Talk:Cigar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Storage

A section should be added about cigar storage by someone knowledgable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.189.15 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cigar Aficionado message board posts as references in article

Am I the only one who sees this as a conflict of interest? 1) anecdotal evidence by message board members does not justify it's use in an encyclopedia and 2) the survival of the site/magazine is dependent on advertising the cigar lifestyle. it would appear the mods on the forum would remove any content that jeopardizes their future. I don't think it's NPOV enough to be used. 129.174.254.68 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it is true that Cigar Aficionado promotes a moderate lifestyle of cigar smoking, as the statistics show that health risks for moderate smokers (once daily or less, with no inhaling of smoke) are negligible on average when compared to non-smokers. The CA polls show that the vast majority of those polled are moderate smokers. If Cigar Aficionado wanted to alter the results in order to please cigar retailers and manufacturers, then would they not suggest that most of the readers smoke more cigars, not fewer? That said, the CA polls are not scientific, as readers can vote multiple times, and it is not a random sample of all cigar smokers - just those that read Cigar Aficionado, which again, reinforces the moderation lifestyle. This does not explain however why the other material (not from Cigar Aficionado, but the good Doctor's analysis of the NIH study) was removed - namely the "hidden" data from the NIH study that showed that non-inhaling cigar smokers who smoke less than 1-2 cigars per day, which constitutes the vast majority of Cigar Smokers, had LESS risk of developing lung cancer and cardiac disease than non-smokers. Rmoval of relevant sourced material just because you happen to disagree with it, is pushing a non-NPOV and can be considered vandalism. That material should be re-instated. Following is the original statement, for reference. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Before

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs , and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) . According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation." .

Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer, relative to cigarette smokers, for moderate cigar smokers who smoke one or two cigars per day; and that the risks increase with additional cigar usage. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" . An analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. Schneiderman demonstrates that the NIH data shows that at 1-2 cigars per day, there is a lower overall risk of developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, compared to the non-smoking population; and since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be slightly protected from developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers. The "all cause" of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day or less is not significantly higher when compared to those who never smoked.

After

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" but do not inhale the smoke, and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) [1]. According to The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh, the reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation." Occasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Another study, conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer (relative to cigarette smokers) for moderate users who smoke one or two cigars per day. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" [2]. The NIH study has been accused of using misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking and second hand smoke, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers.

Proposed

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs, and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily). According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation."

Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health states that "Cigar smoking increases your risk of death from several cancers, including cancer of the lung, oral cavity (lip, tongue, mouth, throat), esophagus (the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach), and larynx (voice box)." But an analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics and statements in citing the health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. The NIH data shows an increased risk of death, relative to non-smokers, from emphysema, and oral, buccal, pharynx, larynx, and pancreatic cancers, for smokers of 1-2 cigars a day, relative to non-smokers, and that the health risks increase with additional cigar usage. But the NIH data also showed a lower risk of death from lung cancer and coronary artery disease, and only a slight increased risk overall of death from "all causes" for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day, relative to non-smokers . The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" . Dr. Schneiderman concludes that "Since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be protected from developing lung cancer" and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers, and that "The 'all cause' of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day (and sometimes more) is not significantly different when compared to those who never smoked.".

If there are no objections, I propose to post the updated version into the article as a restoration from the reversion that took out most of the pertinant information and references. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. This material belongs in health effects of tobacco smoking, not here. The entire contents of the proposed change should be merged with that article and deleted from this one. It does no good to litter multiple articles with the same warnings. Frotz 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If the material does not belong at all, then why are you reverting to an outdated and incorrect version which is improperly referenced? The material as it stands, which you reverted to, is inferior in every way to the improved version shown above. If you do not think anything at all belongs there, then the section should be REMOVED, not reverted to a poorly written version which is not properly referenced. Reversion is a tool used to repair vandalism and trolling, not to arbitrarily object to an otherwise valid and proper edit by an experienced editor. The section has been posted for a very long time - and you wait until now when it is improved to object to it existing? What is it you do not want readers to see? The facts? Please explain why we should revert to a poorly written improperly sourced version. I am being WP:BOLD by improving the article and including the properly sourced material with inline references. Your reversion to an inferior version has no justification whatsoever, and appears to constitute a non-WP:NPOV pushing away from the facts. If a version is to be posted, it MUST be the better version, not the version you reverted to. Your reversion to an inferior version is completely and utterly inappropriate. If you wish to Merge the section to another article, then use the Merge template. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted instead of deleting because at the time, I didn't have the time to carefully compare your version with the corresponding section in health effects of tobacco smoking. I took a careful look now. It seems to me that the two sections amount to duplicates. Therefore the health section be removed entirely and a link to health effects of tobacco smoking placed in the "See also" section. Copying this discussion to my chat page is not necessary. Frotz 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So I see that, despite a consensus having been reached during an RfC, all mention of the health effects of cigar smoking have been deleted, save a short link in the "See also" section. I don't see that as editing in good faith. In accord with the consensus reached during the RfC, a paragraph about the health effects of cigar smoking needs to be in the article.--HughGRex 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone proposed something and someone else objected. Nobody else said anything. That's not a consensus. Given how discussions on this subject went last November and December, it seems clear that this article should remain as-is with regard to health warnings. Frotz 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

I don't know what template indicates spoil in this wiki, but this section definitely needs one: In the 1992 film Scent of a Woman, Lt.Col Frank Slade, who is staying in a posh New York hotel, orders his assistant Charlie Simms to get him a Montecristo No.1, knowing that it will take time to find one. Actually he is planning to shoot himself, so he wants Simms to leave him alone for some time. --Windom 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To add a plot spoiler template to an article, type {{spoiler}} at the appropriate section. But rather than applying a plot spoiler warning in an article with a spoiler, it is better to just get rid of the spoiler. It can be cut back just to state the facts: In the 1992 film Scent of a Woman, Lt. Col Frank Slade orders his assistant Charlie Simms away to find him a rare Cuban Montecristo No.1 cigar. - or something to that effect. We do not need a plot summary here, just the reference to the film. Not having seen the movie - does the Montecristo actually make an appearance on screen? If not, then it is probably not notable. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe nobody had fixed this yet... I just did. Zeng8r 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

problem

First of all sorry if i've some spelling mistakes because my mother tongue isn't english. you've prblem with the "List of current notable Cuban cigar brands". I saw that you wrote on this list name of cigar company like Guantanamera that isn't definitely notable cigars. Actually there cigars are kind of cheep. there are more company that I didn't chake so thke it seriously.

Wait a minute.....

I think I'm addicted to cigars. Help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.79.243 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just a knobaholic knobgobbler... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

There is a HUGE pop culture section in this article. Note that WP:TRIVIA says to avoid such sections. This needs to be worked on. Arthurrh 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Monica Lewinsky belong in this section? Gidklio 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Health effects should be covered

This article had zero mention of the health effects of cigars. I added a brief section on the subject a couple of weeks ago, and it was immmediately reverted by User:Frotz with the comment "This was discussed already. There is already an entire article on the health effects of tobacco." The argument that "there is an entire article on health effects" doesn't make sense. There are also entire articles on cigar brands, and on the U.S. embargo against Cuba; does this mean that Cigar shouldn't mention cigar brands or the embargo on Cuba either?

I looked at the above discussion, and it appears that User:Frotz is the only editor who doesn't want any mention of health effects in Cigar. Other, similar articles, such as Cigarette and Cigarillo, all have brief mention of health topics and then refer to the main article Tobacco and health. Cigar should do likewise. Any article about cigars that does not cover health effects is not being encyclopedic.

For now, I have reintroduced a health effects section. I'm not wedded to its exact contents, or to its current location; all I'm saying is that the topic should be briefly covered and cited. Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the health section is that everything it adds nothing new to the article that is not covered in the Tobacco and health article. Here is my reasoning: Suppose we have article Foo and articles Bar₁ through Bar_n which discuss different topics having to do with article Foo. What you're doing is going through all these articles, adding a chunk from Bar_x. At the very least, this is messy and detracts from the usefulness of having subordinate articles in the first place. Furthermore, you pointed the health link at Cigarillo at Cigar rather than Tobacco and health (now fixed). Frotz (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That argument applies equally well to List of cigar brands and to United States embargo against Cuba as well to half a dozen other topics in Cigar; so should we also remove all discussion of cigar brands, the embargo, etc., from Cigar? No, the usual Wikipedia style, which you can see in high-quality articles such as Saffron, is to give a brief summary of the topic in the main article, and then refer to the sub-article. You can see an example of this in the section Saffron #Trade and use, which adds nothing new to the Saffron article that is not covered in the Trade and use of saffron article. If anything, the current summary of health issues in Cigar is too brief; it would be reasonable to make it longer, as health issues are a very common topic when the subject of cigars comes up, and the current health summary is almost telegraphically brief. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List of cigar brands is just a list, subordinate to the topic of cigars, though it is a little too long. Discussion about the US embargo against Cuba is relevant because of the long reputation of the quality of Cuban cigars among other things: the article on the embargo is subordinate to the cigar article. The section on trade and use of saffron is relevant because trade and use of saffron is subordinate to saffron. Health concerns about tobacco is only tangentially relevant to an article on cigars. At best the two are siblings, neither superior nor subordinate. Frotz (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that health concerns are only "tangentially relevant" to cigars. I just now visited scholar.google.com, a high-quality neutral website, and typed the query "cigar". Of the top ten results (these are highly-cited scholarly papers), seven were about health effects of cigar smoking. This high level of interest in cigars and health should not be ignored in an encyclopedic article. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I completely disagree that the U.S. embargo on Cuba is subordinate to cigars. That is the tail wagging the dog. The embargo is many things, but it is not primarily about cigars. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also disagree that there must be a subordinate relationship for there to be a discussion. To give just a couple of examples, Fluorescent lamps briefly talks about health issues and then defers to Mercury poisoning and Urticaria. Also, Daylight saving time briefly talks about health issues and then defers to articles such as Skin cancer and Seasonal affective disorder. The practical health effects of fluorescent lamps and daylight saving time are relatively minor, and yet these web pages find room to mention health effects. Why should Cigar remain silent on the far-greater health effects of cigar smoking? Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You found seven articles about the health effects of cigar smoking. What about the articles you found talking about cigars themselves? The cigar section of the article United States embargo against Cuba is subordinate to Cigar. I wasn't talking about the other good embargoed. Regarding fluorescent lamps, the health section makes a minute mention of mercury, an antecdote (which should probably be removed), but focuses mostly on the light produced. That's directly relevant to the article. Health effects of Daylight Savings Time is subordinate to Daylight Savings Time and is relevant because of the obvious question of what messing with a person's internal clock can do. You still have not presented an example somewhere else of what you propose to do with cigar. Frotz (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "seven" were seven out of the ten articles in the first screen of Google Scholar. It wasn't seven articles that I had to look hard to find; it was 7 out of the top 10 articles that matched the query "cigar". There are some articles that talk about non-health issues. For example, Malone & Bero 2000 (PMID 10800432) is primarily about Internet marking of cigars to youth, Wenger et al. 2001 (PMID 11211641) is primarily about print media coverage of cigars, and Scheurer 1991 (US 5011009 ) is about cigar storage and transportation. These other subjects are also worthy of coverage in Cigar. But the vast majority of top-rated articles in scholar.google.com are about health effects, which helps to explain why health effects should definitely be covered in Cigar. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• The cigar section of the embargo article is subordinate to the embargo article, not to Cigar. But anyway, this idea of "subordinate" makes little sense to me. There is a strong relationship between cigars and the embargo, so Cigar should discuss the embargo. There is also a strong relationship between cigars and health, so Cigar should discuss health. There's no important difference between the two here. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Mercury and light are both important health considerations for fluorescent lamps. We have evidence that the former has put a child in the hospital due to mercury poisoning; we don't have evidence of such severe health effects for the latter. Regardless of the relative importance of mercury versus light, the issue of health is directly relevant to that of fluorescent lamps, which is why Fluorescent lamp has a section dealing with health. I fail to see the distinction between Daylight saving time, where health is "relevant because of the obvious question of what messing with a person's internal clock can do", and Cigar, where health is relevant because of the obvious question of whether cigar smoking contributes to cancer and other disease. These are similar notions and should be treated in similar ways. These two articles are not the only examples of something similar to what should be in Cigar; other examples enclude Cigarette and Cigarillo. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles on cigar storage and transportation don't spend a lot of space on the health questions of cigars, do they? The main subject of the cigar article includes issues like storage and transportation, not health questions. The fact you found a lot of health articles is not surprising given the villainizing that has been thrown about as of late. The concept of a "subordinate" article is that the content of some articles are subsets of others. For instance, a more expanded discussion of how the US embargo against Cuba has affected cigar smoking is a subset of cigar smoking in general. Some articles are siblings of other articles, for instance, an article on india ink and an article on gel ink. These both come under the banner of ink but neither deserves much, if any, mention of the other's article. This is the way it is with health aspects of smoking and of cigars. When you add pieces of an article to all similar articles, you disrupt the order that is created by having everything in its place. Furthermore, your recent actions make me wonder if you have an axe to grind with your fervor to plaster health warnings all over the tobacco-related articles. Frotz (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of Cigar is cigars in general; it is not merely cigar storage and transportation. One does not expect a patent on cigar storage (US 5011009 ) to talk about health risks. One does expect a general-purpose encyclopedic article on cigars to talk about health risks, because health risks are a very common cigar-related topic; the vast majority of high-quality scholarly articles on cigars are about health risks. Wikipedia is supposed to exhibit a neutral point of view using the best and most reliable sources. The sources I have been adding are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for speculation about my personal motives, please assume good faith. Eubulides (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) You, being the one to introduce new content to this page, have the responsibility of making sure that nobody might object. Your say-so does not make a consensus. If you read some of the rest of this talk page, you'll see that the subject has been discussed and settled several times as a tangent. Frotz (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody might object" is too high a standard; one cannot edit an encyclopedia that way, as there is always somebody who will object. WP:NPOV says that Cigar must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The consensus among reliable scientific sources is that cigar smoking poses a significant health risk. I read the talk page, and the previous discussion was between you and two other editors, HughGRex and T-dot, both of whom thought that Cigar should mention health effects. This hardly constitutes "settled several times as a tangent". Eubulides (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The polite thing to do is to see what other people may have to say BEFORE you add a new section, particularly one that diverges from the current content. You didn't do that. Frotz (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to attempt to be polite, keeping in mind that the Wikipedia guideline is to be bold as well. With that in mind I've made #Suggestions for strengthening the article below. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigars are unhealthy.

This is my two cents. Can anyone around here help with a book report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnnathan (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "unhealthy' IMO they are quite healthy. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I found it interesting that "inhaling" cigars was mentioned under the health effects. I find it amusing since those who regularly smoke cigars never, ever inhale the smoke but let it rest in their mouths.About.com "How to Smoke a Cigar" Kulturvultur (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some regular cigar smokers inhale. Maybe they don't read that web site. See, for example, [3]. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Inhaling the smoke is just not the commonly-accepted use of a cigar. Frotz (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because humans must constantly respire in order to stay alive, not only do cigar smokers inhale, but everyone around them inhales as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.49.75 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Coverage in major U.S. print media

This change was reverted with the comment "Despite the reference, this is largely an unproveable assertion."

• I disagree: the source (Wenger et al. 2001, PMID 11211641) tested the assertion that major U.S. print media cover cigars favorably by counting media articles, and the statistics are there for everybody to see.
• The source is a highly-respected scientific journal; this is not some fly-by-night web site.
• If it really is controversial whether major U.S. print media cover cigars favorably, there would be equally reliable sources that disagree with Wenger et al. I am unaware of such sources; if they exist, let's see them.
• In the meantime, we have a highly reliable source that supports the claim, and nothing contradicting it, so the claim should stay in. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to use their judgment to override the best available sources.

Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the edit you made, I'm guessing you didn't read your own referenced article very carefully. Take a look at their Table 2, titled "Mentions of Health Effects in Cigar-Related Newspaper and Magazine Articles: United States, 1987–1997"; this clearly shows that the overwhelming number of mentions of cigars in articles covered negative health effects. This doesn't square at all with your assertion that such articles "rarely cover health risks". Try again. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in Table 2 contradicts the edit I made. Table 2 counts all mentions of health effects and tabulates whether they were negative or positive. As you mention, most mentions of health effects were negative. However, this does not contradict the main point of the cited source, which is that the primary focus of U.S. print media articles was on the cigar business, cigar events, and trends. Only 4% of articles focused primarily on health effects; this compares to (for example) 39% of articles focusing primarily on the cigar business. Please see table 1 of the source. The edit that I made introduced this text:

Major U.S. print media portray cigars favorably; they generally frame cigar use as a lucrative business or a trendy habit, and rarely cover health risks.

which closely paraphrases the following text, taken from page 290 of the conclusion in the source's discussion section:

Overall, print media portrayed cigars favorably, linked cigars with popular celebrities, failed to provide health information, and generally framed cigar use as a trendy habit or lucrative business rather than as a health risk.

If there is some part of the text that isn't quite right, please let me know; it is intended to be a fair summary of the source and its main results.

Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nowhere close to being a "fair summary" of what your source wrote. Don't you see the difference? They said "Overall, print media ... generally framed cigar use as a trendy habit ... rather than as a health risk.". You changed the meaning of this when you asserted that such articles "rarely cover health risks", which is completely at odds with your own quoted source. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point: I hadn't noticed that, and my mistake in wording was unintended. I reworded the edit to say "rather than as a health risk". Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede that that fixes that. But in your apparent zeal to warn the world just how awful cigar smoking is, you've missed something else: Your addition made even more of a hodgepodge of that section, which jumps from the characterization of media articles to top hats to god know what else. It's a real mess; care to fix it? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I could give it a whirl, though to be honest I hesitate to jump in, given all the time we've spent on the little one-sentence addition I've made to this section so far! Eubulides (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Without some balancing treatment, the entire section on health effects and this new one on the supposed irresponsibly favorable portrayal of cigars in the media is a huge NPOV violation. In point of fact there is a large body of both scientific and anecdotal thought that cigar smoking, in moderation, does not carry anything like the health risks of other tobacco forms such as cigarettes and snuff.

• I disagree that the new addition says that the media are "irresponsibly favorable"; nothing in the wording says that the media are being irresponsible. Eubulides (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd originally written "supposed implicitly irresponsibly favorable portrayal," but that was just too convoluted. But the irresponsibility is certainly implied, as I read it. HiramShadraski (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to give that implication. But I see that ILike2BeAnonymous made this further wording change which I hope addresses your concern about the wording. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also disagree that the Cigar#Health effects section is a "huge NPOV violation". The current wording does not claim that cigars carry the same health risks as cigarettes and snuff; it points out that the health risks are similar to cigarettes only in certain categories. That being said, no doubt the wording could be improved; suggestions for improvement are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, and this is as good a place as any to say that I do agree that the article should mention health effects (judiciously, of course): by comparison, it would be as irresponsible as, say, not mentioning health effects in the article on cigarettes. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the manner in which cigars are portrayed in popular-culture media is not really relevant to the topic. This material belongs in an article devoted to the political and cultural aspects of tobacco use in general.

HiramShadraski (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Political and cultural aspects of tobacco use certainly sounds like an interesting subject for an article. What would be the proper name for such an article? Frotz (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Social and cultural aspects of tobacco use? (Social, rather than political; the only political aspect I can think of is the US embargo against Cuban cigars, which is adequately covered in this article.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very much like a POV fork, which we should strive to avoid. The Cigar article should present cigars warts and all, with all their advantages and disadvantages: it shouldn't wall off all the "negative" stuff off into a separate article. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said it would be solely about the "negative stuff"? That sounds like a projection on your part; certainly there are both positive and negative aspects (not to mention neutral ones) of cigar smoking which are social and cultural in nature, no? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that if all the "negative stuff" is put into a subarticle, leaving only "positive stuff" behind in Cigar, then we have a POV fork, even if the subarticle also has some "positive stuff". Let's put it this way: which aspects of cigar are "social" and which aren't? For example, most people would say that families are an important part of society, so shouldn't "Families in the cigar industry" be moved to the proposed social subarticle? How about "Cigar-related charities"; isn't that a social aspect too? If not, why not? Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

<--unindent Yes, I suppose that those things should go into the new sub-article, with a short summary (and a link to the new article) left behind in this article. But certainly not proposing using the new article as a dump for negative stuff. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, here, is that if such claims are to be included, then balancing counterclaims should also be included. In my opinion, anyway. HiramShadraski (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Balance is of course fine, as long as it does not mean giving undue weight to unreliable views. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for strengthening the article

Here are a few suggestions. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead

The lead contains material not elsewhere in the article, and fails to summarize important material that is in the article. WP:LEAD suggests it should be rewritten. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a plan to rewrite the lead. The simplest way to have a plan is to just go ahead and rewrite the lead. The current lead can certainly use some work; a complete rewrite may well be the best option. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

Cigar talks about manufacture of cigars, "then a miracle occurs", then it talks about flavor and smoking. The "miracle" is distribution: how do cigars get from the factory to you, keeping in mind issues like embargoes and taxes and sales restrictions and the Internet and whatnot? This subject is currently not covered (except for the embargo); it should be. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to put some of this stuff under Tobacconists. Tobacconists should cover both current and historical tobacconists: Tinderbox is current, but United Cigar Stores was a much bigger phenomenon back in the day. Cigar should have at least a brief summary of tobacconists. It should also cover other aspects of distribution, outside of retail. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Likewise for marketing. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Characterization

Is a "little cigar" a cigar? The issue here is more generally: how does one distinguish cigars from cigarillos from etc.? Currently this topic is not covered at all. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

How many people smoke cigars? How many cigars does a typical smoker smoke? Is the popularity increasing? Etc. Etc. This should get covered. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Data for this are available from reliable sources. I have already mentioned Malone & Bero 2000 (PMID 10800432). There is also Vander Weg et al. 2008 (PMID 17706889). I'm sure there are other sources; I have not attempted to survey them all. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made this change as a first cut at a popularity section. Eubulides (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigar bars

Should get briefly mentioned here, perhaps as part of "Distribution" above. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigar stores

Likewise. For example, United Cigar Stores should be mentioned. (Disclaimer: I wrote most of that article.) Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoke

Why do nonsmokers object so strongly to cigar smoke? How can it be mitigated? This should get covered. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As Frotz mentions below, this section should discuss whether high-quality cigars produce nicer smoke than low-quality. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to breathing carcinogens. Perhaps other nonsmokers also don't like increasing their risk of cancer unnecessarily. Second hand smoke is a hazard no matter how "nice" you think it smells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.49.75 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Useless sections

Cigar #List of current notable Cuban cigar brands is useless to the general reader, and should be rewritten or removed. A "see also" wikilink to List of cigar brands would be better than what the article has now. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigar #Cigar-related charities has too little to do with cigars. Anheuser-Busch runs a charity, but does Beer mention it? Nope. Microsoft's founder Bill Gates is a huge philanthropist, much bigger than all the cigar charities put together, but does Software mention it? Nope. The National Rifle Association has a charity, but does Rifle mention it? Nope. Cigar should do likewise. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone and moved. Frotz (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

I agree with everything you've proposed so far. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these proposed changes sound good. Here are some specific comments:

• Can you be more specific about you plan to rewrite the lead?
• How do you plan to make United Cigar Stores relevant to the article? Modern equivalents, in particular the Tinderbox chain of stores seem more appropriate. Perhaps this could be approached as an introduction to tobacconist and skip mention of specific shops altogether. The tobacconist article though will need expanding.
• Where do you plan to get data for the popularity section?
• Many people argue that the blame for stinky cigars should be laid on cheap ones and that quality ones (ie, long filler) don't smell bad.
• Would a well-respected cigar book be acceptable for avoiding WP:OR?

Frotz (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I addressed most of those points by editing my comments above. As for cigar books, that would be fine: citing a book certainly avoids WP:OR. In terms of high-quality sources, it's better to use books from reputable publishing houses, as we want books that are well-edited. Refereed scientific journal articles are even better, as their editing standards are typically (though not always) higher than for books. For Cigar I expect many topics aren't covered well in journal articles so books are the best source. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"External links" should go

This article has unsuitable external links. WP:LINKS suggests criteria that none of the existing external links meet. The entire section should be removed. As a side effect, this would end the current revert war over whether one of the more-dubious links should stay or go. Eubulides (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

At least two of the links add to the encyclopedic value of the wiki. Both are review sites, both are established and contain a wealth of information (on cigars in general) that someone would find useful. More importantly, they were added in good faith years ago, neither is driven by advertisements or is commercial in nature. I removed the decatur spirits link as its for a commercial entity, and also the United Arab Emirates smoking guide (which would only be useful to about 1% of the people surfing this English wiki). It makes no serious difference to me if all the links are removed or not, but the remaining two info and review sites are inarguably useful to someone who wishes to learn more about cigars. 68.155.82.233 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to keep the link to the "most useless cigar page" because it explains much of the confusion over measurements versus names. If this cannot be done, it would be nice if we could get permission to include that text and graphic here. Frotz (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Identifying counterfeit Cuban cigars" article seems appropriate specifically as an external link. It does not have a commercial agenda (it is certainly acceptable to link to commercial sites for informational purposes), it is extremely concise, and it has a neutral POV. The information there is encyclopedic in presentation, but not appropriate directly in Wikipedia. I believe both excluded links match numbers 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:LINKS#What_should_be_linked . Given the length of this article and the usual WP ratio of external links to article content, four links does not seem like too many. — Epastore (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The "useless cigar page" isn't particularly easy for people to follow, nor does it really answer any questions that an easy to follow chart would. The person who designed that page admits that it was done in a different method just for kicks. It's a novelty, it doesn't add to the value of the wiki. As far as the article on identifying counterfeit cigars, it does have a commercial agenda. Before you even scroll down, there's a rotating ad pushing cigar art ranging from $100-$400.68.155.82.233 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant the article itself doesn't promote an agenda. I don't think there's any restriction against linking to pages which have ads on them. That's most of the internet. — Epastore (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the above arguments about why the links are good is that there are dozens of sites that meet all the criteria mentioned. Here are a few examples:

• Ybor City: cigar capital of the world
• Cigars: health effects and trends
• State-specific prevalence of current cigarette and cigar smoking among adults
• The truth about cigars

All of these external links lack commercial agendas, are concise, have neutral POVs, have encyclopedic information, and contain material that is not appropriate directly in Wikipedia. I could mention dozens more like that if I chose. But Wikipedia's "External links" section is not intended to be a farm for links like that; see WP:NOT#LINK.

Take a look, for example, at Autism, a featured article. There are dozens of high-quality web sites on autism, all of which satisfy all the criteria mentioned above. And yet Autism#External links mentions just two. The pattern is similar among other high-quality articles in Wikipedia: the best ones tend to have only a very small number of external links, sometimes zero. Another example: today's featured article, Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, has no external links. Cigar should aim at this sort of quality. Eubulides (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that those links listed above are neutral. Except for the first, they are decidedly anti-tobacco. Frotz (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By "neutral" I meant in the Wikipedia sense: they cover their professed topics neutrally. If we use neutral in the sense you're describing, the existing external links are all pro-tobacco, so they're not "neutral" either. I don't think that's the relevant criterion, but if we're going to apply it, we should apply it consistently and remove the existing external links. Eubulides (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit annoyed at the "no consensus to keep" the external links. It was put forward that perhaps the links should be eliminated, but the question is by no means settled. Until then, can we all agree to keep things as they are? Frotz (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions like these are never "settled"; someone will always disagree with whatever consensus is made. I have not altered the external links myself. I can't speak for the other editors, but the arguments given for keeping the existing links are surprisingly weak. The existing links were chosen arbitrarily, and they are not up to the standards of external links that appear in high-quality Wikipedia articles. It's not that big a deal (Cigar has other, more-important weaknesses, some of which are described above) but it's an easy problem to fix. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take one of those links, the "most useless page" one, as an example; I've been defending this one against a couple editors who just seem to want to arbitrarily remove it without offering adequate explanations why. Now to me, it fits the criteria you listed above for inclusion pretty damn well: it's well-written, contains information not available elsewhere, and is relevant to the topic of the article. I'd like to hear your specific objections to including this link here; perhaps this could be used, by extrapolation, to explain why you're against the links here in general (unless, of course, you care to address them individually). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Most Useless Cigar Page is a classic example of what should not be in "External links". If that material is relevent to Cigar, its main point should be briefly summarized in the text, and The Most Useless Cigar Page should appear as a citation under "References". If the material is not that relevant to Cigar, the URL should be removed. "External links" should be used only for high-quality resources that address the entire subject of Cigar and contain lots of material that cannot easily be summarized in Cigar; they should not be used for relatively minor points like that. For good examples of "External links" sections, see Crazy Taxi (series), Stede Bonnet, Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and Bruno Maddox; at this writing these happen to be the four most-recently chosen featured articles. Notice that two of them have no "External links" sections at all. Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That page should be introduced with a paragraph on the variability of size names versus their actual measurements. Simply appearing in the links section is too abrupt. The alt.smokers.cigars FAQ should stay. Maybe the one on counterfeit Cuban cigars should stay, but it might be better to have a paragraph on fakes and then link from there. The others should go because they're too narrow in scope. Frotz (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to continue spamming the same two links. We have a link to where you can enjoy cigars in the United Arab Emirates, that content is absolutely useless to 99% of the people reading the cigar wiki. We leave that in, we might as well have an external link to 150 other pages on the web that specify where you can buy a cigar in every major city in the U.S. and worldwide. The second link has a commercial agenda. It's a commercial website, and its pushing hundreds of dollars in cigar art. Furthermore, it's not an authority site. If contributors are insistent on having a counterfeit Cuban cigar link, then link to Cigar Aficionado's feature on it, and/or their gallery of counterfeit labels. But there's no consensus to keep those particular links, so they're not staying on this wiki. 68.155.82.233 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the "useless page" has been dealt with and integrated into the article proper; so far, so good. Now about the link to the page about identifying fake Cuban cigars: looking at this page, it too seems appropriate for inclusion in the article. Do people want this integrated into the article as well? Seems to me there is a valid function for external links; i.e., reducing potentially bloated articles. What do y'all think? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal of "External links" is not simply "reducing potentially bloated articles". It is to link to sites that contain lots of relevant general-purpose material that cannot easily be summarized. Certainly the topic of fake cigars is relevant to this page, but it hardly qualifies as being lots of general-purpose material. It should be summarized (I think a sentence or two would suffice) and a good citation given. Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please don't put words in my mouth, even by implication: I never clained that the goal of external links is reducing article bloat; it is one possible function (a valid one, I believe). And I think you have far too narrow a view of the use of external links. Far more useful, it seems to me, than more "general-purpose" material, most of which is presumably covered in the article proper, are links that illuminate particular aspects of the topic (such as, in this case, how to spot fake cigars), aspects that may not even deserve treatment in the article, but which encyclopedia readers may find useful, relevant, interesting and, yes, even amusing. So lighten up a bit, 'k? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I'll reword it as follows: "External links" is not for "reducing potentially bloated articles". It is for linking to sites that contain lots of relevant general-purpose material that cannot easily be summarized. The way potentially bloated articles are slimmed down is to break them into subarticles; see Wikipedia:Summary style. If the particular topic of spotting fake cigars is relevant, it belongs in the main text. I disagree completely that aspects that "may not even deserve treatment in the article" deserve external links. That's not how how-quality Wikipedia articles work. I've given several examples of featured articles that use "External links" sections only very sparingly; it is no coincidence that there is a strong correlation between high-quality Wikipedia articles and minimizing "External links". Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that all but the UAE page ( only because of limited geographic scope ) contribute to the quality of this page, and it seems like the vast majority feel the same way. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the linked-to material is relevant or high-quality. The issue is whether the material belongs under "External links". "External links" is not supposed to be used as a "may not even deserve treatment in the article", no matter how high-quality the linked-to material is. If the linked-to material is relevant it should be discussed in the main body of the text, and the external link should appear as part of a citation. Eubulides (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you demonstrate a strait-laced, "strict constructionist" approach to the admissibility of external links. You're thorough at enumerating what sorts of links don't belong, but I haven't read anything from you about what sorts of links are desirable. I agree with you that this is not a place for link-farming, and that the most egregious offenders should be removed. But after that, perhaps you could chill out just a tiny bit, and at least consider the inclusion of links that others seem to deem valid, even if you have reservations. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did mention what sorts of links are desirable, when I wrote "'External links' should be used only for high-quality resources that address the entire subject of Cigar and contain lots of material that cannot easily be summarized in Cigar." The fake-cigar article doesn't even come close to being a good candidate for "External links". Other articles might be better; I haven't reviewed them in detail. Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<— So tell me; why must external links "address the entire subject of [cigars]"? I don't think this is even written in the guidelines here, but in any case, I fail to see why a good valid site that addresses one particular interesting aspect of the subject cannot be included. I know for sure that such links are included in other articles here, usually without any objection whatsoever. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I can find dozens of good sites that meet the criterion of mentioning cigars even if they "may not even deserve treatment in the article". That is far too loose a criterion, and helps to explain why the current choices are so controversial: they are arbitrary. It is true that many lower-quality articles have link farms but this is discouraged and Cigar should not continue to follow their lead.

I see that we have a new featured article, Treatment of multiple sclerosis. It has no "External links" section at all. Cigar should be taking a hint from high-quality featured articles like that. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Health Effects

I believe the section on health effects should suffice for comments about the dangers of smoking cigars. References to the health effects in other sections of the article are unneeded and contribute very little to one's understanding of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty vague. What change is being proposed, exactly? Eubulides (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed is that commentary on the dangers of smoking cigars should not be scattered throughout the article. Instead they should be put in their own section. Frotz (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that's what the current article does, or at least tries to do. Let's put it this way: what specific wording in the current article is being objected to? and ideally, what specific change is being proposed? Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What Frotz said above, and while we're at it, let's please resist the urge (I'm addressing Ebulides here) to pepper the article with cautionary warnings against smoking the evil stogie, like government-mandated scare labels. It's enough to lay out the case of health effects in a single section, and leave it at that. (Please keep in mind that this is not a health manual or place for anti-smoking propaganda.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with either you or Frotz. I'm just asking what specific wording (if any) is being objected to. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why sweat it? Whatever few remaining misplaced references to health should be moved to the health section. In searching for those instances (I simply searched for the word "health"), I only found one or two references. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Four days and no specific problems have been reported, or specific changes suggested. I removed the POV tag for now. If specific problems are identified or changes suggested later, we can revisit the matter. Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It just dribbled out of mind for the time being... At least for me. I'll take care of it soon enough. Frotz (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This change by an IP address added a bunch of unsourced material about cigars and their effects on health. We need sources for speculation like that. For now, I removed the material; we can revisit this later once sources are supplied. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about if cigars are as serious a health risk as are conventional American cigarettes have been and still are. Natural tobacco does not have all the additives that is present in pretty much every conventional American cigarette: arsenic, super-amped nicotine, petroleum tar, salt peter, etc.

Plus, many of the late celebrities who smoked cigars lived well into their 90's--even in the latter years of the 20th Century, this was considered a very long life indeed. George Burns smoked until he was 98 years old, but then he died. Well, we all die of something. We don't outlaw guns in the USA but they kill more people a lot younger than do cigars. Kulturvultur (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cigar #Health effects doesn't claim that cigars are as serious a health risk as cigarettes. It cites Symm et al. 2005 (PMID 15995804), a reliable source on the subject; I doubt whether anecdotes about George Burns or U.S. Grant would be nearly as reliable. Eubulides (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does:

Like other forms of tobacco use, cigar smoking poses a significant health risk.

Who defines "significant"? It seems to be the opposite of "acceptable risk" which is clearly defined as "risk for which the benefits rank larger than the potential hazards."risk - definition of risk in the Medical Dictionary "Significant risk" has no set definition in medical circles and tends to mean anything dangerous. If we're using terms used by medical experts, would it not be at least good to know what they actually mean in a certain context? I sure would like some clarity on this.Kulturvultur (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Saying "significant health risk" does not at all mean the same thing as saying "as serious a health risk as smoking cigarettes".
• The cited source uses "significant" in the same sense that the Surgeon General reports use"significant" when they mention "significant health risk". See, for example [4].

I've changed this section to apply "significant" in the scientific sense. Health risks in the primary reference, the NCI monograph, were not significant for occasional smokers. Thus the included caveats for this demographic, which is the majority. The edits give this section more neutrality and reduce the sensationalistic aspect of the extreme cases of inhaling and multiple cigars/day. Sorry, I'm a new user and am just getting acquainted with the protocols here.Kcornwall (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed supposition: It is no more reasonable based on the evidence than that 2 drinks of wine a day will result in liver cirrhosis somewhere between the non-drinker and the alcoholic. Structure with less prevalent risks highlighted rearranged according to prevalence and to reduce sensationalism in tone.--Kcornwall (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wikihowto?

It seems that someone wants to cover "how to smoke a cigar" here. Isn't there some wiki project for howtos that we can refer to and put something like that there? Frotz (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive... About.com has a whole section on the topic that would make a good impartial reference since it's just a "how-to" article. Smoke a Cigar - How to Smoke a Cigar Kulturvultur (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Naked links in the article body considered bad

There is a considerable number of naked links in this article, for instance, here are three links are presented as citations for the qualities of cigar flavors. This doesn't seem particularly helpful or appropriate. I'm done editing for the night, so if anyone else would like to try, please fix these and others. See my recent edit for an example of what I mean. Frotz (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all the naked links are gone from this article. Comments? Frotz (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats the deal with CUBAN cigars?

its understood by most that cuban cigars are the best of the best when it comes to cigars, but how any why?? also, why are they ILLEGAL in some areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite clear in explaining that the US embargoes goods and services from Cuba. Cuban cigars, like all other Cuban items are therefore contraband in the US. Frotz (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Cuban cigars aren't the "best" although some are very good. It's a carefully cultivated myth, like French wine or Columbian coffee. France makes some excellent wine, but most of its wine is common rotgut, much of it retailed out of a pump. Columbia makes some excellent coffee, some of it is bilge.

What makes the Cuban cigar myth so obnixious is that the tobaccos used in "Cuban" cigars are likely to originate elsewhere. After Castro stole all the cigar companies, the cigar families left the country with their skills and their seeds. They grow tobacco all all over the Caribean and even Brazil and Camaroon, and the Cuban government buys it.

Think -- Why wasn't there a shortage of Cuban cigars after Katrina? That's because every time a hurricane hits, the regime buys more tobacco. In fact, the only thing guaranteed to be Cuban on a "Cuban" cigar is the label. And even then, it doesn't tell you anything. The traditional cigar families now living all over the world know what they're doing. The cigar-buying public doesn't.Scott Adler (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think something about this ought to be said in the article. How this can be done properly? How about this at the bottom of the embargo section:

"Much of the reputation for quality comes from marketing because most of the master cigar makers fled Cuba when Castro took over.". Frotz (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for that addition? Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Non-encyclopedic aside) As a life long Cigar smoker of all kinds (including Cubans) I can state that there is definitely a "belief" that Cuban cigars are superior in quality in the cigar aficionado community - and from smoking them (and hundreds of other kinds) - I concur. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the 'marketing' statement. Puros have been expected to be the best for many reasons, not just marketing. -- Terry J. Gardner (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Romanticizing Che

Re this change: I would feel more comfortable with changing from 'Che Guevara smoking a cigar' to 'For Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, "cigar smoking was not a luxury, but very much a part of the business of revolution."' if the latter were citing a serious source. But I went and read the source, and what it says is that Che liked cigars. The bit about being "a part of the business of revolution" very much appears to be a romantic notion of the authors of that piece; it's not seriously supported by the rest of their article. Isn't there some better way to say that Che smoked cigars? Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, maybe use another quote from the source like. ~ According to Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara "A smoke in times of rest is a great companion to the solitary soldier." and include the source link for them read themselves and decide the relevance.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also per the source - Cigar Aficionado is the premier Cigar magazine in the World - and the "bible" for most cigar enthusiasts. Can you think of a more influential source than that for info on cigars ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For cigars Cigar Aficionado is a good source; for the "business of revolution" it's not. I like the "companion" quote better; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad we could come to agreement.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

didn't cigarettes start out as mini cigars?

didn't cigarettes start out as mini cigars?198.54.202.74 (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Flavour comes from where?

Under the "Composition" portion of the article, it starts off in the first few lines saying that flavour is primarily derived from the wrapper. Then, in the last few lines, it tells us that dark wrappers don't matter because flavour is primarily derived from the filler.

One of these statements needs to be revised, but I don't know enough to tell you which one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfwall (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-section

I believe that the following passage is an NPOV violation, for reasons outlined in [[5]]. This is certainly not 'neutral language', as Eubulides claims.

"Major U.S. print media portray cigars favorably; despite widespread coverage of the health effects of cigar smoking, they generally frame cigar use as a lucrative business or a trendy habit, rather than as a health risk."

219.73.23.167 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That section recommends against the use of "despite" so I reworded the passage in question by dropping the phrase beginning "despite". Hope this helps; further specific suggestions are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edits to Health effects

There are several problems with this edit:

• The edit made Cigar #Health effects longer, without adding much information. Let's keep that section brief and to the point.
• The edit removed the well-sourced point that risks are greater for those who smoke a cigar longer. Let's keep that point.
• The edit changed "poses" to "may pose" in the phrase "cigar smoking poses a significant health risk". But the cited source (Symm et al. 2005, PMID 15995804, p. 368) says "poses", not "may pose".
• The edit replaced:

"Risks are greater for those who smoke more cigars, smoke them longer, and inhale when they smoke."

with:

"As with any drug, nutrient or food, risks are dose dependent. Similarly, the health risks for those who smoke cigars depends greatly on frequency of smoking, and whether the smoke is inhaled when smoked. It should be noted that three-fourths of cigar smokers in the United States are occasional smokers (< 1 cigar/day) for which there is little, if any health risk due to their smoking. For heavy cigar smokers (>1 cigar/day) and for those who inhale, the health risks are ..."

But the cited source never says "there is little, if any health risk" for those who smoke "< 1 cigar/day", or anything like that. On the contrary, it says (p. 368) "Smokers believe that since most cigar smokers do not inhale, chances of contracting a disease that stems from exposure to toxins is minimal. Contrary to popular belief, cigar smoking poses significant health risk that lead to morbidity and mortality." Also, the cited source does not say "As with any drug, nutrient or food", or anything like it. Nor does the cited source say that risks depend "greatly" on frequency. Also, the cited source does not say anything about 3/4 of U.S. cigar smokers. Finally, the cited source does not support the claim that "health risks are similar to cigarette smoking" for "heavy cigar smokers (>1 cigar/day) and for those who inhale".

• The gravest problem with this edit is its addition of unsourced claims. As per WP:V, this article should limit itself to what reliable sources actually say. We can't put in statements, even if they are true, when reliable sources do not support them. As per WP:MEDRS, a reliable medical source, such as a peer-reviewed medical review article, is needed to support medical facts and figures such as these.
• For now, I reverted the edit. I suggest that further changes along these lines be proposed on the talk page first, to avoid problems such as the above.

Eubulides (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Health effects edits 2

I see that further changes are being made, this time with reliable sources, which is an improvement. However, the new changes are not always supported by the sources. This should get fixed. Also, please discuss changes first here, on the talk page; in a controversial area like this, that is more likely to result in an improved version than installing changes directly to the article. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The further edits were better (thanks!) but they still had some problems:

• (a nit) The chapter "Disease consequences of cigar smoking" is by Shanks & Burns, not by Connolly.
• Again, the further edits changed "poses" to "may pose", contrary to what the cited source says (Symm et al. 2005, PMID 15995804, p. 368). One does not say "driving may pose a significant risk of accidents", as that would imply that there is doubt among reliable sources over whether driving poses a significant risk. One merely says "driving poses a significant risk of accidents". Similarly for cigar smoking and health risks: there's no doubt among reliable sources that cigar smoking poses significant health risks, so the word "may" is out of place here.
• Again, the cited source doesn't say anything about "any drug, nutrient or food".
• The cited source doesn't say "risks are dose-response dependent"; it merely says that risk depends on dose.
• Again, the originally cited source (Symm et al. 2005, PMID 15995804) talks about length of smoking being a risk factor, but the rewrite omits this. It seems a useful point. Here is a relevant quote from page 366 from Symm et al.:

"Studies conducted by The National Cancer Institute in February 2000, revealed a close association between cigar smoking and cancers of the lung, oral cavity/pharynx and larynx and, to a lesser extent, the esophagus. Risks were higher for those who smoked more cigars, smoked them longer, and inhaled when they did. The risk for lung cancer was five times higher for men who smoked cigars than for those who never smoked (Mayer, 2000)."

• The cited source doesn't say it "indicates no statistically significant health risk due to occasional cigar smoking (<1 cigar/day)." It doesn't report anything about people smoking <1 cigar/day. (The health risks for such smokers are not known.) It does report that there were increased risks for people smoking 1 to 2 cigars/day, that these increased risks were not statistically significant, and that these increased risks were part of overall data showing increased risks among several categories of cigar smokers. (See page 111 of the cited source.) We should report this big-picture accurately, not just the smaller-point about 1 to 2 cigars/day.
• The cited source doesn't say anything about three-fourths of cigar smokers, nor does it define "heavy" smokers to be >1 cigar/day. It doesn't define "heavy" smokers at all. Its three categories of cigar smokers are 1-2 per day, 3-4 per day, and 5+ per day, so the most reasonable interpretation of "heavy" would be 5+ cigars per day. But that study also found significantly increased risk of mortality for "medium" smokers (3-4 cigars per day) as well as for "heavy".
• I found a relatively-reliable source (the NCI[6]) about health risks being unknown for those smoking less than 1 cigar/day; we can use that.
• I made these further edits in order to address the above problems.

Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Health effects edits 3

Well, done, sir. I fine-tuned some of the wording;

• Health risks are particularly higher for smokers MORE not LESS than 65 years old.
• "Their health risks are not known," begs the question. Rather "This group has no known health risks," is an accurate conclusion from the data. It's like saying "The number of moons around Chronos is unknown" vs. "It is not known if Chronos has any moons."Kcornwall (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the MORE-for-LESS edit is incorrect. The cited source says (page 111) "In every case MRR's [Mortality Rate Ratios] are particularly elevated for smokers less than 65 years of age." That "less" is not a typo: it's quite clear from the tables that cigar smoking increases the risk of death the most for people under 65. There are multiple plausible reasons for this: for example, it could be that elderly people who are ill (and who are more likely to die soon, for whatever reason) are less likely to smoke cigars. Obviously we can't include this speculation in the article, but what we can do is accurately report what the reliable source says.
• This further edit replaced "their health risks are not known" with "this group has no known health risks". But the cited source says "The health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily) are not known" and the "health risks are not known" phrasing is the common phrasing in other reliable sources. Let's stick with the common phrasing. The revised phrasing makes it sound like there is no plausible risk to occasional cigar smoking, but that implication is not correct: it's just that the risks have not been measured and therefore are not known. Certainly occasional tobacco smoking in general is hazardous. For example, Marques et al. 2008 have shown significantly increased risk of oral cancer in a group of people who smoke the equivalent of less than 1 cigar every 3 days. There are many other studies like that, e.g., Bjerregaard et al. 2006.
• I looked for other sources in this area, and found these:

• "Cigar smoking is seen by many as an alternative to cigarette smoking. Occasional cigar smoking may pose serious health risks. There is increased risk for periodontal disease, which can lead to tooth and alveolar bone loss (Albandar, Streckfus, Adesanya, & Winn, 2000). Risk of lung cancer and heart disease may be the same as that of cigarette smokers. Cigar smokers also suffer from excessive tooth stain and chronic halitosis (bad breath) (Baker et al., 2000)." — Albert DAA (2008). "Management of alcohol and tobacco dependence in older adults". In Lamster IB, Northridge ME (ed.). Improving Oral Health for the Elderly. Vol. Part II. New York: Springer. pp. 209–29. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74337-0_10. ISBN 978-0-387-74336-3. Albert is citing Alveolar et al. 2000 (PMID 11156044) and Baker et al. 2000 (PMID 10927783), sources that were published after the NCI source.
• "Risks among occasional cigar smokers are difficult to measure because of the wide variability in frequency of smoking among occasional cigar smokers and the marked variation in the amounts of tobacco contained in different cigars. However, it is reasonable to assume that the risks for occasional cigar smokers lie somewhere between those for individuals whose only exposure to tobacco smoke is environmental tobacco smoke and those of regular cigar smokers. As occasional cigar smokers smoke more frequently or inhale more deeply, their exposure to tobacco smoke increases, and with that increased exposure comes a proportionate increase in disease risks." — Burns DM (1998). "Cigar smoking: overview and current state of the science". In Shopland DR, Burns DM, Hoffman D, Cummings KM, Amacher RH (eds.) (ed.). Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9. National Cancer Institute. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |editor= has generic name (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

• This makes it clear that the wording "this group has no known health risks" is not supported by reliable sources. It would be better to restore the original phrasing, and to add some commentary from the abovementioned sources explaining the situation a bit better.
• With the above comments in mind, I installed this edit.

Eubulides (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits to Health effects

This edit to Cigar #Health effects had some problems:

• It reordered the section to emphasize the fact that risks are not known for cigar smokers who smoke less than daily. The reliable sources which the section cites don't do that: they start off by noting that cigar smoking, like any other form of tobacco use, poses significant risks, and then they go on to make points about it being dosage dependent. We should not present the sources's results in a way that substantially underplays the risk of cigar smoking, compared to how that risk is portrayed by mainstream reliable sources. The reliable sources in question are include Symm et al. 2005 (PMID 15995804), and Shanks et al. 1998).
• It removed the text "it is reasonable to assume that their risks lie between those of nonsmokers and of regular cigar smokers" with the comment "Corrected supposition about what is "reasonable". But this text is directly supported by the cited source, Shanks et al. 1998, which says "it is reasonable to assume that the risks for occasional cigar smokers lie somewhere between those for individuals whose only exposure to tobacco smoke is environmental tobacco smoke and those of regular cigar smokers. As occasional cigar smokers smoke more frequently or inhale more deeply, their exposure to tobacco smoke increases, and with that increased exposure comes a proportionate increase in disease risks." Wikipedia argues should not be arguing with reliable sources.
• It changed the source for the claim that risks for casual smokers "are hard to measure" from Burns 1998 to the NCI factsheet, but the NCI factsheet doesn't make that claim. The claim should stick with the source that supports it.
• It prepended the text "However, for the atypical cigar smoker" to the sentence "Cigar smoking does pose a significant health risk." and it removed the phrase "depending on dosage." from that sentence. The cited source (Shanks et al. 1998) does not say anything about atypical cigar smokers and it does say that health effects depend on dosage (this is an important point).
• It prepended the word "Heavy" to the sentence "Cigar smoking also causes cancers of the lung and larynx, where the increased risk is less than that of cigarettes." and to the sentence "Cigar smoking also increases the risk of lung and heart diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." But the cited source (Symm et al. 2005, PMID 15995804) says nothing about "heavy" smokers with respect to these risks.
• In reviewing the justification behind the change, it appears that there was some concern that the serious health risks were stressed early on in the body of the paragraph, with the point about the health risks being unknown for occasional smokers being buried later. That is a reasonable point, but it does not mean that we should make the occasional-risk point the first sentence; the first sentence ought to summarize the whole paragraph, not jump right into the point that is most-favorable to cigar smoking.
• I made this change in response to the above comments. This restores the deleted text and fixes the citation problems. It does not restore the original order: instead, it moves the point about occasional smokers to just after the topic sentence, which is about as much emphasis that one can give to that sentence without departing substantially from what reliable sources say. Please see this diff for a comparison between the old, stable version and the current version.

Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the section on the majority of smokers up. Sorry, I unintentionally removed that one reference in my previous edit.

• Just because the Shanks article makes a statement does not give it validity when the data in the study does not support it. It is a supposition in the article that "it is reasonable to assume that their risks lie between those of nonsmokers and of regular cigar smokers" and ends up as a supposition here. According to the data, there is no more reason for this to be a true statement than that the risks for drinking 1-2 glasses of wine daily poses risk for cirrhosis or malnutrition somewhere between a non-drinker and an alcoholic.
• Likewise, there is no good basis for saying that the health risks are hard to measure just because the researchers didn't want to go to the trouble.
• I switched around the sentence containing "for the lowest level of smokers" so that it would transition from the "3/4 of smokers" sentence before it.

--Kcornwall (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Removing Burns 1998 below. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing Burns 1998

In response to this edit and the above comments:

• There must be some confusion here: Shanks & Burns 1998 was not the cited source for "it is reasonable to assume that their risks lie between those of nonsmokers and of regular cigar smokers". The cited source was Burns 1998, not Shanks & Burns 1998. And Burns 1998 is a reliable source; we can't ignore its claims merely because we don't like them. We certainly should not remove Burns 1998 as a source: it's the overview chapter for the cigar-smoking study, and contains valuable and reliable insight into the health effects of cigar smoking.
• The supposition in Burns 1998 was clearly labeled as a supposition in Cigar; there was nothing misleading about the summary in Cigar. However, if a more-certain statement is preferred, we can rely on this quote from page 8 of Burns 1998:

"The claim has been made that cigar smokers who smoke few cigars or do not inhale have no increased risk of disease. A more accurate statement would be that the risks experienced by cigar smokers are proportionate to their exposure to tobacco smoke."

• "there is no good basis for saying that the health risks are hard to measure". Sure there is. We have a reliable source saying the risks are hard to measure. Page 8 of Burns 1998 says, "Risks among occasional cigar smokers are difficult to measure because of the wide variability in frequency of smoking among occasional cigar smokers and the marked variation in the amounts of tobacco contained in different cigars." Hard-to-measure is hard-to-measure, regardless of whether researchers "didn't want to go to the trouble".
• Shanks & Burns 1998 first talks about the overall picture of smoking cigars, and then goes into particulars. We should do the same. We should not emphasize or start with the fact that risks for occasional smokers is unknown, any more than reliable sources do. Leading the summary of Shanks & Burns 1998 with the wording "The lowest level of smoking (1–2 cigars per day) fails to show significant risk." not only reorders the results in a way contrary to the source, it suggests to the reader that occasional smoking is not risky, which is not what reliable sources are saying.
• With the above comments in mind, I made this edit to restore the citation to Burns 1998, to order the text so that it's roughly the same order and precedence of the sources, to avoid the "supposition" wording, and to try to help the naive reader better distinguish between lack of evidence of harm and evidence of safety.

Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the references where they apply. But I can't agree about why low frequency/high risk should be prioritized. Does the article on wine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Health_effects) start off with the least occurring, most sensationalistic effects, does it start of with suppositions or apologies about not being able to do the science? No! Any mention of alcoholism is buried at the bottom. Wine is to hard drinks almost exactly as cigars are to cigarettes - maybe not healthy, but who knows, they could also express a "J curve" in health effects; but from the hard evidence, there is no data on cigars being any less innocuous than wine as typically consumed. You're a fine editor, so please continue to fine tune what I add, but the science and social approach in my reversion need to be respected.--Kcornwall (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I restored the reference along with the text it supports. My edit also attempts to address your other comments, which are discussed below.
• Wine #Health effects does not ignore or downplay the serious health effects of heavy wine consumption. On the contrary, that section starts off with a box mentioning Short-term effects of alcohol, Long-term effects of alcohol, Alcohol and cardiovascular disease, Alcoholic liver disease, Alcoholic hepatitis, Alcohol and cancer, Alcohol and weight, Fetal alcohol syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, Alcoholism, and Blackout (alcohol-related amnesia). And that section's coverage of the health effects of wine roughly matches that of reliable sources: it mentions that heavy wine usage is dangerous, and that there is good evidence that moderate wine usage is associated with better health. This is what reliable sources do, so it's appropriate for Wine #Health effects to do that.
• Reliable sources on the health effects of cigars start off by mentioning the risks, then they say that risks are proportional to the amount of smoking, then they talk about the serious health risks, and then (and only then) they say that the risks of occasional smoking are too small to be measured reliably (that is, increases in risk of all-cause mortality have been reported, but they are too small to be statistically significant). Cigar should do the same (just as Wine should follow reliable sources on wine). Cigar should not start off with the risks of occasional smoking and work its way up to more-serious risks.
• There is big difference between cigars and wine here, as there is no scientific evidence that occasional cigar-smoking is associated with better health, whereas there is scientific evidence that moderate wine-drinking is.
• The edits you installed made some other changes, which were not supported by your comment (which merely talked about order of presentation). These changes had further problems:

• The edits inserted the phrases "In this last group" and (twice) "Higher levels of smoking also". As mentioned above, these phrases are not supported by the cited sources. The text needs to accurately summarize what the sources say.
• The edits changed "causes cancers" to "can cause cancers", but the source says "cigar smoking causes a variety of cancers", with no "can".
• The edits removed a "|pages=105–160" from a citation. I assume this was not intended.

• Here's the resulting edit that I installed, for reference.
• I am still unhappy with the current order, which (contrary to what reliable sources do) overly emphasizes the low risk of occasional smoking by covering that first. To help resolve this ongoing issue, I've asked for a 3rd opinion at WP:3O.

Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

THIRD OPINION First off, I suggest that all editors review WP:V and WP:CITE and follow those guidelines for sources. Also, remember to take a DEEP breath and Assume good faith. Good quality sources, even when conflicting and controversial in themselves, often end a lot of editing disputes. Second, I urge you to use sources in the form and spirit they were intended; if a source says "maybe" or "could", then do the same. If a source is unequivocal in stating something as an absolute, then explain it the same way here. HOWEVER, with that in mind, I also suggest that when there is a controversy (such as the "can" or "does" situation here), an approach that cites sources with differing opinions often is a good way to handle it...phrasing it in a way something like "On one hand, source A says this, but conversely, source B says that." Essentially, be fair to your sources, don't manipulate them to promote your own viewpoint. (When Neutral point of view is not possible, then at least go for a fair explanation of at least all the major points of view, watching out for Undue weight to fringe viewpoints) As far as the sequence of the article, I suggest that the problems with frequent use should precede the problems with occasional use. My thinking here is that one goes from the greater harm to the lesser harm. Proper headings will make both show up in the TOC. Hope this helps. Good luck. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made this edit to put the frequent-use issues before the occasional-use issues. Eubulides (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lung and pharynx cancer

This edit replaced "Cigar smoking also causes cancers of the lung and larynx" with "Cigar smoking may contribute to (or may not) cancers of the lung and larynx". However, the cited source (Symm et al. 2005, PMID 15995804) uses the word "cause", not the phrase "contribute to"; and the source does not say "or may not" or anything like it. The source says (p. 372), "As evidenced by a large quantity of medical research, cigar smoking is hazardous to health and can cause a multitude of disease processes including cancers of the lung, oral cavity/pharynx and larynx esophagus as well as risk for coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and adverse effects on periodontal health and tooth loss." Wikipedia articles are supposed to accurately summarize the cited sources, so I've reverted the change. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the source says "can cause" rather than "causes", so I changed Cigar #Health effects to say "can cause". Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good edit - it makes clear that we're talking of statistical evidence, not surety. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with making a statement of statistics. However, "can cause" still makes a statement of surety. For example, it's not quite clear how tobacco smoking and cancer are related, only that they are. There is talk about the actual problem having more to do with the processing, but that's another discussion. Let's try "can increase the risk of..." instead. Frotz (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The cited source says "can cause"; let's stick with that. ("Can increase the risk of" is inaccurate; "increases the risk of" is better.) But regardless, let's just stick with what the source says. Whether it has to do with processing is independent of this wording. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with that. Frotz (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Che photo

This edit removed Image:ChewithCigar.jpg from Cigar #United States embargo against Cuba with the comment "Che photo serves no purpose here". I don't agree with this removal: the photo seems quite relevant to that section, and helps to illustrate an article that doesn't have enough illustrations. Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem might have been Che's politics infringing on the topic of the article. Perhaps if we replace Che with someone who has less political baggage attached. Does anyone here feel like posing with a cigar? Frotz (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But the topic there is the U.S. embargo against Cuba. A Cuban politician circa the start of the embargo is an eminently suitable photo there. Eubulides (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Che was not Cuban. Yes, I know he was involved with the revolution, but why not find a photo of Castro who does (did?) smoke cigars. Would make more sense. --Dmol (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Che was made a Cuban citizen (before relinquishing such a status), is commonly identified with Cuba (Napoleon was 'technically' Corsican, but everyone identifies him with France), resides currently on the $3 Cuban peso, and his image is far more ubiquitous on the island of Cuba than any other individual (I've witnessed this first hand). Che's politics do not "infringe" on the article, anymore than Fidel or Winston Churchill (other notable Cigar smoking politicians with "baggage") would. By the way, I'd love to secure and include free use images of them smoking cigars as well if at all possible.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and Wikimedia Commons doesn't seem to have a contemporaneous photo of Castro smoking a cigar. If one could be found, it would be a good choice: but in the meantime the photo of Che smoking a cigar is much better than no photo. Che was a Cuban politician and a Cuban citizen even if he wasn't a Cuban native, just as Arnold Schwarzenegger is a U.S. politician and U.S. citizen even though he is not a U.S. native. Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides (a long time committed & excellent editor to this article) and have thus reverted the removal. The photo is relevant to the section where it resides (the Cuban embargo), is accompanied by a referenced article on the subject of Che & cigars from a notable magazine (Cigar Aficionado), and displays an individual that is one of the more well known historical personalities identified with smoking cigars (+ there is no free use image of Fidel available). I believe that anyone deleting such an image on the basis of "irrelevance", is clearly allowing personal POV, to bias there appreciation of the photos relevant value to the article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling for "castro" and "cigar" yields a lot of pictures of Fidel Castro smoking cigars. One of those would be more appropriate than the one of Che. Considering the justification for the Che picture, I'm sure there are some pictures of Fidel contemporary with the former and owned by the Cuban government. Maybe these: [7], [8], [9]. Frotz (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Frotz, are you implying (per your comment above) that in your view Fidel has "less political baggage" than Che? Che Guevara has become a far more desensitized and vague popular culture 'symbol' than Fidel Castro.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was speculating on why the picture might have been deleted. My preference for a picture of Fidel is based on my opinion that he is closer to the politics of the embargo than Che. Frotz (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Frotz, had Fidel not given up smoking cigars decades ago, I would agree. However, the personality that has been 'crystallized' with relation to Cuban cigars is (unfortunately for those who detest him or his politics) Che Guevara. All throughout Cuba and the world where Cuban cigars are sold, it is Che’s face which is used to market and advertise them. Fidel’s stance as an outspoken health critic of smoking the very Cuban cigars his country so famously exports, probably also has something to do with this reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I suppose you're right. I'll let this be. Incidentally, there is a picture from around 1994 by Cigar Aficionado of Fidel smiling and smelling a cigar. Frotz (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

All throughout Cuba and the world where Cuban cigars are sold, it is Che’s face which is used to market and advertise them. Do you have a cite for that claim, please? I've never seen Che's image used to market anything other than ideology. Thanks. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Shaw, is it your contention that Che's image is not used to "market" products? First you could start with the entire Wikipedia article Che Guevara in popular culture which I believe would dispel that belief very quickly. To your question I have my own "original research" of having been to Cuba many times to see this first hand & myself being a long time Cuban cigar smoker (however I realize that Wikipedia does not rely on such experiences WP:NOR), thus here are some basic web links which I believe display what you are requesting ---> The El Laguito cigar factory in Havana,   A Cuban cigar bar in London,   A Che Cigar Lounge in Brisbane,   A Cigar factory in Pinar del Rio, Cuba,   Poster with Cohibas ..... You can even use your Che lighter to light those cigars that you store in your Che themed humidors (1) - (2) - & (3) ... and then ash in your Che ash tray. Additionally, when Cigar Aficianado noted Cuban cigars for auction, guess whose image Christies in London utilized?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Certainly Che's face has been used for marketing lots of things other than ideology. For example, the Guardian reviewed a set of Che Guevara postcards, "just right for that impulsive buy in the local fancy bookshop", and noted among the photographs "the incredibly famous one of him with the cigar sticking out one side of his mouth".[10] And Vivre markets his image on the Elie Bleu Deluxe Che Cigar Humidor.[11] Lots more examples could be produced, I expect. But even if Che's image hadn't been used to market cigars, it would still be relevant to the section, and shouldn't be removed merely because we dislike his politics. Eubulides (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose that Adolph Hitler's image be used in the articles on vegetarianism, children, and dogs. After all, he was in favor of the first (though not a strict adherent himself), and is notable for having liked the other two.

Not really, of course, but I think you can see where I'm going with this. To wit: the fact that a person is associated with an object or concept is not in and of itself reason enough to include that person in an article about that object or concept. This is especially true when the person in question is controversial enough to incite passion in the reader, as that phenomenon tends to distract from the article itself and hence lower its quality.

Back to the question at hand: I suggest a photo of a Cuban cigar maker or the like. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to also have a photo of Cuban cigar makers, in the Cigar #Families in the cigar industry section (a section that lacks illustrations now). But for the Cigar #United States embargo against Cuba section, it's more appropriate to have a photo that's more-relevant to the embargo issue. Preferably a photo of someone smoking a cigar, of course. Ideally I'd like to see photos of Kennedy and of Fidel Castro, smoking cigars. In practice, I don't think we have such photos available, and the photo of Che is the best we have, so let's go with that until something better turns up. Eubulides (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the Che photo, for the reasons I've stated, but consensus certainly seems to be going against me. And, really, it's not that big a deal, so I'll go along with using it at least for the moment. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Shaw, I would assume you are far more intelligent than to break Godwin's Law in such a hyperbolic manner. If Hitler was currently marketed on thousands of vegetarian themed products, and there was a section on the 'vegetables' wiki article about an U.S. embargo of German radishes as a result of his political legacy, then of course an image of Hitler chomping on a German radish would be relevant to that imaginary article. ---- Moreover, ones propensity to "incite passion" is not a justifiable reason to censor their presence. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to remove all polarized historical figures, in order to protect the sensibilities of potentially overly sensitive readers. Sure an impassioned Iraqi reader might be engendered to cast a 'virtual shoe' at George Bush's face, but that doesn't mean we erase his existence from Wikipedia as a result. ---- As for images of a Cuban cigar maker, I believe I have a few photos from my last trip to Cuba that would be sufficient. I will upload them onto Wikimedia in the near future for inclusion as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: ...really, it's not that big a deal, so I'll go along with using it at least for the moment. Please, for the sake of WP:CIV, back off. There is a lot wrong with what you're saying there, but it's not appropriate to argue about it here. (I will email you with a response, or put one on your talk page, if you wish. Let me know on my talk or via email.) The Che-photo horse seems to be dead.

Having a photo of a cigar roller would be good. Thanks for your offer to upload one. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the Cuban cigar section could really be expanded. I might try to do this in the coming days. As it stands now, it is just a tiny blip, which doesn't do justice to their contribution to cigars as a whole.WackoJackO 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about an artistic reason to replace the Che picture: better quality. How about a color image with better resolution? Frotz (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Frotz, are you implying that a different color photo of Che smoking a cigar would be better (as a consequence of his 1967 execution, color photos of him are hard to come by), or is this an attempt to throw 'rationale' against the wall and see what sticks - in order to have the picture removed? As for this particular image, I find the quality & resolution more than sufficient. This article at present needs more images, not less.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please... WP:FAITH. We have only one picture of someone smoking a cigar. I thought we ought to have a color one too. Frotz (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Frotz, I am assuming good faith ... and still don't understand your answer. There are certainly a large number of colored photos of people smoking cigars that I would support being included. However, what does this have to do with replacing Che's photo in the Cuban embargo section? Please feel free to add additional color images of anyone smoking a cigar - I can even add some myself in the days to come.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I momentarily forgot this was about the Cuba section and not the article as a whole. I think it started with someone wanting a picture more relevant to the embargo and the question then was if Che was relevant. I don't know where this is going, so I'll leave it alone and bow out now. Frotz (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuban cigars advertised in Europe.

A comment was made (quite correctly) that it is illegal to advertise tobacco products in Europe. However, I have seen it in at least two places, Killarney in Ireland, and the south coast of Spain. I wonder if it is a case of the ads only saying that they sell Cuban cigars, rather than advertising a particular brand. Not sure if this would allow the "ad" but it sounds plausible.--Dmol (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the thing about advertising is part of a series of contortions to keep Che's picture on the article's page. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Shaw, the "advertising" issue has nothing to do with Che's picture, please don't make everything personal or attribute ulterior motives WP:AGF. I have seen stores all over Europe advertise that they carry Cuban cigars, although you can't advertise for the cigars themselves. I would be ok with removing or keeping any info with relation to this issue.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just had to laugh

I edited the bit about the Mayan "primitive cigar" to be just a cigar. WTF is a "primitive cigar"? Is it something like a "primitive baked potato"? Or something that you say "ooga booga, big good baccy" after you smoke? Homunq (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that whole paragraph is fishy and has been fact-tagged since February, so I removed it. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fishy"? The word "cigar" itself probably comes from Mayan! http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cigar or http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cigar . I was only saying that there's no reason to call a Mayan cigar "primitive". Because they hand-rolled it, or what? Homunq (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion. The right way to deal with a fact tag is to help find a reference, unless there's reason to doubt the veracity (except in a WP:BIO or other more-contentious article than this one). Any other paragraph in that section is just as unreferenced - in fact, more so, since that paragraph at least mentions where the evidence comes from (archaeology at Uaxatun; the other grafs don't mention "columbus's journals" or anything). I'm not going to make a WP:POINT by fact tagging the other grafs, but please chill out. Homunq (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, cigar is not derived from the Mayan. The sources you give for this claim are not reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense. I did look for a reliable source, and found an old one that says "A considerable amount of etymological conjecture surrounds the word cigar. It apparently is a Spanish word, not Indian, for Bishop Bartoloméo de Las Casas, writing in 1527 (the first European mention of it), said the Indians used the word mousequeton or tabacco." (Kell KT (1966). "Folk names for tobacco". J Am Folklore. 79 (314): 590–9.). I found no reliable source claiming that the word cigar was originally Mayan.
• Given that the folk etymology for cigar as being of Mayan is most likely wrong, I'm skeptical of any claim involving ceramic vessels and 10th century and so forth, unless we can find a reliable source saying so. I looked for one and failed. I did find a reliable source saying that we often don't really know what these sorts of excavated objects depict, which suggests that the claim in Cigar is highly speculative. For example: "What is not known is whether the little man is actually playing a flute or a trumpet, smoking a cigar, or chewing sugarcane." —page 25 of: Olsen DA (2007). "Studying Latin American music". In Olsen DA, Sheehy DE (ed.). The Garland Handbook of Latin American Music. Routledge. pp. 13–35. ISBN 0415961017.
• The other material in this section sounds more plausible, and I don't know of any editor disputing it. However, this particular claim is clearly disputed; that's why it has a fact tag.
• The right way to deal with a fact tag is to either supply a citation, or delete the disputed claim. The claim has been fact-tagged for three months, which is plenty of time for editors to come up with a reliable source for it. Even now, an editor can simply restore the disputed text, as long as they have a reliable source for it. (Cigar-selling web sites don't count, as they are notoriously unreliable in these matters.) Please see WP:BURDEN, which applies here: the burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores material. For now, I've re-deleted the disputed claim.

Eubulides (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This material should not be included in the article unless and until an editor can provide a reliable source for it. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've obviously researched this. That is much more convincing than just calling one part "fishy". I accept your conclusion, but nevertheless want to respond to some of your points.

• De Las Casas had dealings with Caribs, Qeqchis, and Nahuatls, more than with Chols or Chortis, so his account of the "Indian" word for this is not particularly relevant. Neither "mousequeton" nor "tabacco" appear to be castilianized words from any Mayan language (though that's OR, just based on my "feel" for phonetic conventions in Mayan languages. I suppose something like musek is plausible.) I do, though, acknowledge that my sources are not RS; note that I didn't put the etymology in the article for that reason.
• The depiction has fumes or sounds coming out. It could be a flute, but unless he's talking at the same time, it's not sugar cane.
• It is not disputed that Native Americans used tobacco, across numerous cultures, so I don't know why you find the idea that they had cigars less plausible than the idea that Fulano Mengano on Columbus's boat brought cigars. (Honestly, if you had to guess, when would you date the invention of the cigar? 1491?) I'll accept it though.
• You're right that the burden of a dispute is on the one supplying the fact. I didn't realize this was a dispute at that level, or that you had more than a fishy smell to go on. In my experience, claims which are innocuous, plausible, and specific are often given the benefit of the doubt for longer than three months.

Peace to you. Homunq (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Of course native Americans used tobacco (that part stayed in Cigar) and I expect that somewhere they smoked cigars, but the claims about 10th-century cigar-smoking in the Caribbean islands being evidenced by a find in Guatemala were the part that smelled fishy to me. Anyway, I'm sure somebody can find a reliable source on the general topic better than I (15th-century American history not being my forte....). Eubulides (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the idea is that there's some (non-conclusive) evidence that Maya living in Guatemala were smoking cigars in the 10th century. That says nothing about whether people in the Caribbean area smoking them then too. (Another piece of OR: since that's after the classic maya collapse, it is probable that any 10th century Mayan smoking habits were not new. There is more evidence for an overall level of innovation during the classic maya period in the 5th through 9th centuries.) Homunq (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Carefully selected research

A recent edit removed the phrase "carefully selected" from the text's claim that Cigar Aficionado argued that "carefully selected health-research results support claims of safety", with the edit summary "sentence showed bias - 'carefully selected' implies cherrypicking data". I went back to the cited source, DeSantis & Morgan 2003 (PMID 14557079), and found that they documented the fact that Cigar Aficionado did cherry-pick the data. Here's a summary paragraph from the source:

"... Cigar Aficionado turned science against itself. By (a) extracting anomalistic scientific claims about the hazards of smoking while (b) neglecting or harshly criticizing the much larger body of scientific research that links cigars with smoking related illnesses, the magazine pitted the bad science of the anti-smoking forces against the strategically selected good science of Shanken and Cigar Aficionado. The end product of this strategy closely models the selective exposure route for controlling cognitive dissonance; Cigar Aficionado clearly says that the only information that readers need pay attention to is that which points to a negligible level of risk of cigar smoking."

As far as I know, it's undisputed among reliable sources that Cigar Aficionado cherry-picks data, but since the cited source uses the phrase "strategically selected" I switched to that phrase in place of "carefully selected". Eubulides (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't access the article, so I wasn't sure if the words used were sourced, or just a loose interpretation of the original document. My bad Xmacro (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cigars4Dummies

This edit adds what appears to me to be kind of a fansite, hence WP:ELNO. Anyone else have an opinion? Mark Shaw (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not suitable as an external link, and I removed it (even before seeing your comment). Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Families in the cigar industry

IP addresses have deleted some material without explanations, which normally is not a good thing to do, but in this case I think the deletion is justified.

• One deletion removed this text:

"Perhaps the best-known cigar family in the world is the Arturo Fuente family. Now led by father and son Carlos Fuente, Sr. Jr., and granddaughters Kristen and Valentia Fuente, the Fuente family has been rolling their Arturo Fuente and Montesino cigars since 1916. The release of the Fuente Fuente OpusX in 1995 heralded the first quality wrapper grown in the Dominican Republic. The oldest Dominican Republic cigar maker is the León family, who have been making their León Jimenes and La Aurora cigars on the island since 1905."

This material is unsourced and has been fact-tagged for over a month, so it's ripe for deletion.

• Another removed this text:

"in exotic shapes ranging from chili peppers to baseball bats and American footballs. They are highly collectible and extremely expensive, when publicly available."

Again, this material is unsourced, and arguably promotional, so I see no problems with removing it.

It strikes me that a lot of that material is unsourced and has WP:WEIGHT issues. Why should Cigar spend so much time talking about various families and family firms? I don't see anything similar in Wine or Brandy, say. The section has been tagged for a while. I propose that we simply remove the Families in the cigar industry section, keeping only its topic sentence, which we can merge into the parent section. Eubulides (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Health effects

A recent series of edits removed all discussion of health effects, replacing it with a pointer to Health effects of tobacco. While I agree that the Cigar article shouldn't be taken over by health concerns, health effects are an significant and notable aspect of cigars, and should not be ghettoized into another article. A brief discussion of health effects (just one paragraph here) is entirely appropriate, and in fact another paragraph wouldn't hurt; a lengthy discussion can be placed in the other article. For now I'm restoring the material. I suggest that further potential-controversial edits like this be discussed here first. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur. I actually have little objection in principle to the edits made by Frotz, but since they changed the character of the article in a significant way I agree that they should be discussed here first. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote to Eubulides at Talk:Health_effects_of_tobacco, my reasoning is that Alcoholic beverage is akin to tobacco. We don't see detailed exposes of the effects of alcohol in articles for particular alcoholic beverages. Likewise, we don't need such exposes for particular forms of tobacco. A sentence and a link will suffice. Frotz (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as I responded there, the vast majority of reliable sources on cigars, as published in scholarly journals (measured by Google Scholar), talk about their health effects. Perhaps whiskey is different, but for cigars it's quite clear that it would be a WP:WEIGHT violation to remove all health-related information from the article, given that reliable sources have such a heavy interest in it. If anything, the sources show that there should be more emphasis on health effects, not less, in this article. There is also no reason to remove information about the cigar-smoking habits of Freud and Grant: both were extremely notable high-volume smokers, and the health effects on both are well-documented. Eubulides (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what Health effects of tobacco is for. "more emphasis on health effects" would in fact be POV here, as there is already an article devoted to the topic. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is precisely what I've been trying to get across. Frotz (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mortality risks

A recent edit by an IP address removed the following text:

"The risk of dying from any cause is significantly greater for cigar smokers, with the risk particularly higher for smokers less than 65 years old, and with risk for moderate and deep inhalers reaching levels similar to cigarette smokers." (citing Shanks & Burns 1998)

with the edit summary "improper statement not following citation". However, the removed text is directly supported by Shanks & Burns, the cited source, which says (p. 111):

"In every case MRR's are particularly elevated for smokers less than 65 years of age."

and (p. 112):

"Risk ratios of All Cause Mortality for cigar smokers are higher than rates for neversmokers, though generally lower than rates observed for cigarette smokers. Cigar smokers who inhale exhibit all cause mortality rates that are higher than the rates for cigar smokers who do not inhale, and the risk ratios for inhaling cigar smoke approach the rates for cigarette smokers. The risk ratios increase with increasing number of cigars smoked per day and increasing depth of inhalation."

I'm therefore restoring the text in question, adding the phrase "than for those who have never smoked" for clarity. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Size/shape in metric

It is becoming more common to measure cigars in metric, at least in Europe, so I added metric measurements in separate columns. Chose to have the unit symbols in each cell for readability, since they are short and fits without adding column width. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.162.78 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just another sign of the End Times. Metric cigar measurements. But, do we know who the "Carlota" size is named after? I've never heard of it before. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Selection or Collection

In two of the tables in this article the author refers to "English Market Collection" and "English Market Selection". I assume the former is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasionus (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the former. Fixed. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuban cigars

I remember an article in "Cigar Aficionado" magazine about 10-12 years ago that stated that after the embargo that many of the tobacco fields were allowed to go fallow due to the decreased demand for cigars. Years later when demand increased and the fields were needed once again for tobacco production, they were planted with seeds from the Dominican Republic. So many of the true Cuban cigars available today are Dominican tobacco grown in Cuban soil.

Assuming we can find the citation, does anyone think this is worthy of mention? Scalhotrod (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the majority of Cuba's crop was replanted prior to this in 1899 due to seed scarcity. Generally the seeds came from Puerto Rico. In essence from 1900 until around 2000 the majority of Cuba's tobacco was Puerto Rican in origin. http://www.usc.es/estaticos/congresos/histec05/b2_baldrich.pdf González del Valle (1929), pp. 61-62. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonCollinsPR (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cigar Project

I have made an initial proposal to establish WikiProject Cigars at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Cigars. Please drop by there and add your comments. Feel free to add your name to the list if you'd be willing to participate. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing that proposal as "not created", since it hasn't been created, but I think that there's some merit in at least a WP:WikiProject Tobacco, if not one focused specifically on cigars. If you can find a few more interested people, then it could always be considered in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph in historical figures section

it doesn't belong there. Especially the part about it being a strong form of tobacco dosing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.131.39 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cigar Swing (Patent from 1942)

File:Zigarrenschaukel 1942.jpg

Zigarrenschaukel 1942

just found this rather odd invention from 1942. in order to free the smoker's hand and still keep the cigar lit, you put the cigar on the mechanically driven swing. patent from 1942. feel free to use the image in this or other articles. i just uploaded it to the commons. Maximilian (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Very pro-US bias

I came across this article while researching the manufacturers of cigars and am surprised, no appalled, at the very pro-American bias of the article. You have to read a long way before you get to any mention of Cuba. It reads as though the Cuban cigar industry is an also-ran. If you ask most people to associate cigars with a particular country, I am sure the large majority would say Cuba. America would come very low down my list. I wonder if some Cuban-American influence has overtaken this article...? As an example I give you Cigar - not ONE Cuban family is mentioned! Cigar Aficionado is I believe an otherwise excellent magazine, but I wonder if they are legally limited in who they are allowed to nominate in their list and so I question them as an impartial source. While the Wiki article does indeed deal with the iniquitous and illegal Cuban embargo (eventually), I really feel that this article should be turned on its head and seriously re-written. For those of us in Europe, to read such a slanted article is shocking and is not worthy of Wikipedia's usual code of neutrality. Manxwoman (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Do you have an example of a non-US magazine focused on cigars which we can cite? -- Frotz(talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest either http://www.cigarbuyer.co.uk/ or http://www.cigarsmag.com/ (I have no connection to either). Manxwoman (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in Cigar Officianado's list of their top 25 cigars of 2013, cigars of Cuban manufacture where rated numbers 1, 5 and 21. As far as I am aware, no American cigars even made the list and the majority were Dominican and Nicaraguan. http://www.cigaraficionado.com/top25/show/id/17363 68.8.181.1 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, this interesting fact is not reflected in this very pro-American biased Wiki article. Manxwoman (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the encyclopedia is like this. Idk if they genuinely think the rest of the world gives a shit or if they think about the rest of the world at all. 188.30.201.102 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The German Wikipedia also has separate entries for "Habano" (Havanna cigars i general), different brands (cohiba, montecristo, partagas,romeo y julieta etc) and Cubatabaco, whereas the US-American market is only mentioned as "approximately 10% of Cuban export cigars are smuggled to the US." 79.194.231.159 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article uses US spelling

The first spelling used in this article was US, and it has consistently used US (or mixed) spelling during its entire history. Per WP:RETAIN, editors should not change the spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A more significant instance of US bias is the bizarre claim that "Despite American trade sanctions against Cuban products, cigars remain one of the country's leading exports". There are other countries in the world that can and do import Cuban cigars, although Americans (or rather Americans living in the USA, not Americans of the Cuban variety) do often seem to overlook the existence of an outside world!Royalcourtier (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Families in the cigar industry

I congratulate you on the re-written article, much better. But I strongly feel that this sub-section is seriously lacking in mentioning ANY of the famous Cuban cigar families. Also there is no mention in the article about the proposed lifting of the US embargo.Manxwoman (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most of the Cuban cigar families fled Cuba when Castro took control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.105.195 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, far from it. But some did open other cigar factories in the Dominican Republic and others in the US misled people that they were or had been long-standing Cuban cigar families. Manxwoman (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331150403/http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/cigar/cigar5.cfm to http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/cigar/cigar5.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cigarettes

This is an article about cigars, but cigars are not significantly different from cigarettes. There should be a clearer definition, and reference to cigarettes.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there as many fake Cuban cigars in Cuba as there is in the United States? What is the difference between real and fake? Jeff $essions (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There certainly are significant differences between cigars and cigarettes, physically, in flavor/aroma, and culturally. BMJ-pdx (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)