Talk:Hookah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nicotine Miss Information

The nicotine part of the health section is wrong.
The sources it uses say:
20:http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/327
"Conclusions: More scientific documentation and careful analysis is required before the spread of waterpipe use and its health effects can be understood, and empirically guided treatment and public policy strategies can be implemented."
21:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12078938&cmd=showdetailview
"Following a single run of HB[Hookah] smoking, plasma, saliva and urinary nicotine and cotinine concentration increased to high values."
Further more there are other sources more reputable sources that show hookah as having significant levels of nicotine, such as
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265
"Hookah smoking also delivers significant levels of nicotine — the addictive substance in tobacco. "
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2456.html
"Nicotine: The addictive chemical in tobacco products. While the pipe's water absorbs some nicotine, research suggests that hookah smoke delivers enough of the drug to potentially lead to addiction. "

Clearly this should be changed.
Thanks
The Omnipotence (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the Function section:

However, recent studies have found that hookah smokers inhale more nicotine than cigarette smokers due to the massive volume of smoke they inhale.

In the Style and Health section:

In addition to fewer carcinogens being produced, nicotine production is reduced by the lower temperatures at which the tobacco is heated. Lower nicotine production, when compared to cigarettes, means addiction to tobacco, among hookah smokers, happens significantly-less frequently

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.9.47.180 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory at face value (per volume, there is less nicotine in hookah smoke than cigarette smoke, but much more hookah smoke is inhaled than cigarette smoke). In fact, I would say that my own experience bears out this fact. You are correct, however, that "recent studies" is a weasel word. Feel like looking it up? --Mgreenbe 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Thomas Eissenberg, a professor of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University co-authored a review on hookah smoking[1] which found that a session of hookah smoking which lasts about 45 minutes, delivers 1/60th the tar, 1/10th the carbon monoxide and 1/200th the nicotine than a single cigarette" source one says the opposite about CO production and little about nicotine and tar production other than the fact that the tar derivatives in hookah smoke are different than those in tobacco smoke because of the temperature difference. Source 10 is non-existent. Not only that but most sources say just the opposite about hookah smoke. A 45 minute session is almost equivalent to one cigarette. This line is entirely fictional after the phrase "lasts 45 minutes", and I smoke hookah and cigars myself, so I'm not just hating on tobacco users.

In the India section: In the second paragraph the invention of the hookah is placed in ancient India, but the previous paragraph and the Origins section places it in the 16th Century. The paragraph in general is unsupported and uses vague terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.123.58 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[|Reference]

What is the reference in response to? The link is a patent for a non-tobacco substance that can be smoked. The last sentence: "Tobacco-free flavors can be purchased anywhere." is not supported by the reference. Just because they can be made does not mean that they can be purchased anywhere.

The rest of the paragraph covers the safety, or lack thereof, of tobacco free flavors. The reference claims that the patented substance is safe (however it never shows this).

As a result I would suggest the removal of the reference. Ender8282 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Health effects of fruit/honey-based, non-tobacco, no tar, no nicotine shisha with non-carbon monoxide coal

Please respond here & also insert your response into the article as its not covered XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.94.243 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Common usage not mentioned

I was very surprised in reading this article, to observe not a single mention made of the well established use , globally, of cannabis products alone or with tobbaco. How can this be?

Is this a deliberate attempt to obfuscate an 'undesirable' social condition?

Surely the fact that millions of people, young and old from every culture, race and ethnic background smoke cannabis, and the use of the hookah features significantly in this practice is worthy of mention.

In the national 'roundup', The Netherlands was significantly missing.

Is that because the law there has to some degree 'accepted' the coffehouses and shops where hashish and marijuana are both sold and consumed?

How can this article profess to be thorough with this obvious deficiency?

There appears to be a bias here and I fear it reeks of revisionism.

There is nothing more abhorent than allowing cultural rewriting of history and anthropological facts, based on religous ideolgies.

Please don't let Wikipedia be hijacked by those who take offense with a sterotype and systematically remove all references to it's characteristics.

(a wiki user) 161.184.180.149 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Germany" section

The paragraph starts off '"hookah" is an unknown term', then ends with 'there is a special-interest magazine about hookahs available which is called "hookahMag"', which is a German magazine.

Obviously the first bit about being an "unknown" term is totally uncited and should be removed. 91.85.174.227 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions regarding Hookahs vs. cigarettes

The article states "It's a myth that hookah smoking is safer than smoking cigarettes." and "Although many believe that the water in the hookah filters out all the "bad stuff" in the tobacco smoke, this isn't true" but the link given at the end (http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19) contains various paragraphs that challenge these statements, e.g.

"However, and in striking contrast with cigarettes, hookah does generate almost no side-stream smoke because of its peculiarities (charcoal topping the bowl and less elevated temperatures). So, the only smoke that should be taken into account is the one rejected by the smoker, i.e. the one filtered by the hookah at the level of the bowl, inside the water, along the hose and then by the smoker's lungs themselves. Consequently, the resulting smoke is expected to be less toxic for non-smokers than cigarette side-stream smoke. Notably, a great proportion of irritants, mainly aldehydes and phenols, are removed [19]. A team led by Guillerm in France early found that when passed through water (50 cm3), the combustion gases of cigarette smoke have no inhibitory effect on the respiratory epithelium cilia. The researchers concluded that narghile users can, "without apparent disorders, smoke dramatically greater quantities of tobacco than ours in our countries" [37]. Wynder et al have established that water filtered cigarette smoke is less toxic to clam gill tissue and that "a flask containing 200 ml of water dramatically can reduce the dose of ciliatoxic agents delivered to the ciliated epithelium" [38]. Weiss also reported that the effect of bubbling tobacco smoke through 15 ml of water was "equivalent to the effect of the better charcoal filters" [39]. Zaga and Gattavecchia have shown that the water in the vase of a hookah acts as an antioxydant against some short half-life free radicals [40]. Other substances are supposed to be affected by the water obstacle because of their solubility or the low temperatures: e.g. HCN, nitric oxides, etc. As for particles in the mainstream smoke, and particularly ultra fine ones (0.02 to 1 μm), a recent study shows that hookah smoke is up to 3 times less concentrated than cigarette smoke: 74.4 109 for a 1000 ml hookah (machine) puff and 9.24 109 for a 45 ml cigarette "puff""

92.239.17.213 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can condense all that succinctly and cite it properly, then I think it's a worthy addition to the article. Frotz (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hookah/AN01265. Infringing material has been replaced with text from earlier in the article's history and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Originating from turkey???????

who says this in the second line of the introduction? this is just wrong.

response: yeah I agree, I think someone was sabotaged the article, the very first hookah's came from India and were made from coconut shells as proven from uncovered archeological evidence, the modern high quality hookahs that you see today are from the arab world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.83 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Price in Lithuania

In Lithuania hookah bars (locally named kaljanas) are popular among young and middle-aged people. It usually costs 30-200 euros. - That can't be right!!! I'm not an expert but 30- 200 euros seems waaaaaay to much. Does anybody know for sure.. I think this information is wrong and should be removed Rozafaaa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Health section

ANTISMOKING INTERPRETATION OF OUR PIONEERING STUDY ON HOOKAH SMOKIGN AND CANCER, the first aetiologic one, at the molecular level, is unacceptable

AUTHOR OF VANDALISM: "20:12, 2 November 2009 Altenmann (talk | contribs) (29,751 bytes) (Reverted to revision 323379691 by 75.158.135.187; rv inappropriate tone. (TW)) (undo)"

IMPORTANT NOTE FURTHER TO RENEWED VANDALISM : The ethics of Wikipedia cannot be violated by leaving antismoking hacktivists delete such references or interpret them as if they were their authors and as if they had not enought with their control over most of the biomedical journals. The rule should be that when a study saying black is cited (and this is excellent), any other study coming up with unexpected results should also be cited side by side (KC, author, co-author of the deleted then pirated references).

