), later, if they're in their car, at the desk, or at the Golden Microphone-- and cold instead of hot.

The problem with hookahs is that those ARE for inhaling, and they have a big bowl so the material is burned very hot.

For further discussion of inhalant smoking please see [[Talk:Introduction to Bioethics ([[5]])66.99.0.254 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the addition to 'See Also' was already removed. I put it back up unless someone can think of a good reason why a link to the health effects of tobacco smoking should not be added.

Let's try it again.

Stop removing the link.

Is there some reason this keeps getting pulled down? I'm thinking not NPOV is the reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

There is a growing resentment of nanny statism and the tendency for warning labels to appear seemingly everywhere. The fact that your addition keeps getting removed is an expression of this resentment. I suggest you stop. Those who have adopted this article, by and large, don't appreciate your additions. Frotz 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Resentment of Nanny statism" is not NPOV and therefore is not consistant with Wikipedia. This article is about tobacco smoking and therefore a 'See Also' to the health effects of said practice is totally consistant with Wikipedia. You are wrong and it needs to be included. I added a See Also link directly to the applicable section. Unless someone can present a NPOV reason why it shouldn't be there, it should stay.

It is hardly nanny statist to include the medical findings on the topic. If you look at the other articles on tobacco consumption (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco), there is a mention or a link regarding the medical implications of the practice.66.191.17.168 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A third to half of those articles is devoted to medical implications. Are you implying that this article should follow suit? Frotz 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least. I am stating that a 'See Also' link to the appropriate section in the appropriate article is all we should add. Nothing more, nothing less. There may be good argument of not cluttering up this article with the health issues provided that a simple link to the topic is included. To do otherwise would make the article incomplete.

With respect to the other articles cited, I have not contributed to the contents, so will leave that up to their respective authors. 66.191.17.168 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Metal pipes and associated Health Effects

Regarding the section on metal pipes, the article reads: "All metals create odors when heated and although the metals themselves can withstand tempertures of thousands of degrees they still release harmfull toxins when heated." And regarding copper "on the bottom of the list is copper which is extremely reactant and and can create malicious chemicals when triggered by one of the thousands of chemicals inherent in any smoke." References to material demonstrating this information in detail would enhance the value of this article. justinshogg

just a thought

when reading through this page it seems that it was written by a pothead. metal and glass pipes have the most detailed descriptions, and cannabis is mentioned quite a bit. Seems like a nonsmoker reading this would then associate all pipes with pot.

\

I wrote the metal portion and I'll tell you what, it's true. Whip out a metal pipe in front of a cop and try to convince him right there it's used for tobbaco, he'll sniff it, he'll open it up and look for loose bits of marijuana. You will hardly ever EVER have this problem with a "leisure" pipe like wood or corn-cob.

I'm sorry I don't have a source in writing, merely life experience.

• This is true, but it doesn't mean that, by looking at this article, it doesn't screams marijuana use and belittles tobacco. Just goes to show that the population of pipe tobacco smokers is on the all-to known decline. Take a look at the German version of this article, they'll be able to teach you something about the art of pipe smoking. TheExile 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since you seem to know German, how about if you translate some of that article to the English one?

Frotz661 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The Health Hazards bit first says that nicotine addiction is rarely involved with pipe smoking, but then goes on to say that it is easy to create a nicotine addiction while smoking. Which is it?

Have a signature for your comments!

Please sign off whenever you guys leave a message on the talk pages. It lets the other users know you who are and your comments will gain more credibility. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Creating a tobacco pipe section

• Just like a beer stein would have a separate page from a beaker, shouldn’t drug pipes and tobacco pipes have separate pages? Thebriarsage 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like this, but I see problems. How would you put the division? What do you name the new page? "Drug_pipe"? You may run afoul of the head pipe shop owners who insist their wares are for tobacco only. Frotz661 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I made the new page. So far it seems acceptable. Frotz661 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pyrolytic graphite pipes

Pyrolytic graphite (ie The Pipe by Venturi) is certainly worth mention here given how often it pops up on alt.smokers.pipes and other forums. The site http://thepipe.info/ is not commercial, but is clearly by a collector of The Pipe. Note that The Pipe hasn't been manufactured since 1975. In this context, it doesn't matter if a pipe is lined with graphite or is entirely graphite. Frotz661 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird placement of pictures

How did the pictures in this article get placed so oddly? Rather than being part of their section, the pictures are at the end of the section before it. I'll go ahead and fix this. Frotz661 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Use" section

The entire "Use" section is a how-to guide on packing, lighting, cleaning, etc., which is a clear violation of WP:NOT. If nobody objects this section should be removed. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be left alone for now. The ideal place is Wikihowto, but that place doesn't seem entirely stable yet. I've registered there as "Frotz" and will tinker when I get the time. Frotz661 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it was taken directly from smokingpipes.com (see above on this page), the information will still be available there if we remove it from our article. Which seems like a good idea, since we aren't a how-to guide. Not sure if transwiki would be acceptable copyright-wise, since it we only got permission to reuse the material here (and I kind of doubt that that unsigned comment is legally kosher, anyhow). 128.163.112.121 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just now emailed the owner of smokingpipes.com about this concern. Frotz661 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative Health effects of smoking pipe

There is no section on the negative health effects of smoking pipe. Both first hand and second hand smoke impact negatively on health. And yet Hookah smokers do inhale! sometimes deeply. Before I add a section, I want to see a discussion here. --- Skapur 02:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about hookahs. There is already an article on Health effects of tobacco smoking which covers your concerns. There is already a discussion above at Talk:Smoking pipe#Health_effects. Frotz661 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But Hookahs are mentioned in the article. Also, no article on smoking anything is complete without mentioning the negative health affects of smoking. The discussion above in Talk:Smoking pipe#Health_effects was a general question and not about changing text in the article. Discussion on a talk page is not the same as including text in an article. What I would like to propose is to include summary information in a section in the article and then provide a link at the top of the section using the main template as in main article: Health effects of tobacco smoking --- Skapur 06:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the hookah section should be removed because of irrelevance. I pointed out the discussion already in progress because the issue is... already in progress. Why is Health effects of tobacco smoking insufficient? Frotz661 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think anyone who has access to wikipedia already knows the health effects of smoking. Numerous articles are already dedicated to the topic of discussing the health effects. It is clutter, there is a link at the bottom of the article.

Is there a reason narghille is used in the section on hookahs as another name for it? Why is this important? I understand it is the Hebrew word for it, but we aren't listing it's name in every known language. Does any English speaking person outside of Israel or Jews who've vsited Israel call hookahs narghillot? Shia1 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "narghile" is used frequently in English literature. --S Roper 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Into One Smoking Pipe Article

Why is there two separate articles? Tobacco is a drug like cannabis or opium. There is no reason to have a separate article for tobacco unless we have a separate article for cannabis pipe smoking, opium pipe smoking, ect. Tobacco being a legal drug doesn't make any difference. Wikipedia isn't meant to show things from a government's perspective but rather through the perspective of what is considered in the general scientific community as correct (whether or not we agree is regardless of the point). Tobacco has no special status in the scientific community.

Therefore, these articles should be merged, it doesn't make much sense to keep them separate. Zachorious 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose and have put my reasons at Talk:Smoking pipe (non-tobacco)#Merge

