Misplaced Pages

Talk:Passive smoking: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:31, 15 April 2006 edit24.16.57.144 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:27, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,681,365 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
== Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High|hemonc=y}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}}
}}
{{off topic warning}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(35d)
|archive = Talk:Passive smoking/Archive %(counter)d
}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-08-20">20 August 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-05">5 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong. ] 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
== Merger proposal ==


I propose to merge ] into this article because everything that needs to be covered about sidestream smoke is also covered in this article. ] (]) 20:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


This merge seems reasonable to me. ] (]) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
== Which is better passive smoking or second hand smoking? ==
:I'd agree, except that ], at 137k, is ] and so having a separate article is warranted. ] (]) 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::'''Closing''', given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. ] (]) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


== Title change proposal ==
Passive smoking is known to be called second hand smoke.
I made searches in WHO web site.
When I searched with the words "passive smoking," 3000 articles were found.
With the words "second hand smoking," 7480 articles were found.
And when I searched with the words "passive smoke," 2590 articles were found.
On the other hand, with the words "second hand smoke," 5080 articles were found.


With an increase in literature on third-hand smoke, the dichotomy between active and passive smoking seems less relevant. As such, I'd propose changing the beginning term to secondhand or second-hand smoke, which would move to passive smoking to one of the alternate terms. ] (]) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the words "second hand smoking" better for the title of this page than "passive smoking" ?


== page move ==
:I would suggest that ''Environmental Tocacco Smoke'' would be a better title, since it is more precisely descriptive and a neutral expression. ''Second Hand Smoking'' and ''Passive Smoking'' are both designed to be pejorative. For that reason, ETS should be used. ] 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|Sjö}} the article introduces "passive smoking" but continues "secondhand smoking" c.f. Effects - there is no continuity ] (]) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
== Criticism removed ==
:The term "secondhand smoke" refers to the smoke itself, while the term "passive smoking" refers to being subjected to the smoke. Hope that explains things. Anyway, that is no reason to move the article away from the ]. ] (]) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks like someone (68.100.238.219) is trying to remove any criticism on ETS science from this page. This needs to be a balanced page, not an anti-smoking ad!
:Second hand smoke is also common: as I indicated "smoking" is the action part of the subject - which is a generalized concept: smoking smoker (1) but means to ignite tobacco to make smoke to inhale for drug-use (2). So 1 is taken to mean 2. This I think is obvious and without contention. "Passive smoking" isn't therefore a fusion of two ideas successfully but is a confusion of the idea of (1) as I have shown, that by the fact of passive, no action smoking is occuring. Wouldn't you agree? whether or not "passive smoking" is the commonest version, which I'm not stating it isn't (although I don't see you've provided any indication of proof currently to support your claim). ] (]) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:The participation in the habit-activity of the consumption of tobacco for it's psychoactive effects is by the application of sufficient heat to cause a state of ignition where-by smoke is created = smoking. ] (]) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:I can not understand what it is you are trying to say or what your argument is. But i guess that it is based on an ]; since "to smoke" is an active action where someone lights tobacco and inhales the smoke that means that any phrase that contains the verb "smoke" must use "smoke" in exactly that meaning. That is incorrect, and language does not work that way. ] (]) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:An administrator reverted my response for legitimate reasons (as is shown in policy): ] ] (]) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:With regards to 19:21 "no continuity": this makes the introductory concept not the subject of the article - therefore a way to improve would be to impose "passive smoking" as the continuation instead of "second hand smoking" - the intro different to the contents term is conflictual for the reader. Evidently "As of 2003, "secondhand smoke" was the term most used to refer to other people's smoke in the English-language media." if true does indicate by your argument ] the article needs to be renamed. Although the relevant editor distorted the source so I deleted. ] (]) 02:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
And this is balanced right now? It certainly wasn't before, but it hasn't gotten any better, except that it's completely shifted to the other side.
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6#Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 ==
== Bullshit? ==


{{edit semi-protected|Passive smoking|answered=yes}}
Penn & Teller: Bullshit had a rather interesting take on Second Hand Smoke (Session 1 Episode 5 -- occassionally aired on SHOUTCast Internet TV, search for "Bullshit"), debunking various claims (in particular, stating that the EPA study was revealed to have been made up on the spot and the WHO study showing the opposite conclusion of what the press releas claimed). While I don't think an American TV show is the most trustworthy source of information, they seemed to have a point.
Please add the missing <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tag here:


<code><nowiki>The ] has identified reduction of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as key element for actions to encourage healthy child development.{{cite web|access-date=2024-06-12|title=WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)|url=https://www.who.int/europe/teams/tobacco/who-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control-(who-fctc)|website=www.who.int}}</ref></nowiki></code>
Anybody know whether the facts have changed since the original airing of that show?


. ] (]) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Since the risks of active smoking are commonly blown out of proportion (which, of course, doesn't make it non-harmful to the smokers) I wouldn't be surprised if most of the anti-smoking hysteria is really only based on strong feelings against smoking (i.e. people who don't like smoking and feel offended by other people smoking).


{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
PS: I'm a non-smoker, but that doesn't make me as much of a psycho as some of the 'Merkins that have apparently started the whole anti-passive-smoking trend. -- ] 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:No, it's still BS. Here's another , this by ]. ] 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

There is a very selected reading of the evidence in this article. Many physician organizations have spoken-out again it and there is broad agreement that it is associated with harm, both from epidemiological perspective and a toxicological one. The article looks like it was written by a tobacco lobbyist. ] 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

: I've deleted some of the most clearly unsourced and NPOV claims, but the article needs a lot more work.] 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

===Started POV===
When I first saw this article, it was completely from the POV of anti-smoking, with factual errors, selectively omitted informtion, and gross POV misinterpretation of study results showing a basic lack of understanding of statistics. The Osteen decision was derided by inserting the fact that he was previously a tabacco lobbyist, although his neutrality can't be honestly questioned since he has also ruled against the tobacco industry in another important case (whether it is a drug that can be regulated by the FDA). It also had a "Tobacco industry vs. everyone else" tone.

We are now in the process of achieving a balance, although there was apparently a reactionary swing in the other direction. It appears there is now a swing the other way since the paragraph on the WHO study showing no significant link has been cut.

I'll work on it when I find the time. I think the page needs to show the issue isn't settled, and show how agenda-driven studies are on both sides. Should probably put the studies with the basic criticism and facts in one place, and show (but not argue) the debate, naming all the players.

I'd say it's far more than "apparent" that it has shifted to the other side. This page has turned into a battle ground between "pro-smokers" and "anti-smokers," and it needs to be cleaned up.

: The claim that "the issue isn't settled" should be supported by reference to scientific studies, not the vagaries of US Court Decisions. The Osteen stuff should be in a section on political controversy. Certainly the Osteen decision fits into a "Tobacco industry vs everyone else" view, since the case was part of a campaign by the tobacco industry. ] 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Osteen’s decision wasn’t some "vagarie of the court." It was a very specific 92 page document outlining significant fraud by the EPA.

:Osteen's decision was overturned, so I would say "vagaries of US court decisions" is an apt description of the process as a whole, whichever side of it you take. ] 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:: It was only overturned because the case shouldn't have been handled by the court. The overturn did not touch the content of the decision....
=== Helena ===
We need to remove the reference to the Helena study from this page as it is complete BS. Read expert Michael Siegel's comments on it: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/challenge-issued-to-anti-smoking_10.html

== Politically Charged Terms ==

Expressions like "second-hand smoke" and "passive smoking" are politically charged terms. The preferred and politically neutral expression is "environmental tobacco smoke". In fact, I'd say much of the article rightly belongs under "Environmental Tobacco Smoke", and that the Passive Smoking article should be a discussion of the term itself, along with the other politically charged terms like Second-Hand Smoke, etc...
The way it is set up now, ETS is, rightly so, a disambiguation page, but the link to "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" redirects you to "Tobacco Smoking", which doesn't discuss ETS at all. It seems to me that there should be an "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" page, containing the article now entitled "Passive Smoking", with a link to the political terms under the "Passive Smoking" page, and discussing them as such. After all, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" is the preferred, neutral, "scientific" term, if you will, for what we're talking about. As it is, it's politically slanted in the anti-smoking direction.


: This seems reasonable enough to me ] 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

: “Preferred” by whom? -] 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Preferred by people without a political agenda. Expressions like "second-hand smoke" were designed to be pejorative. An encyclpœdia is, ideally, neutral, dispassionate, and scientific.

:: "Junk science" is also a politcally charged term, created by people working for the tobacco industry and then enthusiastically adopted by anti-environmentalists, especially "Greenhouse skeptics."

== Citations ==

I changed the style of citations to a more acceptable superscript style.

We need citations for the section on risks to pets. I've added links where I think we need them.

Also concerning this section, I'm a bit dubious on the following

Quotes:
:''This indicates that the risk of developing cancer from second-hand smoke may be greater for cats than for humans, including children. '''ONE POSSIBLE REASON''' (emphasis added) is that the cat receives the cancer-causing agents both by inhaling and by grooming, or '''IT MAY''' (emphasis added) caused by factors unrelated to ETS.''

:'' '''THIS IS BECAUSE, IN THEORY,''' (emphasis added) a dog with a long nose has an extra filtering system in its nose, so it is more likely to develop nasal cancers, but because of this extra filtering system, tobacco smoke is less likely to reach its lungs and cause cancer there.''

The emphasised parts are totally ridiculous. They maybe true, but we need citations. ''"This is because, in theory"'' does not not even make sense. It begins by implying it's a fact (''This is because''), then adds ''in theory'', which shows it is not a fact. I have as much trouble with this statement as I do with people who say ''It's a fact, I think''. I'm tempted to remove these all together, unless citations from a respectable source can back these up. Links for the reports should be easy to find, but this theorizing on ''why'' it may cause it has no place here.

Thanks - ] 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

== Disambiguation links at the top of page ==

I propose that the red disambiguation links to a Sublime album and single be removed. They are not serving any purpose, and are unsightly. Also, the see also links should be moved to the proper space. ] 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


:I agree, so I've removed them. The song link (Second-hand smoke) was poorly done, and I can't find a reference to the song on the Twiztd wiki page - ] 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

== Dave Hitt original research ==

I have re-added the Dave Hitt link that critisizes the EPA/WHO report. It is not original research, but an examination of the studies.

If the person who removed the link can present an argument why it is ''original research'', then please provide it.

Thanks - ] 13:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:An examination of studies, published on a personal website, constitutes original research in that "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" ]

:If you want to use this material go back to the published studies, and cite them.] 23:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:27, 28 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Passive smoking article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 35 days 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine: Hematology-oncology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Passive smoking. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Passive smoking at the Reference desk.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atomic1City*Blonde.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Sidestream smoke into this article because everything that needs to be covered about sidestream smoke is also covered in this article. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This merge seems reasonable to me. AdequateNBAfan (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that Passive smoking, at 137k, is WP:TOOBIG and so having a separate article is warranted. Klbrain (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Title change proposal

With an increase in literature on third-hand smoke, the dichotomy between active and passive smoking seems less relevant. As such, I'd propose changing the beginning term to secondhand or second-hand smoke, which would move to passive smoking to one of the alternate terms. AdequateNBAfan (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

page move

@Sjö: the article introduces "passive smoking" but continues "secondhand smoking" c.f. Effects - there is no continuity Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The term "secondhand smoke" refers to the smoke itself, while the term "passive smoking" refers to being subjected to the smoke. Hope that explains things. Anyway, that is no reason to move the article away from the WP:COMMONNAME. Sjö (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Second hand smoke is also common: as I indicated "smoking" is the action part of the subject - which is a generalized concept: smoking smoker (1) but means to ignite tobacco to make smoke to inhale for drug-use (2). So 1 is taken to mean 2. This I think is obvious and without contention. "Passive smoking" isn't therefore a fusion of two ideas successfully but is a confusion of the idea of (1) as I have shown, that by the fact of passive, no action smoking is occuring. Wouldn't you agree? whether or not "passive smoking" is the commonest version, which I'm not stating it isn't (although I don't see you've provided any indication of proof currently to support your claim). Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The participation in the habit-activity of the consumption of tobacco for it's psychoactive effects is by the application of sufficient heat to cause a state of ignition where-by smoke is created = smoking. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I can not understand what it is you are trying to say or what your argument is. But i guess that it is based on an etymological fallacy; since "to smoke" is an active action where someone lights tobacco and inhales the smoke that means that any phrase that contains the verb "smoke" must use "smoke" in exactly that meaning. That is incorrect, and language does not work that way. Sjö (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
An administrator reverted my response for legitimate reasons (as is shown in policy): User talk:Simpul skitsofreeneea#December 2023 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
With regards to 19:21 "no continuity": this makes the introductory concept not the subject of the article - therefore a way to improve would be to impose "passive smoking" as the continuation instead of "second hand smoking" - the intro different to the contents term is conflictual for the reader. Evidently "As of 2003, "secondhand smoke" was the term most used to refer to other people's smoke in the English-language media." if true does indicate by your argument WP:UCRN the article needs to be renamed. Although the relevant editor distorted the source so I deleted. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke until a consensus is reached. Sjö (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the missing <ref> tag here:

The ] has identified reduction of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as key element for actions to encourage healthy child development.{{cite web|access-date=2024-06-12|title=WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)|url=https://www.who.int/europe/teams/tobacco/who-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control-(who-fctc)|website=www.who.int}}</ref>

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: