Talk:Smoking culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 Oct 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Smoking#Smoking_in_culture.

Redirects and Similar topics

I added a dblink to Recreational Drug use. It was either that or Drug Subculture. I figured the first is prolly more what people are going to be looking for, although if you disagree feel free to use the other option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naacats (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rudeness

67.166.42.66, my issue was not that you were trying to improve the article, but that you were both rude and removing important information. I can live with the wording, but I'm glad they've not made you an admin either. Chris 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peters not an admin? He certainly acts like it- every revision to any smoking related material i've posted on he's reverted. I think it may be because his smoking article was highly "rated" and "nominated" and all that stuff- (he self-nominated it - meaning he wrote the article).

Naacats 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it right on the nose, I checked out the Revision history of "Smoking", he's been involved with that article since day 1, which makes him a biased editor on this one. Chris 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a real laugh go check out the history page from the [Smoking] article. I'm pretty much dismantling his article because almost all of its content is covered in better articles. He's not happy about it and within seconds of an edit he reverts it and refuses discussion.

Naacats 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removals without explanation

If you feel something is POV, this is the place to explain yourself, else I can revert as often as you can. Chris 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undiscussed and unwelcome redirect

I have reverted the undiscussed and unwelcome redirect by peter isotalo-that's what these talk pages are for. Chris 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in very bad shape and what it discusses is presented in much greater detail at smoking, which is also thoroughly referenced. Unless someone actually puts in some work on improving this article, I don't see why we should keep it around as a separate entity.

And I don't honestly see how one can so vehemently protest removals when there's not a single source in the article. It's not a mere pack of lies, but it is a rather motley and patchy collection of facts without proper stucture.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are most welcome to source it-I will continue to undo your redirects, as that is a separate article dealing with separate if related issues. Chris 08:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the sections of smoking dedicated to sociability, art, literature, etc? It has more information on smoking culture than this article and it's a serious attempt to present the information in an organized fashion. This information could just as well fit within the frame of the main article instead where it would actually receive attention from other editors.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposal

Then I have found a solution to your constant redirects-merge that section here. Smoking is a long article and that section is very good, as you say, and merits its own home. That way also, the sourcing is satisfied. Chris 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is content forking from a general article just to save an article constructive improvement?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is something that is done all the time when the parent article gets too large, and is established Wikipedia procedure. Second, it will put an end to your unwelcome and bad faith blanking and redirecting of this page, which one way or another will stop. You are a single editor, and the other editors here are not in agreement with you. You could have been decent all the way along, so now we're putting it to a vote. Chris 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is moving content from one article to another an improvement in this case? Smoking isn't bursting in the seams with information, and just over 44k is not an unreasonable size for such a general topic. Try motivating yourself with something other than invectives and threats of bureaucratic appeals.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking is a horribly written biased article that contains very little actual fact. Almost the entire article needs to be merged into other articles. This is a good place for that section to go. Move it.

Naacats 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would urge everyone to read the whole of the Talk:Smoking page before listening to Naacats proposal. The article covers the whole of the practice of smoking in human history and society. The culture section is shorter than this article, and it briefly covers many good points relevant to the smoking article. It is apparently Naacats mission to turn the smoking article into a soapbox for his person pro-smoker movement, and removing any information he finds objectionable to achieving that goal is part of his approach. He is also suggesting removing a paragraph on opium smoking from the smoking article, though it is short, and relevant to the whole of the topic as well. With regards to the size of smoking, it seems perfect for an article covering such a broad topic. Open a Brittanica or a World Book and look up some general topic like "fish" or "racing" and you will likely find long articles full of suggestions to look elsewhere for more detail information. Please don't merge--it will detract from what is one of the better articles on Wikipedia. TeamZissou 04:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply, conversely, it has been the mission of peter isotalo, who is as bad a soapboxer as they come, in his own fashion, to redirect this article into that one, without using any of the content from this article in that one, thereby destroying two years of work by multiple editors here. There is a lot of hubris going around and that does not serve Wikipedia well. If you can call isotalo off, we have a good starting point for a solution that will be acceptable to all. I'd be happy to engage that. Thanks, Zissou and good night. Chris 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

The article has been tagged as lacking sources for over a year now. Nothing so far has been done to improve the situation other than a disruptive proposal to move contents from smoking. Can someone please do something about this? The only option I see now is to put up the article for deletion and hope that this will motivate users to actually do something about these issues.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to the table, Peter, that is reasonable. Since you are familiar with the topic at hand, would you be willing to assist in sourcing, as this is your proposal? Chris 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm busy with other projects right now. I can give some general advice for how to go about verifying and improving the article:

Do some searching online and in library catalogs for books on smoking. There's quite a lot of them out there.
Organize the article into cohesive paragraphs instead of merely listing facts without a discernable order.
Avoid writing prose as if you're trying to formulate your own conclusions about a certain state of affairs. Sentences like "As smoking was once a fairly integral part of society, this attraction cannot in all senses be considered a fetish or paraphilia." clearly smacks of original research or at least speculation, especially since without any sources.

I can help copyedit and such, but I don't think the onus of saving the article should be on the one pointing out obvious problems. It should rather lie on the users that are insisting that it should be kept. I hope to see the problems amended soon.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drug culture tagging

I have again undone peter's removal of the explanation at the top, as he is misguided about the purpose of this article, which mentions only tobacco smoking. He mentions retagging the article, tag away then. If you are trying to scuttle this article, you will have to do it by legitimate means. Chris 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you must understand that trying to singlehandedly decide the definition of an article topic of this kind is a rather blatant violation of WP:OWN. You have entrenched yourself in a personal conflict with me instead of trying to make constructive contributions.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course I am in personal conflict with you. You have done nothing to improve the article, but continually try to destroy or dismantle it in favor of your own. You are the worst type of POV editor, threatening "I'm going to do this", or "you'd better do that", but never once contributing positively to the article yourself, and I oppose everything about you. Chris 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug culture appears to be the clear and appropriate place for information about non-cigarette smoking culture. It is commonly understood that "smoking" implies "cigarette smoking" unless otherwise elaborated upon. Definition of Smoke - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: "4: to inhale and exhale the fumes of burning plant material and especially tobacco; especially : to smoke tobacco habitually" --Mindlurker 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of enthusiastic support for the general article smoking since it was created this summer. There have been a few mutters and disruptive attempts to lop off anything that isn't related to tobacco smoking, but so far it has not met with consensus. That "smoking" generally refers to tobacco smoking isn't a reason to simply throw out all the minority forms of smoking, especially of cannabis which has a very distinct culture intertwined with many well-known subcultures. What you're proposing here is to entirely silence and remove a minority perspective. This is not neutral and would be to create a POV-fork. The reference to Merriam-Webster is a very good example that instead of trying to cleanse articles of references to other aspects of a topic, you should inform readers about it without giving undue weight. The "especially" is obviously there to point out that other forms of smoking exist.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Culture Referencing

I've come across a wealth of information in the form of linked references (most of the reference material is freely available though some require one to at least register on various journals, etc. to view the material).

Perhaps A Content Analysis of Web Sites Promoting Smoking Culture and Lifestyle will help this article to be sourced. This article is not free but its citation map is.

I don't have the time or the particular interest level in the subject matter to help source this article. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to mine this list of resources to find pertinent information. Mindlurker 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]