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn Patstuart^talk|edits 01:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoking pipe (tobacco) → Smoking pipe — This page was moved from Smoking pipe to smoking pipe (tobacco) by Zachorious without talking about the issue. The question was about whether or not to merge smoking pipe (non-tobacco) with this one. Suddenly renaming this article without even suggesting that you'd do it shows extremely poor judgement. Unfortunately I cannot simply undo the move because the original page was replaced with a disambiguation page, necessitating a post to Wikipedia:Requested_moves asking for the job to be done manually. Frotz661 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. Frotz661 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support per nomination. "Smoking pipe (non-tobacco)" seems to be an unnecessary content fork and its information should be merged into smoking pipe or other relevant articles... —  AjaxSmack  19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Below in the Discussion section, we've agreed to do something of an overhaul of all the pipe smoking articles. Frotz661 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• ...and agree that the previous move of smoking pipe to smoking pipe (tobacco) should not have been made without a move request. —  AjaxSmack  19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I thought the move was pretty straightforward, that is why I didn't ask for a move request. This article deals with tobacco pipe smoking and not pipe smoking in general. The new title is what article is about. Zachorious 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I figured out how to reverse the changes without losing the edit history. Frotz661 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops. That didn't work. We'll still have to wait for an admin. Frotz661 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need to. The title "smoking pipe" would not be accurate because this article does not deal with smoking pipes in general. Rather it deals with smoking pipes for tobacco. It would be foolish to undo the edit just because we didn't talk about it before hand. Since you consider this change so radical that a move request was needed, we will discuss any future rename. But for now the article is fine how it is. The other article however needs to be broken down. If not we should just merge all smoking pipe articles. Zachorious 05:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily have a problem with the renaming either. I do have a problem when someone goes off and does something as radical as a page move without giving anyone a chance to comment on it, assuming that nobody will have a problem. When you did it, you broke a lot of pages that will have to be manually corrected to point at smoking pipe (tobacco). Because of a lack of expertise in the field, I have no opinion on breaking up smoking pipe (non-tobacco). Whatever happens, the page on tobacco pipes should have its own page for reasons I've already stated. Now, if we can get friendly again, let me point out pipe smoking. That seems like an ideal candidate for what you suggest as an article on pipe smoking in general. Let's examine modifying the article to that end. I'd like to end up with articles "pipe smoking" and "smoking pipe" being a redirect to the former. What do you think? Frotz661 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Smoking pipe" redirecting to "pipe smoking" sounds great to me. We don't have to break up smoking pipe (non-tobacco) right now but this should eventually occur (either from us or someone else who is an expert on the subject), so we will leave the break-up notice at the top of the non-tobacco article. But yea, smoking pipe should redirect to pipe smoking as this article deals with both smoking pipes and pipe smoking in general. Peace. Zachorious 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, "smoking pipe" has always struck me as a bit awkward. Suppose we have "pipe smoking" as the general introduction, briefly discussing the history of pipes as devices for smoking. Shapes and materials would not be discussed there. The article then would point off to "pipe smoking (tobacco)", "pipe smoking (non-tobacco)", and "hookah" as necessary. Anyone who splits "pipe smoking (non-tobacco)" would be obliged to alter "pipe smoking" to make sure things fit. If this works for you (and anyone else interested), I suggest we start modifying pipe smoking to this end. Naturally, some moves will be required, but let's not do that until we get the content nailed down. I'll go ahead and cancel my posting requesting a move from smoking pipe (tobacco) to smoking pipe. Frotz661 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. However in addition to pointing off to "pipe smoking (tobacco)", "pipe smoking (non-tobacco)", and "hookah"; the article should also point off to "bong" as well. Zachorious 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Frotz661 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

new picture for the top

I've reverted the changed top picture because it IMHO is not a good fit. The color is washed out, subject poorly-centered, and parts of the frame are visible. I somewhat agree with changing the picture since the the pipe in "Youth with Pipe" is very tiny. Whatever goes there, however, I feel needs to be well-composed. Frotz 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current picture does not make a good example. I think the other picture would be good if it were touched up a bit. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I liked the new picture more. The old guy was clearly smoking a conventional and recognizable Smoking pipe (tobacco). It's tough to tell what the youth is doing. Yellowking 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the picture. Itseems to be the best one (B.T.W., not parts of the frame, but the boat itself where the old captain is standing on is visible),

-)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that picture anyhow? If it's okay for use on Wikipedia, there's got to be a better shot of it somewhere. Frotz 19:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly part of the frame...unless this print has cropped part of the painting. Not that it really matters. I still think this is a suitable image for the article. --OnoremDil 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You might look at the links at the article itself. It shows sites with information on this man, called Dorus Rijkers. There, you can also find the image's used, and perhaps in better versions of it? -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Consider looking at: * Foundation "mrb Dorus Rijkers" - much historical information and photographs

history

Hello. I am from Poland and I am very interested in history of smoking pipes. I wrote to some people from polish Wikipedia and they said that I should find informations here.

I am in Viking re-enactment organisation and I ma very interested in story of pipes, because i smoke one. Many people believe that nobody smoked before XV century, because there was no tabacco in Europe. I found information that slavians and vikings could smoke such things as Arctostaphylos uva-ursi or Cornus sericea L. syn. Cornus stolonifera Michx. I read on english Wikipedia that Germans and Greeks got the idea of smoking from Scythians. Where these information are from? Are there any archaeological founds of pipes before the XV century in Europe? Please help me. This is my e-mail: tabordarkwind@poczta.fm.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.22.210.127 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Disappearing Dorus

Could we leave the top picture as-is unless and until we're sure that Dorus's picture won't be deleted again? I've been following what's been going on and it seems that it's not clear if it's okay to put that picture on Wikipedia in the first place. Frotz 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Get cracking

An article that has a lead as contrived as this one needs to get an overhaul. The POV-forking of pipe smoking contents just looks bad. There's now a general article on smoking, and this should not be an exception. Pipe smokers of the world, unite, or something.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you propose. Exactly what should be done? Frotz 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A proper article at smoking pipe instead of merely a dabpage. It could easily be started with material from the two content forks.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The split was made specifically because there is no crossover between the fields of smoking tobacco in pipes and smoking of other things in pipes. There is an article called pipe smoking which discusses pipes more from a historical perspective and doesn't focus on what is smoked. Admittedly, the collection of smoking pipe articles is rather awkward, but the clear consensus is to keep smoking pipe (tobacco) and smoking pipe (non-tobacco) as they are. Frotz 10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No cross-over? They're both pipes in which certain substances are smoked... Don't make this more complicated than it actually is. Pipe smoking should be merged with either of the smoking pipe articles or transferred to smoking pipe, because the decision to make it a historical article is quite obviously arbitrary. That the two types of pipes can't be described in the same article is as non-sensical as people insisting that we had to have a dabpage instead of a proper article over at smoking for several years.

And I think our neutrality policies are a bit more important than the slightly questionable consensus that you're referring to.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The changes you applied look good. Frotz 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How To

There are small sections of this article that written as a How To and therefore need to be revised per Wikipedia standards. 68.113.47.180 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving MacArthur to the right of the index

The location of Douglas MacArthur's picture is a bit awkward in that it appears in a section describing various pipes. I'd like to move it to the right of the index, but I'm not sure how to do this without committing the change and potentially making a mess. Does someone here know how to do it right? Frotz (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot about the Sandbox. Frotz (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a new leading pic

Okay, who has a good candidate for a leading picture? Anyone feeling photogenic? In the meantime, I'm moving the MacArthur picture to that slot. Frotz (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasle Words in Prevent Burning section

I noticed the words "Some people argue that this method is not effective" in the Prevent Burning section. These maybe need to be cleaned up, removed, and possibly citations added. I'd do it, but I've no clue what to change it to, and I don't trust my judgement when this sleepy. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While addressing this problem, I've fixed some awkward wording in that section. It seemed a bit too verbose. Frotz (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

briar pipe image

I don't know why the pic was changed in the first place, but I'd like to propose changing it now to a plain-finished billiard. Frotz (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)