Talk:Cigar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Colors

defining the colors of cigars. I always felt like a kid in a candy store with every conversation and experience with these peoplfails on names, but the list includes: Richard Dineola, a 40-year veteran from Consolidated and proud owner of the Dimeola line of fine cigars, and representatives from Indian Tabac, CAO, AVO, Perdomo, Fuente and Acid.

Color Designations

Candela, Natural, EMS, Maduro, Oscuro and single letter code identification.

Candela

Double Claro, Jade, Light Green, AMS - C

Natural

Shade Grown, Claro, Light Brown - N

EMS

Colorado, Medium Brown, English Market Selection - E

Maduro

Colorado Maduro, Dark Brown, SMS - M

Oscuro

Double Maduro, Very Dark Brown, Black - O

Seeing this, one will notice that Double Claro is lighter than Claro, while Double Maduro is darker than Maduro. Other color definitions have been used, such as Colorado Red for EMS, and Red Maduro for Maduro, but in all the tobacco shops, catalogs, warehouses and conversations that I know of, these seem to be the most common. Davjohn 09:27, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Double Maduro is not a darker shade of Maduro (that would be an Oscuro), but rather a cigar which uses Maduro leaves for both binder and the outer wrapper.

Cigar readers and the Montecristo brand

Source for cigar factory reader (from http://www.epinions.com/content_1661640836):

"An interesting aspect of the rolling process are the "Readers." The Readers are persons employed by the factories to read to the rollers and entertain them while they work. A process started in the days before radio and television. They still carry it on in some factories.
A good reader is almost as valuable as a good roller, and keeps the workers informed with newspaper articles, and entertained with novels. Jose Marti a major figure in Cuba's fight for independence from Spain in the nineteenth century was a cigar factory reader at one point in his life."

Eric Herboso 07:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the detailed stuff about how the Montecristo brand was started. It doesn't belong in this article at all. If people want it somewhere, an article on the brand itself can be started, wherein the content would actually be relevant. User:ForgeGod

NPOV

Hi, I just removed the NPOV warning, as I can't find anywhere anything that would be considered biased. If there is, feel free to post it here and put the warning back on, but it seemed rather unnecessary to me. -Haon 16:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad Link

I just removed a malicious link that was placed at the top of the link section. It was linked to an anti-smoking bogus website... I don't think it has anything to do here. g999b

Link Section

Why did someone removed a bunch of links from the external links section ? Almost all the blogs have been removed?! Why is that ?! Some cigar blogs are very well done... I don't see the point. Can s.o. explain ? g999b

we don't need 20 links. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Zanaq 11:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but someone keeps removing the major cigar sites like Cigars.About.com, Cigar Cyclopedia and Smoke magazine, and slipping in a couple of very small blogs. Other, major blogs and discussion forums keep getting removed by a javascript that auto-reverts the external links back to the same, small list. Is this some new form of SEO? Is it a bot? Or a user who just wants to have Wikipedia feeding a couple of sites? Thomherfs 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Age???

How old do you have to be to buy a cigar in America???

I would think the legal age to buy tobacco products in your state is the legal age to buy a cigar. So basically the legal age to buy cigarettes. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The legal age to buy tobacco in America is 18.--HughJorgan 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Except in Suffolk County, NY --- they changed it to 19 in May of 2005. - Jimmy 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It varies state to state. Alabama requires (or required when I was a teen) that you be 19. Lamont A Cranston 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Shape diagram

How about this one, although the shapes described in the article sometimes contradict how I always thought them.

Anyway, if it's any good it's yours. --Hellahulla 10:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Additives?

Different manufacturers use different processing methods, tobacco types, and additives. These can be used to determine the origin of the cigars, using forensic chemistry methods. I have an unsourced claim that propylene glycol is used as a moisturizer in virtually all cigars except those made in Cuba, therefore lack of its presence in the cigar may serve as an indication it is a Cuban one. Is it true? Any source? Any details about this? --Shaddack 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Propylene glycol is often used in humidor water to help control humidity. So it may be present in any cigar that has been in a humidor that uses this type of system. However as to whether the chemical enters the cigars from just being in the water is something I do not know. --62.173.194.7 11:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Propylene glycol is added to many cigars directly. It is nearly impossible for the propylene glycol to transfer from the humidifying element in a humidor to a cigar as it does not evaporate with the water. [MithShrike, 28 Aug 2006]

Flavored cigars could be prone to have the stuff in as a moisturizing agent, as the flavors are less pronounced when the tobacco is dry, same as flavored pipe tobacco (I've often encountered tins of aromatic that won't dry enough to be smokable due to PG addition) I would guess that you'd encounter PG as an additive predominantly in "drugstore" cigars e.g., white owl and so forth where the emphasis is on an artificial taste rather than the character of the tobacco. Wet tobacco burns like crap and tastes harsh, so it's not really in a premium cigar maker's interest at all to increase the water content of their product. MalkavianX 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Cigar

The 'method' of smoking a cigar would be an interesting addition to the introduction of the article.

Yes, including how to select, cut, light, and smoke it. Cla68 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. -- Librarianofages 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I might consider working on this soon. As a cigar smoker who gathers much info on relevant sites, it should be easy to give a summary of the "rules of the art". --Nekotaku 09:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Harm Reduction

Smokers should have an alternative to the bipolarity of "all or nothing"-- either purchasing and consuming tobacco in expensive giant overdoses of several grams each or cold turkey quitting.

So, how about including a reminder that with an appropriate utensil one may reduce the serving size of "a smoke" from an entire cigar each time you light up, down to 25 mg.:

l. Start with a quarter-inch socket wrench.

2. Push a screen (Mesh 40) about 3/16" of the way into the hex end.

3. Push a quarter-inch (outer diameter) flexible plastic tube into the other (square, or driver") end. This should be long enough to give the smoke time to cool down before it reaches you.

4. Wrap duct tape around the seam.

5. Wire on a big safety pin for occasional clearing of screen windows.

6. Have on hand prickly pipe cleaners, q-tips, and a small bottle of rubbing alcohol for clean-outs (infrequent).

7. Have one or more small cases in which to carry cigar(s) around so you can choose which flavor of toke you at any particular time.

With a razor knife cut off a tiny bit of the cigar (25 mg.) and stuff it in the screened end of your utensil. While sucking slow to achieve low burning temperature, light sparingly. You will find you can suck continuously up to four seconds before filling your mouth, and then "puff" the acquired material quickly out the nose to resume the slow sucking process for several seconds longer.

If you aren't afraid what others think, this can save you a ton of money (the hell with their profit margin) and it eliminates the side stream smoke "liberals" are supposedly enraged about.