The following paragraphs should remain. Wikipedia is not a place for antismoking propaganda.

Otherwise, not only the full abstract of our study on hookah smoking and cancer can be pasted there but also a long list of peer-reviewed articles and studies that debunk antismoking propaganda and claims.

Most of the above mentioned studies have been criticised in depth for their numerous errors and flaws by the author of the Critique of the WHO report on hookah smoking. This critique was published in the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the BioMed Central Group.

In the first aetiologic study on hookah smoking and cancer, Pakistani doctors have found much lower levels of CEA (Carcinoembryonic Antigen)(a cancer marker) in hookah smokers vs. cigarette smokers. It is noteworthy that the patients in this pioneering study have been smoking, for decades, huge amounts of tobacco (the tobacco-weight equivalent of 60 cigarettes in each bowl) in their hookahs. Interestingly, this study also reviews and discusses extensively heatlh considerations. [29]. This study was published in the Harm Reduction Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the BioMed Central Group.'''''Italic text

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.23.97 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be NPOV and colloquially written. I'll clean this up when I get around to it (which may be some time) but I tend to only sort out grammatical issues rather than bias. I'd probably do a slash-and-burn since a lot of it sounds like a broken record. Brammers (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on this page, the current tone of the section, and my own research, I've tagged the section NPOV. TFriesen (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "important note further to renewed vandalism" from the main article, as all discussion should be kept on this page. 128.173.92.217 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hose composition

I've always wondered, the hose is very flexible, and (somewhat) hot smoke passes through it. WHat is it made of. nowadays, synthetic rubber? And what was it made of historically? When sugar cane mentioned in the article wasn't available. 64.252.11.134 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but upon examining mine, I would guess tanned leather and some type of binding thread or twine. If you closely examine a hose, you will see that a seam runs along the entire length of it, suggesting that a sheet of "leather" (or whatever material) is being rolled into a hollow tube and somehow sealed closed. The ridged appearance (again, at least on mine) is caused by tightly wound thread or twine being neatly spiraled along the hoses entire length.

Those with more knowledge on the subject are free to correct me, however.

Seary6579 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Many guys here in Israel use a plastic hose, those used in A/C units which can be bought at about 1 usd per meter. but most hoses consist of a thin flexible metallic coil with synthetic stuff around it (can be clearley seen here: http://www.mr-bills.com/images/Hookah%20Hose.jpg) 79.177.126.11 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A friend who went to Turkey came back with a camelskin hose, so I guess that's a possibility too. Of course, it might not have been camelskin -- neither of us would know the difference -- but it seems at least mildly plausible. Squareintheteeth (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A plastic hose is defenitely the best. It's cheap, easy to get and easy to clean. A transparent plastic hose has the nice effect of seeing the smoke going through and you can see when it's dirty and needs cleaning. A "flat" plastic hose will not be elastic or comfortable so a plastic hose with a wave pattern (Like the one in the picture 2 comments up) will be a lot better and much more elastic. Besides plastic and leather hoses there are also hoses with metalic composition (As described 2 comments up). In my opinion they are the worst kind of hoses since the metal collects a lot of residue and it's difficult to clean due to corrosion by the cleaning meterial. Also you can't see defects in the metal since it's completely covered. I also dislike leather hoses because the seams rarely provide good blockage (אטימות) for air. If you really want a leather hose it's better to wrap a plastic or metallic one in leather. --80.179.212.193 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names for HOOKA - The Kalian

The Kalian is apparently a well known alternative name for the Hooka - not mentioned in your article. Reference - www.thefreedictionary.com/kalian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.41.25.57 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

USA Today

I cut back the paragraph sourced by the USA Today story to just what the story says. There was some more stuff that implied the story was wrong, but none of the sources given actually contradicted the USA Today story as far as I can tell. Rees11 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Implement?

Why do you want to call this an "implement for smoking?" It's a pipe with a water filter and it should be called that. Rees11 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK with me inthis phrasing. What was not OK is that it was called "water pipe". BTW, please provide a ref for the definion, whichever you choose, since I am not sure it is a "pipe". - Altenmann >t 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not a water pipe. The first two refs I found call it an "instrument" and a "machine." They also say it consists of a bowl, tobacco holder, etc, and a pipe, but they don't say the hookah is itself a pipe. So maybe "implement for smoking" isn't so bad. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Instrument" or "device" sound best. "Machine" implies complexity and/or significant moving parts. The little ball in the purge valve doesn't count. Frotz (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-added "waterpipe" (one word). Here in the US if you say "waterpipe" most people think of a one piece glass device, much smaller than a hookah, used for smoking marijuana, so I don't think of a hookah as a waterpipe myself. Rees11 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Pipe smoking#Water pipes, where it lists a hookah as an example of one. Granted, that's unsourced so I'm not saying that justifies its inclusion here, but we want to stay consistent, so if it's removed here it should be removed at the other article as well. -- Atama頭 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To further confuse matters, the bong article claims that "water pipe" is an alternate word for a bong. The only reference they use for this claim is this one which doesn't seem to be a reliable source. There's also the water pipe percolator article which describes a part of a bong, but it has no references at all. I searched Wikipedia for other articles using "water pipe" as a term for drug paraphernalia, and have come up empty. The Rhode Island Department of Health says that "water pipe" is another name for a hookah, and references the American Lung Association, so that might be a potential reliable source for it. CNN, the Orlando Sentinel, and a few other news outlets use "water pipe" to describe a hookah. Google Scholar has a lot of support for this as well. So despite the scanty sources in Wikipedia right now, it seems that there's a lot of credibility to the term. -- Atama頭 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the taxonomy is probably "bong" and "hookah" both being examples of "water pipes" (but obviously not water pipes). Rees11 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Herbal Hukka (shisha/hookah)

Herbal hookah is a safe alternative to shisha tobacco, it does not contain tar, nicotine or tobacco. Herbal hukka is flavoured molasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.150.230 (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hukka Should be legal and everyone should have a hooka says all the people of the world and beyond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.230.109 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Inhaling burning anything is generally not healthy. However, if you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion, it would be a good addition. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in the article and the Talk page numerous times, what is used in a Hookah is not being burned, but roasted. So the "inhaling burning anything" does not apply here. 74.234.215.75 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The words "roasted" and "burned" are synonymous. If I "roast" something for long enough, it will eventually become completely "burned". What do you think is coming out of the Hookah when you "smoke" it, if not smoke? In any case, this is all irrelevant without sources (and the sources that are in the article say that hookahs are certainly not healthy). -- Atama頭 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Roast" and "burn" are related, but not synonymous. Most cooks know this. Frotz (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the main difference, which is applicable here, is that the material being roasted does not actually combust. However, it still produces smoke, and let's not forget that hookahs traditionally contain coals which do combust, and though efforts can be made to reduce the amount of ash introduced to the smoker it is still present. Again, this is all academic when we have already sources that contradict what is being suggested here. -- Atama頭 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

rv

rv some things, Palestine and Arab world, no explanation given for Palestine's change and Arab worlds removal.[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hashish and Cannabis

This article seems to point to the hookah being invented by India in the 16th century or so, and it was invented for mainly smoking tobacco. However the consumption of cannabis in the Middle East and South Asia was quite widespread way before that era, and didn't they use a device similar to a hookah to smoke the hash? Or was it normal pipes and such? The origin of smoking cannabis in the common era is hard to trace, since it is unclear whether cannabis was ever smoked prior to the introduction of smoking to India through tobacco smoking from the west. But it's still interesting to know for sure....weren't there any similar devices during the middle ages in the middle east that were used to smoke cannabis or hash? Zachorious (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

names in different languages

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I suggest to remove all foreign words which are not used in English language as synonyms. Do we really need 120+ boldfaced terms from all over the smoking world in the intro? - Altenmann >t 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, so I will henceforth remove them. --The One Philosopher (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These names are still there. I will remove them. In the history section, it is mentioned that "Hooka" comes from Persia, and in the opening of the article you see its name in some languages other than English and Persian is not one of them. As Altenmann mentioned months before, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So if anyone wants to mention the name of this "device" in any other language I believe that it should be in English and Persian. BTW my own opinion is what Altenmann said, it is better to remove the name in other languages at least in the opening. 115.133.209.99 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is from the History section of article: "However, a quatrain of Ahlī Šīrāzī (d. 1535) a Persian poem refers to the use of the ḡalyān (Falsafī, II, p. 277; Semsār, 1963, p. 15), thus dating its use at least as early as the time of Shah Ṭahmāsp I . It seems, therefore, that Abu’l-Fatḥ Gīlānī should be credited with the introduction of the ḡalyān, already in use in Persia, to India.The hookah pipe is also know as the Marra pipe in the UK, especcialy in the North East, in which it is used for recreational purposes." When you have this in the article, you can't say the Hookah is originated from India. It doesn't matter even if you have 100 references that says Hookah is Indian, when you have historical proof that this thing existed before Abul-Fath Gilani introduced it to Indians. Also the Indian names in the beginning of the article shouldn't be there. Discuss it here before changing the article. If you keep on changing the article the way you want, I will change it back each and every time. You HAVE TO discuss it here. 115.132.187.95 (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. As a matter of fact, it DOES matter how many references were in the article since the information in Wikipedia must meet WP:RS. If you choose to continue to edit war, your IP Address will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The reason "Hindustani" appears in the lead is because the word "Hookah" is derived from a Hindustani word. Names in other languages are available in the Names and etymology section. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So we know that Hookah existed -in a place thousands of kilometers far from India- for about ~53 years before Gilani introduced it to India, and yet we should accept that it is originally from India? At least remove that part about Persian poet from History section! Which one should readers believe?! Hookah was used in Persia half a century before it was invented in India?! (So maybe we should change the article about "time travel"?!) The important thing is that you can't question this poem and Ahli Shirazi:

قلیان ز لب تو بهره ور می‌گردد نی در دهن تو نیشکر می‌گردد

بر گرد رخ تو دود تنباکو نیست ابریست که بر گرد قمر می‌گردد

So should we kill Ahli Shirazi and burn his Divan?!

Maybe someone who is not an Indian or Persian should decide about this, don't you agree?! BTW, I said I would change the article IF you don't discuss it here. You changed my edit without giving any explanations. And about the number of references, I strongly disagree with you and Wikipedia; but I can't do anything about it since this is the Wikipedia -the free encyclopedia-!!! Write whatever you want! What we have here is a fact: This device existed in Persia half a century before it was introduced to India. Since this is Wikipedia, all you need to do is to change the history section to whatever version of history you believe and you like, and then add that sentence about "origin" of Hookah! I will come back for your answer in 24 hours, and if I disagree with you -since Wikipedia is Free Encyclopedia!- I will delete that part, and you can block my IP address and I can change my IP address and write what I believe -again, since Wikipedia is Free Encyclopedia!- 115.133.216.211 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear 115.133.216.211, I am extremely busy this week. Later in the week, I will work on researching the existence of the Hookah in Persia and will try to incorporate both points of view in the article. For now, please acknowledge WP:V and leave the article as it stands. I will get back to you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I won't change anything. My problem is that in the beginning of the article it is said Hookah is originally from India, in the history section something else is written. You should remove one of them. I won't change anything. It's up to you. I'm done! And for the last time: Ahli Shirazi talks about Hookah (قلیان-تنباکو-نی) in his poems. You can't just ignore that (even if 1000000 sources claim that half a century after his death another Persian introduced/invented it in India)! Ahli Shirazi was a real person, his shrine is besides Hafiz Shirazi's shirine in Shiraz (Pars province, Iran). End !115.132.185.58 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Artificial culture

After the Arab foods, and Arab line dance (dabke), Israelis claiming Arab culture to create their made up artificial culture have continued to smoking: [2]

Palestine section: "Smoking hookah is not only a tradition, but a culture" , IP just removed the word Palestine and replaced it with Israel. I have therefor removed that sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the intro states "Originally from India,[1][5][6][7][8][9] hookah has gained popularity, especially in the Middle East and is gaining popularity in North America, Europe, Australia and Brazil.[", as if smoking it in the Middle East is somehow a recent fad. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Seventy times more nicotine than they would consume in one cigarette?

The article states the following under health effects:

"Reports by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society have shown that, in a one-hour hookah session, users consume about 100 to 200 times the smoke and about 70 times more nicotine than they would in one cigarette."

I confirmed the source, and that is what it says; however, this is completely ridiculous. It's understandable to state that the volume of hookah smoke is considerably larger than smoking cigarettes (maybe even 100 to 200 times because of the deep inhalations and fairly watered down smoke), but to state that the hookah smoke contains 70 times more nicotine than in one cigarette is completely absurd. We are talking about consuming the nicotine content of well over 3 packs of cigarettes in a one hour period here! I'm pretty sure you could die from that, considering the effects nicotine has on your heart.

I would suggest changing this because it obviously makes no sense. SilverDrake11 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of "Diffuser" Section is Missing

The section reads:

"Diffuser
the smoke-filtering process, creating a cleaner smoke and a subdued noise. It is used as a luxury item for a premium smoking experience and is not a required component."

but I don't know enough about the topic to fill in the blanks. Overall, this article is a bit of a mess and I've cleaned it up a good bit but I simply lack the subject knowledge to be of any more help. --Kitsunegami (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

A study on hookah smoking and cancer in Pakistan was published in 2008.[26] Its objective was "to find serum CEA levels in ever/exclusive hookah smokers, i.e. those who smoked only hookah (no cigarettes, bidis, etc.).". Levels in exclusive hookah smokers were lower compared to cigarette smokers although the difference was not statistically significant between a hookah smoker and a non-smoker. The study also concluded that heavy hookah smoking (2–4 daily preparations; 3–8 sessions a day; 2 to 6 hours) substantially raises CEA levels.

• Is it just me or is this completely contradicting itself? Personally - and I make this judgement rashly because I haven't read any of the sources - it seems like the first claim is some lie that's been inserted to defend the activity for whatever reason. This confuses me. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Reading the article makes a little more sense, but even that seems to contradict itself or perhaps it they use some kind of strange definition of exclusive and heavy. Regardless, it seems to me that the intent of that paragraph is to mislead; perhaps not, but that's how it comes across. Regardless, I think it's confusing, and contributes little to the article and should be removed. Could've checked the talk page before undoing the removal. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hookah vs. Sheesha vs. Arguily

Are hookahs and sheeshas really the same things? I always though, the traditional arab "things" are sheeshas, while hookahs are made of glass and used for smoking mariuhana. 82.82.127.117 19:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) Its pretty SWEET

Things for smoking marijuana are simply bongs :) -- Lament.

No, hookahs (or arguily)are NOT just for marijuana. In fact, when one uses it that way, they're misusing the pipe. Sheesha tobacco is traditionally what is smoked out of a hookah. This is tobacco which is cured with fruits and molasses. And sheesha, shisha, hookah, hooka, hubbly bubbly, and nargile are all the same thing: an arabic water pipe which stands roughly two feet tall with a hose for smoking. Some people do smoke hashish out of their sheesha pipes, and in some cultures it's traditional. However, to think of it as "just a really fun bong" is to perpertuate the hookah's social stigma and misuses.-A proper hookah smoker

Then hookahs are just really fun bongs! =oD - Eisnel

Hi, sisha is the wet tobacco and molasses mix! Just to clear things up! [John] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.46.231 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are there no mentions of its uses for consumption of hashish and marijuana? Arent those 2 popular uses of a hookah, then arent we just calling a hookah being used for consuming those a bong instead of actuly difernetiating between diferent devices? Cts006

Check back a few edits, the reference seems to come and go. Gzuckier 05:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, traditionally, it is offensive to those in the Middle East and Asia to smoke anything other than tobacco out of a hookah. Smoking marijuana or hashish out of hookahs has become just a modern teenage/college thing. moondust9358

I'm pretty sure that hookah refers to the actual water pipe and that sheesha is the molasses-like tobacco used when smoking from a hookah. correct me if I'm wrong, fellow hookah-ers. NPPyzixBlan 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the tobacco called shisha/sheesha, but I've also heard the whole apparatus called that. But, as the intro paragraph makes clear, you can a hookah it just about anything. --Mgreenbe 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to rely on context. Sheesha (or 'shisha') can mean either the tobacco or the pipe. --BennyD 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No sir. Shisha is another name for a Hookah. I believe its Egypian. To call the me'asel (flavored tobacco) Shisha is Americans going to the middle east hearing someone order a "flavored shisha" and thinking that they were talking about the tobacco. -- True Sisha Smoker

Take it from a linguist (a real, academic one): when a misunderstanding creates a word in one language (or dialect) that means something different from what it meant originally, it isn't any less of a word than as if it was an accurate borrowing. 'Shisha' being used to describe ma'sael is a very real part of American English, and to argue that it is somehow 'wrong' is, well, wrong.Mgcsinc 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

copyvio1: [3]

One must take into account the accumulated findings of socio-anthropological research on the subject. Only the above-mentioned research framework can help shed light on this new - and strange for many - phenomenon, i.e. the globalisation of narghile (hookah, shisha) use for almost a decade now.

Now, 2 reference unique books have been written on it. The last one was published in Paris (France) under the title "Le Monde du Narguilé" (The World of Narghile/Hookah)(156 pages, colour, Ed. Maisonneuve et Larose, 2002), by Kamel Chaouachi.

Besides, there is a unique trilingual reference website :

*[The Sacred Narghile http://www.sacrednarghile.com]

--KeithTyler

I think most contributors here are missing the point: these are all different regional names for the same thing: namely a tobacco pipe which filters water through a container at its base. In Turkey it is a Nargileh, in most Arab countries it is a Sheesha (which in Turkish means 'bottle' and in Persian/Hindi 'Mirror' or 'Glass', suggesting it is derived from the material the base is made of, if it's an Arabic word). In Persian it is a 'Qelyun' (قليان), a name which hasn't been mentioned here, whilst only on the Subcontinent is it known as a 'hookah', or 'Huqa' (حقی). However, as it was in India that English-speakers first smoked these pipes in large numbers, it is the Indian name which has become common English usage, in the archaic 18th century form 'Hookah' (see the Hickey quote I have put on the main page). Hence this article definitely has the correct title. Sikandarji 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarji you're wrong its not Persian/Hindi but Persian/Urdu that should be mentioned. By definition the Subcontinental language that uses Persian, Arabic and Turkish vocabulary it is Urdu not Hindi. The latter should be using Sanswcritic words instead of terms from its north western borders. This distinction is the basis for the two vernaculars using Pracrit/Khari Boli/Brij Bhasha for their syntactic/grammatic structures. Bollywood 'Hindi' is actually Urdu albeit for nationalistic reasons referred to as Hindi whereas before 1960's it was called Hindustani - meaning colloqual Urdu. By the way amongst the peoples of North Western Frotier areas, where 'hookah' was the only stress reliever among men along with purified tobacco called Naswar, that is placed between the lower lip and teeth in the mouth. Here the name for Hookah was and is Chillim to this day particularly in Hazara and contiguous areas as these areas were conquered snd settled by Turcic tribes of various affilliations e.g. Uzbeg, Turkman, Karlugh and Tanavoli. Moarrikh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say this is not completely correct, Sikandarji. Speaking from experience, the hookah is known as "Shisha" in North Africa really, and by people of those countries. In Lebanon, Syria, and amongst Palestinians it is known too as a Nargileh (pronounced "ar-GEEL-eh". The "n" is not completely silent, but as far as English speakers are concerned, this is the closest spelling of the Levantine pronunciation of the word) , of which there are many spellings. The Hebrew language has adopted this word as well, though the spelling and pronunciation differs slightly. Amongst the Arabs of the Gulf (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.) also use the word. - TemplarParty —Preceding unsigned comment added by TemplarParty (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So I have to ask... if a hookah and bong are different, what is that difference or is it just in the use. Also, how does water pipe fit in. Is it sort of water pipe is the overall set, with hookahs, bongs, etc subsets? Just really curious.

How do cars and trucks differ? lets call em all cars. NO NO NO, thats not the trunk, thats the boot. NO! boots go on feet! Seriously kids, if you have a problem with a term, explain why, add referances, etc etc, then, let it go, dont try to change a language or culture, you'll live longer.

the shisha reference is just wrong

i smoke hookah everyday... shisha is the tobacco that you put in the hookah, not the hookah itself... shisha can be made with either tobacco or sage, and if necessary to prove my knowledge, i can explain how to make shisha as well... either way, this should be edited because it is wrong. if you would like reference pages to back up my story: www.hookah-shisha.com http://www.smoking-hookah.com/category/12001/ http://www.socialsmoke.com/

on all of these sites you will notice that when you click on shisha it takes you to where you buy the stuff you put INTO your hookah... thank you for your time, and i hope you enjoy your day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortis1369 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've traveled throughout the Levant and North Africa, and was surprised to find that the opposite is true. The smoking hardware was referred to as the shisha, while the software was referred to as "tubaq", among other things. PenitentWhaler (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pulpit

So there is no justification for beginning this article with "See also: Health Effects of tobacco", which is essentially stamping a Surgeon General's Warning on the article. Such things should obviously be included, but in a way that's integrated with the body of the article. PenitentWhaler (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Link

This link got added in at the bottom of the article: Business at hookah-less cafes go up in smoke. It may need integration into the rest of the article, so if you know about the topic, it'd be great if you could add it somewhere. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Water filtration and carcinogens

I am tagging the claim in the "Health effects" section that "The water used to filter the smoke does not remove harmful cancer-causing chemicals from the smoke as is believed by some" as dubious. This is contradicted by a MAPS study cited in the bong article, which states: [the study] "found that when alveolar macrophages were exposed to unfiltered smoke, their ability to fight bacteria was reduced, unlike exposure to water-filtered smoke. It also found substantial epidemiological evidence of a lower incidence of carcinoma among tobacco smokers who used water-pipes, as opposed to cigarettes, cigars, and regular pipes. 'It appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from cannabis smoke that are known toxicants... The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area.'" Alereon (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

After further review, I deleted this claim as it is directly contradicted by the cited reference. Alereon (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the MAPS-study? It made reference to a very old study from Hofmann (1962). There are more recent research papers on this topic, I will search in the library. Shisha-Tom (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh

The entire section on Bangladesh is unsubstantiated by any sources, and seems to be poorly written English overall. 175.156.156.114 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Random quote in India section

"One report in 1566 described the use of the narghile (coconut) in Indore. Narghiles were coconuts that were mounted on silver or other metals (Pritchett 1890). This was probably used for cannabis products. The hubble-bubble or hookah was a Middle eastern invention and the chilam appears to have been taken from the top of the water pipe and used independently. One variation was the panchachilam (five pipe) in which five bowls, each containing a different substance (including several types of opium, Cannabis, tobacco, and probably datura), were smoked together. One occasionally hears of this in use today. Mushiran (1961:298) also mentioned that the smoking of tobacco, the substance now combined with ganja (Cannabis), was introduced by the Portuguese." (pp. 142–143 of the book Orgies of the Hemp Eaters, Autonomedia, 2004)

I cut this huge quote out of the India section. It uses non-Wiki-style citations, contains contradicting claims, and is not introduced or integrated in the section at all. Also, the references noted are not listed in the References section at all. Some of the information might be able to be used somehow, though. 24.240.38.84 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)