If there is any danger cops will inspect your car and object to such a utensil, have your congressman send you a letter certifying it is for safe hygienic tobacco use.

all>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Preservation

How necessary is a humidor? Will my cigars keep just fine for, say, six months, without a humidor? How about a year? Anyone? 22:28, 10 June 2006 Daveyjoe

An encyclopedia is not a helpdesk, and all comments should be focused on improving the article, therefore this comment will not address your questions directly, and neither should the article: an encyclopedia is not a how-to manual. The preservation of cigars is briefly mentioned under Cigar#Manufacture. I wonder if there could not be a more expansive section on preservation of cigars, which is not under manufacture. You may sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) — Zanaq (?) 05:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Had to remove this from the article as it is completely unsubstantiated and could not be verified either through Google search or a search of Sotheby's. At any rate, cigars kept in damp conditions would rapidly mold and rot - becoming unsmokable within a couple of months. There is no way they would last years under the described conditions:

... , to the best of anyone's knowledge, be kept indefinitely--under the proper conditions. Indeed, Sotheby's recently auctioned off cigars kept in the damp basement of an Irish castle for centuries. Reportedly, they still smoked well.

Cutting a Cigar

Cutting a Cigar

Can anyone provide information on how to cut a cigar? Do you cut as close to the head as possible or some other length?

Cutting a cigar can be done with either a guillotine bullet (punch) cutter. Much less common is a "V" or Wedge cutter.

With a guillotine, you should cut it as close as possible to the head. All you want to do is shave off a bit of the cap to allow free flow of the smoke. The cap also helps hold the outer wrapper leaf in place, so you don't want to cut off too much, or the wrapper may start to unravel.

The above applies only to parejos, or straight-sided cigars. For figurados, it's a case-by-case thing, cut enough to get a smooth, easy draw. If your cheeks pucker in when you draw, you need to cut more off.

The cutting of a cigar, as well as the smoking "ritual" and preservation (in essence this section and the two preceeding) vary a bit by personal preference, but there are some basic guidelines. If that would be appropriate for this article I could get a brief outline written up -MalkavianX 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this bit

(diff:[1]) "In fact the construction of Non Cuban Cigars generally are more consisted largley due to huge American and Spanish tobacco companies, but the taste profile for the cigar aficionado most always ends up being Cuban." This may be worthy of inclusion in the article, but could we source and perhaps clean it up? If you happen to be the person who posted that contribution, you have my thanks, and I truly mean no offense, it just doesn't seem quite ready for inclusion in the article yet. Luna Santin 06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

      Thank you it was late and I see the typo`s good call , I will re do
   David    
   Cigar Aficionado, who has been to many cigar factories and events in Central America, Cuba, China, and North America.

External Links

There used to be a link to the Herfer's Paradise cigar forums on the page, someone removed it. I'm in favor of restoring it since it's one of the biggest online communities for cigar enthusiasts.

Flavor / Aroma Discussion

The article includes a statement that says: "Non-smokers subjected to second-hand cigar smoke have many different opinions about the scent of cigar smoke. Some enjoy the cigar smoke, noticing the difference between cigar smoke and the more common scent of cigarette smoke. However, other non-smokers do not appreciate or enjoy the scent of cigar smoke."

This has always puzzled me. How is it that some non-smokers DO enjoy the smell of cigar smoke, but others do not? I suspect that the reason for many is that cigar smoking, being a primarily (though not exclusively) male enjoyment, many non-smokers who are anti-male do not like the smell of cigar smoke because it is an indication that somewhere nearby there is a male who is not contrite about the fact that he is a male. And what is worse, that male is actually being politically incorrect by flagrantly enjoying the fact that he IS a male by sitting and partaking of a male passtime. PGNormand 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non smoker I have noticed that even the enjoyability of a cigar varies: I personally enjoy the scent of a cigar most of time but on a few occasions the scent has just been absolutely repulsive. I wonder what affects this. [Ami, 20 Aug 2006]

The aroma of a cigar varies by quite a few factors. Many of the cheaper cigars have preservative chemicals which make the aroma repulsive to many people. The kind of leaves used in the filler, binder, and wrapper will also affect the aroma of the cigar. Cigar smoke just depends on the quality of the leaves, the blend, and if there are chemical additives or not. [MithShrike, 28 Aug 2006]

The quote at the start of this section struck me when reading the article as being absolutely pointless. It seems an excessive penchant for NPOV has descended into blandness. I suggest the following alternative, which someone may substitute into the article if they feel so inclined (thoughts welcome):

"Due to cigars usually being of higher quality than cigarettes, some non-smokers find second-hand cigar smoke enjoyable. The aroma will however vary by cigar, and acclaim is not universal."Leberquesgue 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to depend largely on the origin of the cigar. Dutch cigars, while in general inferior in quality to the Cuban, Dominican and other tropical products, often seem to have a smell more appreciated by non-smokers. Possibly because the aroma is more coffee-like, and therefore recognizable and comparable to a luxury product that we're all acquainted with. While cigarette smoke stays largely the same in scent over a long period of time (until it is nearly completely removed from the atmosphere in a room), cigar smoke tends to go "stale", and has a smell similar to that of a finished cigar stump. A smell that even cigar smokers would have to admit is unpleasant. --Nekotaku 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Brand Names??

There is no section naming major cigar brand names. How ridiculous!

• A separate article exists for those brands: Cigar brands. What is lacking, though, is a separate article for many of the non-Cuban brands. If anyone with a decent knowledge of a certain brand and the general structure of such an article is willing to write an objective entry, it would be much appreciated. I'll look into it myself, as soon as I find good sources for reliable information. --Nekotaku 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm working on this as I have time, which can be at a premium. Glacierman 21:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did an article on Cafe Creme (Dutch cigarillo) for the cigarillo page and it was removed on the basis that it was like an advert for the company. I would suggest that anyone doing such a task be careful they dont fall into this trap and waste your time as some editors do remove these and see this as a personal quest to remove said articles which seem to advertise the product. PrincessBrat 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Recently, a new list was created on this Cigar page instead of the cigar brands page listing a couple dozen Cuban cigar brands. I am concerned that this might lead to other subsections listing dozens of non-Cuban cigar brands, many of which are just as famous as their Cuban cousins. To prevent this from happening and to keep the Cigar page from just repeating the list on the cigar brands page, wouldn't it make sense to just mention a few notable brands in paragraph form on the Cigar page with a link to the cigar brands page for a complete list? TabacAttack 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems like a better idea is to link to the cigar brands page, and from there to independent pages for the brands themselves, especially for the brands that actually deserve a paragraph or two. Romeo y Julieta, for example, already has such a page.

confusing sentence

"The cost of Cuban cigars range dramatically, and most likely the genuine product is sold at the same price that each cigar is sold at the same price the factory in Cuba is selling their cigars for." (under the U.S. embargo on Cuba section)

I find that sentence very confusing; does anyone have a suggestion for a better way to word it (I don't know much about cigars, so I didn't change it myself)?

• From what I can gather of its meaning, and what I know of the matter, I'd suggest the following: "The cost of Cuban cigars varies greatly. Most likely the genuine articles in countries outside of Cuba are sold at the same price as that for which they can be acquired directly in the factories." --Nekotaku 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• What are the actual costs? Are the online costs of $25-$100 per cigar accurate?

No, that seems to be a gross overestimation. There's much range, of course, but most handcrafted cigars will have a price somewhere in between $3 and $10. Brands at the very top range (such as Cohiba, Trinidad and Arturo Fuente) can have cigars priced around $15 to $30. Anything beyond that seems unlikely. Naturally, the taxes in the countries where such cigars are sold have a large impact. Being from Belgium, I can confirm that to determine the price of a cigar here you can usually just count the same price in Euros. A cigar that costs $5 in America is likely to cost over 5 Euros here. Canadian tobacco taxes are very high, as such the retail prices for cigars there are far beyond what US citizens are used to.

Exceptions are the Cuban cigars from before the revolution/embargo. These can be legally bought US citizens, and as such have become collector's items. Inflated prices can also be found on models that have gone out of production.

Since there's so much variation in price, and the fact that many machine-made cigars can be bought at substantially lower costs, I think a mention of prices is probably best omitted from this article. --Nekotaku 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I am considering removing the following:

One of the leading experts on Cigar smoking in the UK, J. Freegard, recently opened the "Cigar Bar", the first of it's kind in London. However, some question his knowledge on the subject, since his declaration that "the cigar is more sacred than anything".

One, I don't think it is particularly interesting (in fact much of the popular culture section should probably be reworked or removed). Two, the "However..." sentence seems like a needless slur. Lamont A Cranston 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My question concerns this sentence from the Popular Culture section:

The smoker can minimize their risk of addiction, and resulting cancers, by treating the cigar as a special occasion, and as noted above logging their smokes.

Logging? Does this mean recording when you smoked last? Does anyone really do this? And if you're only smoking once in a while, does it really matter? Or am I misunderstanding this? KingOfAfrica 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Logging as in tasting notes, of course. Also helps you to find the cigar you enjoy most. People often suggest this when you are new to cigar smoking so that you can try out lots of brand and make comments on them and when you find a favourite you know which one it is. Experienced smokers do this for the same reasons people keep personal diaries, memories etc. PrincessBrat 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This experienced smoker quit logging long ago. Spent too much time on what had become a waste of time, as I now know what I like and my mind is still capable of remembering when I last had a cigar. I did keep a log of tasting notes when I first started and it did help me learn what I liked and what I did not. It had, however, nothing to do with health issues, which is, quite frankly, a debatable issue. Glacierman 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

flavor / flavour

That was just juvenille to change all "flavor" to "flavour". Frotz661 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't know who did that, and wouldn't do something similar myself, I do not think of it as juvenile. "Flavor" is the general American spelling, while "flavour" is the British spelling. Wikipedia should be kept international, and as such the spelling that is closer to that of the language of origin (British English) seems preferrable. After all it is American English that made these changes to the language. That there is most likely a much bigger American userbase here is not enough to counter such a choice. It seems biased to me as well that flavour redirects to flavor. --Nekotaku 09:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have called it juvenille if it was an "ou" to "o" change. It's the quibbling that bugs me, but yes, I see the need for consistency. Frotz661 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistency across the board is indeed the Wikipedia standard. Nekotaku's contention that we should use British spelling throughout Wikipedia is contrary to the Manual of Style, which clearly states that "there is no preference among the major national varieties of English…Articles should use the same dialect throughout…Follow the dialect of the first contributor." By this standard (which is, after all, the "marching orders" for Wikipedia editors), the mass change of "flavor" to "flavour" was indeed incorrect.

Considering the requirement of consistent spelling throughout the article, I've reverted the occurrences of "flavour" to "flavor." It's a small thing, but rules is rules.--RattBoy 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that consensus. Rules are rules, we are to follow them. Personally I wouldn't make such changes, as this quibble seems too trivial really. Of course consistency in one article is a good display of proper style and needs to be respected. It would be nice, however, to have as much consistency and uniformity across the board as possible. The trouble is that people can easily be thrown off by something like the difference between British and American spelling. While this is, of course, of little importance compared to the need to communicate a message. Let's not instigate a Little-Endian vs Big-Endian fight. --Nekotaku 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Danger

I came to this article today hoping o find out about the dangers of cigar smoking; it's commonly believed that smoking a cigar is safer than a cigarette, but this article lacks information of this sort. I propose that you lot add a section regarding the hazards of cigar smoke. 68.189.82.81 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I too was surprised that there was no mention of the health effects of cigar smoking. This article is very POV, with terminology like "the best brands" and "reasonable prices." I'd like to see some information about the health effects of cigar smoking and second-hand cigar smoking. I'd also like to see a discussion about the media's impact on the "cigar boom" of the 1990's and beyond. For instance, cigars enjoyed a lot of "product placement" on broadcast TV and movies—including, but not limited to, Seinfeld. (See this link.) Finally, the article comments, without citing sources, that "Non-smokers subjected to second-hand cigar smoke have many different opinions about the scent of cigar smoke. Some enjoy the cigar smoke, noticing the difference between cigar smoke and the more common scent of cigarette smoke. However, other non-smokers do not appreciate or enjoy the scent of cigar smoke." I guess that's true, but I think a reasonable search would indicate that the overwhelming majority of non-smokers find cigar smoke very objectionable.--RattBoy 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the appreciation of cigars, much as the article for wine is about the appreciation of wines. Either taken in excess is bad. In moderation, they do no harm. If you wish, create an article on anti-smoking for your concerns. Keep in mind Paracelsus's Law: "The dose makes the poison." Frotz661 05:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? That's not evident from its title. Maybe the Asbestos and Saturated fat articles are about "appreciation" of those substances, too!…and therefore any discussion of their respective health concerns should also be deleted.

(By the way: do you have a source for your contention that "In moderation, (cigars) do no harm?" Because I think the American Cancer Society might not agree.)--RattBoy 15:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The critical difference is that a cigar is a thing designed to give pleasure. So is a fine wine. Asbestos is a mineral once used for insulation among other things. Saturated fat, until relatively recently, was mainly of interest to chemists. The mechanisms by which asbestos and saturated fat cause disease are straightforward and very well known. This is not so for tobacco. Certainly, one can point to inhaling concentrated aerosolized ash (smoke) is a bad thing. It's a bad thing to inhale concentrated aerosols of all sorts of things (soil, silica, coal, oil, asbestos, water, etc). Smoking a cigar is all about tasting the smoke. You're not supposed to inhale. Nobody seems to be able to pin down what harm there is in moderately doing that. Cyanide? Almonds contain enough for a human to smell. Have you ever smelled cyanide in tobacco smoke? Polonium? It's in just about anything that grows in dirt. You get a bigger dose of radiation from C14. Nicotine: a stimulant and in higher doses a nerve toxin along with caffeine. As for a source on moderation: google for "smoking in moderation". Frotz661 07:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm always amused by those who, when asked to provide a source for their information, tell the requestor what to "google." If they had good sources for their contention, I figure they'd supply their sources—rather than asking others to do their research.

But what the hey—I'm easy. I googled "smoking in moderation." I found this site, which says "But there is no such thing as smoking 'in moderation.'" Specifically on cigars, the site says "Cigar smoking can cause cancer of the mouth, throat, lung, and esophagus…the smoke released into the environment by a burning cigar is even more irritating and unhealthful than the smoke released by a burning cigarette." Thanks for the suggestion.

The National Cancer Institute does not support any contention that "moderate" cigar smoking is harmless.--RattBoy 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you get esophagal cancer from smoking a cigar? Isn't that the tube leading to your stomach? One would have to literally swallow the smoke.67.176.14.100 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Lord Earl Duke William Ray

Did you miss the fact that most of the articles returned did not support your perspective? "No such thing as smoking in moderation" presents a false dichotomy. I see that cancer.gov repeats the same canard about toxins in tobacco smoke, ignoring the fact we get lots more from other sources. thescooponsmoking.org makes a mockery of the discipline of statistics. Again, keep in mind Paracelcus's Law. Frotz661 17:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that "most" of the articles that my search found were in support of your "smoking in moderation does no harm" thesis. The evidence goes further against you when one considers the quality of the "articles." On your side, I found heartland.org, which offers up the anecdotal "several experts told me" argument. On my side, I have the National Institutes of Health. I'll give the cred to the government agency, thank you, rather than some unverified website. If you wish to deny the documented danger of cigar smoking, please provide a verifiable link which supports your thesis based on scientific research—and please take a stab at defining "moderation."

Keep invoking Paracelsus if you wish, but know that, not only are you relying on a 16th-century alchemist, but you're even misquoting him.

Finally: when others post links, please do not delete them without an explanation. Thanks so much for your cooperation!--RattBoy 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I merely used what is described in the article as a "popular short version" of the quote. You will notice that the full version is rather long-winded. Futhermore, of what relevance is his having been an alchemist? He was also a physician, which is in what capacity he made that statement.

As I explained in the summary of my edit, I removed the link because is it POV. It is also irrelevant to cigars. Feel free to add it and your new additions to product placement.

"Everyone" knew in the 1970s that the planet was fast on its way to an ice age. Now "everyone" knows that the planet is fast on its way to being like Venus. The former was discarded when it didn't happen and now the latter theory crumbles under the weigh of sloppy statistical practices. I have little tolerence for bandwagon arguments, particularly ones that merely regurgitate gospel. I will not do your homework for you.

Here's my idea of "moderation": The environment is full of things that can injure an organism. Therefore, most animals have evolved the ability to heal damage and fight off invading microorganisms. It's very unreasonable to assert that we, being animals in the physical sense, should be any different. Every injurious substance can be tolerated and resisted by the body to varying degrees. We are now told about cancer-causing nitrosamines present in cooked, cured, and fermented foods. Over the years, we've evolved to generally require food to be treated like this, particularly cooked. It therefore follows that we've also evolved resistance to the toxins generated. If you ingest large quantities of purified nitrosamines, there might be a problem. That's the essence of moderation. Something taken in amounts that the body can deal with is something taken in moderation. Frotz661 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (note: this time is guesstimated)

Taking your points one at a time:

• The truncated version of the quotation is simplistic. If Paracelsus ever said that moderate use of toxins was safe, please provide the source. My point in noting that he was a 16th-century alchemist is to highlight the fact that medical science has advanced in several ways in the last century alone. Invocation of his "law" contributes little to a 21st-century discussion.

• See the full version of the quote. He states there is nothing that is not a poison. It's the DOSE that determines if something is poisonous or not. Have you ever studied toxicology? Perhaps Hippocrates and Galen are irrelevant these days?

• Though you say that the link is POV and irrelevant to cigars, you fail to explain how. (Are we expected to simply take your word for it? I don't believe that's in the spirit of Wikipedia.) The link cites the use of cigars in product placement, notably in the movie Independence Day and the TV show Seinfeld. To ignore product placement in a discussion of the 1990's cigar resurgence is like talking about recent changes in New Orleans' population without mentioning hurricanes.

• The primary subject of those links are product placement. The secondary subject is what the product placement is about. Stating that product placement has happened and providing some examples proving your case is relevant. Posting links to rants against product placement is not relevant.

I don't understand why you assert that it's okay to state that it's happened, without providing links which support that contention. Wikipedia is about verifiable content; the links serve to verify.--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, did you notice that the particular placements discussed by many of your additions are mentioned in the Popular Culture area? Is it really necessary to litter this article with links like that? Frotz661 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They are noted as instances of cigar use in pop culture. They are not noted as instances of deliberate product placement, which had a clear effect on the resurgence of interest in cigars in the 1990s.--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• What you say about an impending "ice age" in the 1970's is simply untrue. It's used by George Will and other non-scientists who oppose any efforts to combat Global Warming, but they're picking and choosing their "facts" with little regard for reality. Not only was there no scientific consensus "warning" of an impending ice age, but the few published papers which suggested a cooling trend carefully reported that the time-scale in question was on the order of millennia (not "fast on its way") and that anthropogenic effects (such as the burning of fossil fuels) could have a large impact on their model.[2]

• Have you spoken to anyone who lived during the 1970s? Have you read any of the usual popular news magazines from the 1970s? You should be able to get reproductions at the local library.

Ummm, yeah, I've spoken to people who lived in that era. (Keep in mind that people will sometimes harbor "memories" of things that never were. So if you're using a friend's purported memory to bolster your POV, be very careful.)

I've also read many of the periodicals from that time. I don't know why you'd imply that the best place to go for a scientific consensus would be the "popular news magazines," rather than the scientific literature. More to the point, your vague suggestion that I should go to the local library in search of phantom articles is intellectually bankrupt. Again, it's up to you to provide the reference. If you know of a few scare articles in Time or Newsweek from the '70s, please provide the date. If not, I suggest that you might want to visit your local library. You might be surprised by the paucity of such articles. (Better still: try to find the scare articles in Nature, Science, or Scientific American. They'd be much closer to the primary sources, and thus have better cred.)--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested a popular news magazine because that would show you the bad science where it's the worst. Again, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Frotz661 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

…and the rest of us know that you've done your own homework how???--RattBoy 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your definition of "moderation" is self-referential to the point where I don't see its value to anybody.

• Where does my explaination fold back on itself? Did you understand the basic points I was making on evolution?

Ummm, your definition is meaningless because you make no effort toward defining a "moderate" dose. Simply asserting that smoking in moderation is harmless, and then defining "moderation" as a dosage which does no harm, is a circular argument.

• Use your head. Chain-smoking is not moderate. One or two cigars a day is moderate. You may notice that Grant and Freud consumed around a box daily. Frotz661 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not civil to tell other editors to "use your head." The links I provided contend that there are health risks associated with one or two cigars a day. If you have references which rebut that, please post them. Otherwise…you really should let the verified links stand.--RattBoy 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did understand your point about evolution, but it had little relevance to a discussion of smoking. Humans have been deliberately smoking for only a small part of our evolutionary history; there's no reason to assume that we have quickly evolved chemical or physical attributes to render "moderate" use of cigars harmless. In fact, the best available data argues against that assumption.--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Antiquity is a "small part"? Frotz661 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Though it's a large part of human history, one thousand years is, indeed, a "small part" of human evolution.--RattBoy 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• You entered this part of the discussion, essentially arguing that any mention of the dangers of cigar smoking was inappropriate because "smoking in moderation" was harmless. Not only have you failed to back up your thesis (contrary to what you've posted, it's your responsibility to share the results of your "homeowrk" if you wish to convince me and other readers of this discussion), but it's largely irrelevant. If cigar smoking represents a danger when not pursued "in moderation," then this article should address that danger. To ignore it, essentially functioning as a cheerleading site for cigar smoking, would do a disservice to the intrepid surfer. That's why there is now a section on "Health effects." I hope that small section will be expanded in the future.--RattBoy 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• What form shall this article take, then? Prior to your arrival, it was mostly about discussion of a hobby that offends nobody but shrill busybodies. You've taken it on yourself to insert anti-tobacco screeds throughout the article. Naturally, there's a question of if it's safe or not. There's a section for that in the article. Be content with that and leave the rest of us alone.

The article should take the usual form, with space for "appreciation" of cigars, but also space for their demonstrable health risks. That should satisfy both the indoor polluters and the shrill busybodies. ¿Cool?--RattBoy 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Frotz, do you understand how this works? You really shouldn't delete verified links which are relevant to the article without discussion. Your contention that the links are irrelevant has been refuted, so you shouldn't delete them on that basis. Your only other apparent justification is that they're "POV."

• You presume to speak for most people who watch this discussion page and take an interest in maintaining the Cigar article. Were I just an observer, I wouldn't appreciate such presumptions.

Oh, come on. Neither you nor I can predict what each reader would be seeking when approaching this page. Unless you can read the mind of every potential reader, you'd do well to err on the side of explaining yourself.--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view page. It says, in part:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

It emphatically does not say that links with which you disagree should be obliterated. If you have links which dispute the contention that there was significant effort toward placement of cigars in TV and flicks, by all means list them. But I see no justification for you to remove them.--RattBoy 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I question if you truly understand that page. You're turning an article about cigars into an article why cigars are bad. I find the product-placement odious myself, but you need to keep things on topic. Frotz661 02:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah. The section on health effects is a minor part of the article, and even if expanded, it will stay relatively small. A few lynx to articles about cigar-related product-placement won't materially effect the article either, save for contributing to the intrepid surfer's understanding. And, by the way, "I question if you truly understand that page" is hardly a reasoned argument if not followed up by an explanation of your interpretation of the page. Again, you'd do well to explain yourself, not just throw out assertions as fact.--RattBoy 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BRAVO. Nice debate. May I fuel the fire and state, that there are most ceratinly health risks associated with any form of tobacco usage (some with greater risks than others), but the operative conclusion stemming is that no conclusive documented studies can prove so. Putting this debate back to it's original question, as to why it is that some non-smokers enjoy the aroma of cigar smoke, whilst other don't? Ask yourself this: Why do some people like the taste of aubergines (egg plant) where as others don't? Bearing in mind that a large portion of taste, within the human body, is directly linked to our sense of smell and our sense of smell contributes largely to what and how we taste.!--NickSA 03:29, 7 November 2006

I think the answer lies somewhere around the answer to why some people can taste that powdery substance that's intolerably bitter to some, and tasteless to others. Why do some people relish cheeses like Stilton, Limberger, or worm cheese? Frotz661 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rattboy: Last night a silent observer of this debate directed to look at your edit history. I can easily see that you have quite a reputation for causing trouble in other articles, particularly Rush Limbaugh over his recent criticism of Michael J Fox. I've repeatedly laid out the facts and pointed you towards answers, but nothing will satisfy you. Instead you continue to quibble and insist on littering this article with screeds. You need to stop your trollish behaviour NOW. Frotz661 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Causing trouble?" "Screeds?" "Trollery?" "Vandalism?" Say what you want, but spell my name right. (Remember: proper spelling includes proper capitalization.)

[Sorry to intrude, but what does it matter how he spells your name in a debate about cigars?]67.176.14.100 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reformed Vandal

I dispute your characterization of what happened on the Rush Limbaugh page. (Please note the Talk:Rush Limbaugh page, in which my most recent post agreed with your anonymous "silent observer." Pretty funny behavior for an agenda-driven troublemaker!) Note also that some of my edits, though controversial with some editors, have remained on the page.

You need to understand the rules of reasoned debate, my friend. You think you have pointed me towards an answer, but your mode of argument (repeated versions of "look it up!") wouldn't get you to the second round in a Middle School debating contest.

Posting verified links is not "trolling."

I will no longer engage you directly, because we have clearly reached an impasse. Some sort of mediation might be in order.--RattBoy 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I see nothing wrong with this article as it is. This article is meant to provide information on cigars in particular and the information is presented more towards the view of cigars as they exist in human cultures: a method of enjoyment, mind or mood alteration. Anyone wishing to outline the ill effects of cigars, should note such in an article more geared towards the science of the issue: Tobacco or Nicotine articles serve such purposes, much like the Alcohol article does so for Wine, Beer, etc.

As well, about the full quote from Paracelsus is counter productive; even water can be damaging to the human body in significant quantities, which really negates your point entirely; we all know that water is safe in moderation.

I do not feel that this topic, which concerns itself solely with cigar smoking in popular culture, should be marred with information on the health effects of cigar smoke. Not when we have other topics that chiefly concern themselves with the effects of smoking the constituents of cigars.67.84.176.234 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we at least compromise and add a two sentence "summary" with a link to the health risks? I feel that health risks should be alluded to, and AT THE VERY LEAST there should be a link SOMEWHERE on the page. Aufs klo 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Frotz661 and RattBoy, this is not the place for your flamewar-like arguments about a situation that none of us know the true extent of.

Thank you for your concern. I'm always open to advice from editors, especially editors that have the credibility that comes with a history of editing numerous pages, on a variety of topics, with distinction. Please note that I ceased engaging Frotz in debate a week ago, precisely because the debate was not constructive. As you see, I posted a RfC at that time. Your following comments would probably be better placed in the RfC section.

I'm not sure what you might mean by "a situation that none of us know the true extent of." The health risks of cigar smoking are well studied and documented. Many of us may not be experts in toxicology, but as contributors to an encyclopedia, we can certainly add content from verifiable sources—which is all that I've been attempting to do in the article.--RattBoy 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only arguments that could matter in an encyclopedia are the results of studies on the subject. These results show that smoking cigars has a negative impact on physical health, but because of the tobacco processing, lack of inhalation and generally more modest amounts of consumption, the risks are far smaller than those associated with cigarettes. When one mentions "smoking in moderation", this means that the amount of smoked cigars in regard to a time period only increases the health risk to a degree that can generally be considered as acceptable. If anything needs to be changed here, then it is the Health effects of tobacco smoking article, that seems strongly focused on cigarette comsumption and has little decent content regarding cigar and pipe smoking. After that work is done, a simple link in the cigar article would suffice. --Nekotaku 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your definition of "smoking in moderation" is as circular as Frotz's. If anything were posted to this article (or to any other) supporting the POV that moderate cigar smoking is harmless (or not very harmful), it would have to be supported by verifiable sources (presumably with meaningful definitions of "moderation"). Since there is no content in this article about cigar smoking's impact on health, the article's tacit POV is that there is no impact on health.

I agree that the Health effects of tobacco smoking article should contain information specific to cigars. However, I'm sure you'll note that the cigarette article contains much more than a simple link. The issue of health is extremely relevant to cigarettes and cigars, so pushing the issue to the side is not appropriate in either case.--RattBoy 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mention of the cigarette leads little credence to your claims; cigarettes are well known to be smoked for their addictive qualities, not their flavor. Cigarettes, more so than pipes or cigars, are health risks because the amount of which they are smoked, the fact that they are inhaled, and their portability and ease fo use.

Cigars, for the most part, are not smoked to satiate addiction (of course this on a per person basis, but generally speaking). I believe that cigar health issues should be spoken about in the tobacco article, because that is what causes the health risks; is the smoking of tobacco. Whether its in a cigar, cigarette, or pipe makes no real difference, save the amount that is smoked and how it is smoked. 67.84.176.234 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Cigars

"Cigars from Cuba are derived from tobacco components found throughout the country of Cuba... This may be why the Cuban cigar is considered to be the best..." -- What? That's nothing special to Cuba. It was my understanding that Cuba yielded excellent cigars due to their soil and their climate. I'm pretty sure other countries mix and match components. Other countries even use Cuban seeds to grow their tobacco, hoping to get it as close to Cuba as possible. It doesn't work as well as you'd think. There's no reference to the "components" statement, and I don't believe it to be true; especially since it goes on to say "this may be why Cubans are considered the best" -- sounds vague with nothing to prove it. Cubans are considered the best, but it's not common knowledge that's it's due to their "components" being taken from different areas, so there should be some kind of reference there.

• This does indeed seem like a badly constructed claim. I think the idea is that it is understood the quality of the cigars comes from the quality of the components. But then that would have to be explained. Your statements about the climate and soil are a good start. It can also be noted that there is the issue of construction quality. Although Cuba has some of the most appreciated tobacco in the world, their large output means that the consistency of quality in the cigar manufacturing itself varies. --Nekotaku 10:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate around the fact that Cuban cigars stand to be the best cigars in the world gets it's origins largely from the embargo placed on Cuba by the USA, by Kennedy in 1961. The embargo simply banned the sale of Cuban products within the United States. Through this, Cuban cigars have gained popularity through the aspect of being taboo since banned.

If you look at the volumes of quality and constency of leaf coming out of Cuba, versus other cigar producing countries such as Domincan Republic, Honduras and Nicaragua to name but a few, these countries are consistently produding higher volumes of quality leaf year on year over Cuba. Asyou rightly say that some countries are using "Cuban" seed to achieve a desired "Cuban" quality, you are both right and wrong. Growing the same seed in different soils will give you a variation of flavour, aroma and smoking characteristics. Countries having the best climate for tobacco growing, mostly lie within a belt, between the tropics, across the globe. These countries are not only isolated to the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Cameroon and Nigeria are excellent examples of such countries, but both countries producing tobacco leaves used largely for the use of wrapper and binder leaves within cigars. The same can be said about Java and Sumartra within the Indonessian islands. A cigar's country of origin is purely the country within which the factory is located that rolls the cigars. Many cigar brands now are utilising tobaccos from a range of countries, which can be as many as 6 under normal cigar manufacturing standards. --NickSA 10:15, 24 November 2006

• While the statement that the embargo has aided in the mystification of Cuban cigars, thus making them more popular, is interesting and probably entirely correct, it can be noted that cigar afficionados around the world state that Cuban cigars are the best overall. At any rate, their sales and critical acclaim led credence to this statement. While there are many quality brands from other nations, and this matter is highly subjective, the appreciation of Cuban cigars seems owing only to a small part to the embargo. I don't think this can be considered one of the largest factors. But it's a good thought that hadn't crossed my mind before.--Nekotaku 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Cigar

This is a dispute about whether a section concerning the danger of smoking cigars belongs in the article. In addition, there's a secondary dispute over whether external links, documenting the role of product placement in fueling cigar smoking's resurgence in the 1990s, belong in the article.11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• (See the lengthy dialog above, under the "Danger" heading.) Prior to my arrival at this article, the issue of the dangers of cigar smoking was only tangentially mentioned. I supported a section on its health effects. This was opposed by Frotz661, on the grounds that "(t)his article is about the appreciation of cigars." Despite my attempts to discuss the issue with him/her, s/he has refused to post links supporting his/her POV (typing, "I will not do your homework for you.") I believe that an article about cigars must describe the documented risks that cigar smokers undertake. After I posted a "Health effects" section, supported by references (primarily a National Institutes of Health publication), Frotz661 reverted my edits, blanking the section on the grounds that it constituted "vandalism." I cannot reconcile his/her reversion with my view of editing in good faith.

Further, I believe that the links that I posted in the "Revival of interest" section are an important contribution to the article, because they document the role that product placement in TV and movies had in generating the cigar boom of the 1990s. I believe that, contrary to blanking the text and links that I've contributed to the site, it's incumbent on cigar fans to either post alternative views which rebut the documentation that I've posted, or leave the edits alone.--RattBoy 11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Just my two cents. I think the debate over the health effects of cigars is such a wide topic that it belongs in a seperate article where both sides can be explored fully. This article is talking about the history and lifestyle associated with cigars, akin to the appreciation of wine. The wine article does not go into alcoholism, liver disease or the risks of drunk driving, leaving those topics to be fully explored in their own pages. I would also have to disagree with the references you want to add to document product placement. The line simply states (and I'll paraphrase) that cigars visibly appeared in films during the 90's. This visibility of cigars in popular films heightened the general populations exposure to cigars and brought a fringe product into the cultural mainstream for a time. your links you want to attach do nothing to document this, and in fact steer the subject away from the fact that product placement occurred (in a NPOV sense) and change the subject by inserting references that have the POV that product placement was a bad thing. You could write an article talking about whether product placement is a bad thing or a good thing, but again, that belongs in another article, and in fact, one exists right here. product placement. Your questioning of whether product placement of cigars is good or bad, is probably better addressed on that page, and a link to that page already exists in the cigar article. So yes, I think your information has a value, but is a better fit elsewhere. Caper13 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's inappropriate for one of the principal editors to respond in this space, I apologize. Feel free to move my comments to my summary, above, if that's more correct.

However, I need to respond to Caper's points:

• If cigar smoking's impact on health deserves its own article, that's fine; I invite someone to create that article. In this article, the way to handle that would be with a simplified discussion of the health effects, with a link to the Main Article. There are numerous examples of that throughout Wikipedia; for instance, in a politician's page, his/her campaigns may be described in brief, with a link to the "main article."
• I believe the example of the Wine article is not convincing. For one thing, the Wine article does contain a section about the health effects of wine (with a "See also: Alcohol consumption and health" link). Secondly: the health effects described in the NIH study are unique to cigars. The most appropriate model for this page is not the Wine article, but the Cigarette article, which includes a discussion of the product's health effects and a link to Health effects of tobacco smoking.
• Your concerns about the "product placement" links are noted. If anyone can find references which represent the POV that product placement of cigars is a good thing, those should be added, as well. More to the point: if you feel that the links do not prove the thesis that deliberate product placement was responsible in part for the resurgence of interest in cigars in the 1990s, perhaps the phrasing should be more like the following: "critics contend that product placement played a large role in the increase in cigar smoking in the 1990s," followed by references. Without such a sentence, with its links, the reader is left to believe that cigar use magically exploded in the '90s, with no driving force—which would be a disservice to the reader.--RattBoy 11:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support the inclusion of cigar-specific health risks. It's blatant POV to claim that the article is about "appreciation of cigars". The article is about cigars, period. The crocodile article doesn't exclude Crocodile#Danger_to_humans on the basis that crocodile enthusiasts prefer it to be about appreciation of crocodiles. The boxing article doesn't exclude Boxing#Fatalities_versus_brain_injury. All notable points of view deserve fair representation including the POV that cigar smoking is an obnoxious and deadly addiction. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Article probably deserves a small summary section detailing the health effects, with a link to a larger main article where the issues can be explored more fully. This would bring it into line with other articles. To exclude referenced material on the health effects is ridiculous and terribly bad editing practice, and as it is both notable and referenced deserves to have a section in the article. --163.1.165.116 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I find it rather blindingly obvious that a section on the relative danger of smoking Cigars vs Cigarettes should go into an article on Tobacco smoking and not the article about Cigars. Otherwise we have to include it both in Cigars and Cigarettes. --Regebro 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Include a short summary of smoking-related health risks with a link to Health effects of tobacco smoking. Don't model it after the section in the cigarette article, which is too long. A short statement of cigar-specific health effects would be appropriate, too. The product placement section should either get well-referenced or cut. -- Alan McBeth 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After almost two weeks of the RfC, the consensus is clear: a short summary of the risks of cigar smoking belongs in the article. I'm re-inserting the short summary.--RattBoy 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see that Frotz661 has once again blanked the section that I added, saying, "There is not yet a consensus. You cannot simply declare one yourself." However, as I look through the RfC section, I see that four out of six of those who chose to weigh in on the debate are in favor of including a section re. the health effects in the Cigar article. (Moreover, the two who opposed such a section did not address the arguments in favor—notably, Durova's points about the crocodile and boxing articles.)

I don't see any effort on the part of Frotz661 to arrive at a compromise or consensus. All s/he has done has been to deny the legitimacy of any mention of the impact of cigar smoking on health. In service of that goal, s/he has never re-edited my paragraphs to improve them, nor has s/he posted anything reflecting another POV. S/he has simply reverted multiple times.

My initial edit in this regard was an attempt at compromise, as I included the fact that some cigar fans have criticized the NIH study.

How do we make progress here? With multiple reversions, Frotz (and, to a lesser degree, Caper) have driven us toward an impasse. I'll take another tack, in the interest of achieving some compromise or consensus. The following is what I posted to the article. I invite all editors to suggest improvements:

Health effects

Many people believe that, because cigar smokers do not inhale, cigar smoking is innocuous or less dangerous than cigarette smoking.[3] However, most scientific evidence is at odds with that impression. The National Institutes of Health, through the National Cancer Institute, determined in 1998 that "cigar smoking causes a variety of cancers including cancers of the oral cavity (lip, tongue, mouth, throat), esophagus, larynx, and lung."[4] The study concerned those who smoked at least one cigar per day, and stated "The health risks associated with less than daily smoking (occasional smokers) are not known." Although the study reports that most cigar smokers do not inhale, some smokers do inhale, particularly former cigarette smokers who have switched to cigars.[5] This yields risks of lung cancer similar to cigarette smokers. As for Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS, or "Second-hand Smoking"), the study points to the large amount of smoke generated by one cigar, saying "cigars can contribute substantial amounts of tobacco smoke to the indoor environment; and, when large numbers of cigar smokers congregate together in a cigar smoking event, the amount of ETS produced is sufficient to be a health concern for those regularly required to work in those environments."

The NIH study has been criticized by cigar advocates as based on selective use of statistics.[6] See also Health effects of tobacco smoking.

¿Comments? Please, editors, jump in. Massage, tweak, and change the text above. Maybe we can arrive at an improvement that most editors can live with.--RattBoy 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rattboy, I agree that your edit does not appear to violate the consensus. The agreement here seems to be that the health effects are relevant, although there appears to be some aggrement that the text on that subject should be limited. I have restored your edit, although i agree that it should probably be shortened with "Main Article:" Link. Ill work on that now. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now edited your paragraph down to a very short blurb, and included a link to a new section in Health effects of tobacco smoking which contains your entire original text. I think this is by far the most ideal solution after reading all the comments here. Also, if there are any health benefits claimed by cigars (historically, maybe?), a short sentence or two here would be apropriate (something along the lines of "such and such society thought cigars cured cancer" or whatever, if anything like that is true. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I fully endorse Lanoitarus's addition to Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking. However, I still feel that the remaining paragraph should be removed and the link should appear in the "See also" section. Frotz661 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lanoitarus, I applaud your constructive edits. I trust that your rational contribution will convince all concerned to accept the compromise and move on.--RattBoy 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I'd like to comment that I found it fascinating, but to comment on the debate, I agree that there is a place for health issues relating to the topic and the approach taken by Lanoitarus fully meets my approval. It might also be noted that in this section on health effects, it would be valid to include information about health benefits, too, if they exist and can be validated.--JAXHERE | Talk 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer as well, responding to the RfC. Since there is an entire section devoted to the health effects of smoking, I think that it receives correct emphasis in the current version of the article. It is now a small section with a link to the separate article.--Mantanmoreland 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer as well, responding to the RfC. The topic of this article is not "Appreciation of the good qualities of Cigars"(which by definition would be POV) but simply "Cigar". Any discussion of Cigar without a significant section devoted to its health effects would be seriously deficient. Cigars are not only smoked but chewed. I think the health effects section needs to be a bit longer otherwise the article looks like an advertisement for the cigar industry. --- Skapur 17:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be appropriate to include more information on how product placement has affected the market for cigars. --- Skapur 17:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was settled. According to what you suggest, the wine article looks like an advertisement for the wine industry. I don't think the editors there would appreciate [wine] being filled up with material on alcoholism and cirrhosis. There's ample space devoted to what you want in Health effects of tobacco smoking Frotz661 18:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point about Wine. I will have to go there and look at it. But it should definitely have information about alcoholism there. Most good stories about wine are (if you investigate any) in the news media are written by the wine industry. --- Skapur 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph under medical implications section in the Wine aricle. --- Skapur 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My reference to wine was not a suggestion to put a health warning there too. There is already an article on Alcohol_consumption_and_health (linked from wine) which extensively covers alcoholism and cirrhosis among other maladies. Frotz661 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics of the NIH Study

I removed Frotz's edit as POV. After noting that the NIH study had been criticized, Frotz inserted "See Misuse of statistics." I feel that that addition is not completely relevant to the page; moreover, it gives inappropriate cred to amateurs' criticisms of professionals' work.--RattBoy 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And now I see that Caper13 has bolstered the critics of the NIH study, characterizing the criticism as coming from "medical professionals." The link provided lists only one MD, Marc J. Schneiderman (aka CigarBaron@aol.com), whose research credentials are not known—but whose bias is clear. Could Caper13 or anyone else direct us to criticism of the NIH study by anyone who is not obviously a fan of cigars?--RattBoy 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Schneiderman is a Medical Doctor who examined the statistics of the NIH study and explained the flaws. Specifically that the NIH published a conclusion about the health risks of cigars, that was misleading because they chose a usage group atypical of the vast majority of cigar smokers and ignored other potential cause factors of disease. His credentials are fine. The characterization of him as having a bias and pushing a POV are unwarranted. You obviously do not like cigars? Should that impeach your credentials to comment on or edit this article? I have never advanced the notion that your bias makes you ineligible or that your comments should have an asterisk beside them. Caper13 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Caper, you don't really think that's a reasonable comparison, do you? As you know, the credentials for a Wiki editor are much less stringent than those of a Reliable Source. I think you can make better arguments than that. I hope so, at any rate.

If you do a search on Schneiderman's name, you'll see him opining on cigars…and little else. He has no opinions on melanoma, Vioxx, or other weighty issues of health and medicine. No, the good doctor's focus is on Cigars, Cigars, and…that's right, Cigars. Ergo it's appropriate to characterize him as a "cigar fan."

But you never did address my question. Your edit summary was unsupported by the references provided. Unless you can list other "medical professionals" who've criticized the NIH study, your use of the plural form was exaggerated and incorrect.--RattBoy 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RattBoy, we managed to agree on the present health warnings section, but this doesn't seem to satisfy you. What more do you want with Cigar? Frotz661 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frotz, I did indeed find the compromise gratifying. Since the compromise was implemented, you and Caper have added some changes to the section. Of course the section should not be set in stone; I have no beef on principle with changing it occasionally. However, I felt that the changes you and Caper added were subtly POV—so I've implemented small changes to bring it back into line with NPOV, and I've sought to discuss the changes here. That's the way it's supposed to work, ¿right?--RattBoy 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to misuse of statistics only because of "...using misleading statistics". That was entirely NPOV. It was better to make "misleading statistics" a link instead of "see also foo" like I did. Frotz661 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rattboy. Your research has confirmed that Dr Schneiderman is not only a medical professional, but seems to be a recognized expert on cigars and health due to his numerous postings on the subject. Perhaps he hasnt commented on Vioxx, I guess that just means he wont be used as a reference in a Vioxx article, but I don't see what that has to do with anything else. And your insult in referring to him "Dr Death" is cheap and only suggests a deep rooted POV on your part that may be driving your edits. If so, that is unfortunate. Caper13 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Schneiderman is a recognized expert on cigars—that I won't challenge. However, his "numerous postings" don't make him a "recognized expert" on the health effects of cigars—unless, of course, you mean "recognized" by those who get their info from blogs and newsgroups. There's no indication that he's conducted any research or been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I have no problem with citing Schneiderman's article. (Note, if you will, that it was my edit that first cited him in this article.) I'm simply noting that there's a limit to his status as a source. He's a cigar advocate—an articulate and passionate one, quoted in many forums on the Net—but in this discussion, his status as an MD is of little relevance. You'll maximize your credibility if you don't inflate his importance.--RattBoy 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a doctor. That also makes him an expert on health. Caper13 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooo-kay…

So, by your standards, there are a couple million Americans who, by virtue of the fact that they've earned an MD degree, are "experts" on any and all topics related to health. By that definition, anybody who's earned a degree in Engineering should be granted serious deference as an "expert" on the safety of nuclear power plants, highway maintenance and catalytic converters. What an expansive definition!

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Just remember that I offered you advice about your cred. What you've done with it was entirely your choice.--RattBoy 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are qualified to evaluate the credentials and research papers of Medical Professionals. Please, this isnt even worth an argument. Thanks for your kind offer of help with my cred. If I need further advice on it from you in the future, I will be sure to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"close but no cigar": where did it come from?

A recent addition suggests that the expression "close, but no cigar" comes from the practice of keeping a cigar for luck. I've never heard of that origin. I'm certain that "Give that man a cigar" and "Close, but no cigar" were both used in Vaudeville by many people including Groucho Marx, who took the phrases to the movies. Frotz661 10:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note: in the old days, one fairly common dis was to tell someone to "Have a cigar," and to make a gesture as if offering a cigar—replacing the "cigar" with one's middle finger. The gesture was common enough that it was sufficient in some circles to simply say "Have a cigar," and the listener would know that s/he'd just received a virtual bird. Based on the age of the person who told me this, the era of that slang would've been the 1930's-40's. (Googling the phrase doesn't confirm this; all I get are lynx to the Pink Floyd song.

(Posted by Ratt Boy, under a new & improved pseudonym.)--Glen_Hyde 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that one, yet I've been exposed to lots of odd phrases from that era by way of my grandparents. There was a similar thing when I was in grade school (1980s and 1990s). It was "have some gum" or somesuch with the hand closed and palm down. As the mark reaches for the candy, the hand is quickly turned into a flipoff. This was more cool than getting someone to hold the tip of their tongue and sing a song about driving trucks within earshot of a teacher. Frotz661 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've heard in person "have a cigar" and "give that man a cigar" used as a more polite "no shit sherlock". Given how Groucho himself used it in the movies, I'm certain that's where that use came from. Frotz661 06:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In the early part of the last century in the USA travelling circuses or carnivals were common. One of the features of these amusements was a "mid-way" where various "games of skill" or strength were offered for the entertainment of those attending the shows. Although notoriously crooked, people flocked to these games. One popular game involved a sledgehammer, a tall pole with a lever at the bottom and a bell at the top. The game worked like this. A man was induced to show off his strength (for a small fee) by slamming the sledgehammer onto one end of the lever. On the other end was a small weight, connected to the pole and the bell at the top via a wire or long rod. The apparatus was usually rigged to make it almost impossible to ring the bell, but very likely to approach it within a foot or so. The usual prize offered for ringing the bell was a cigar. The man operating the game would announce the result and encourage the contestant and others watch to try again by crying "Close! But no cigar." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.162.143.21 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I think the phrase comes from the fact that winners in some forms of competitions/awards were given cigars when they won, where as those who finished second and lower were not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.52.252.130 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC).