Talk:Tobacco pipe

I am not crazy up on all this Wikipedia tagging and such, forgive me. Many years ago I views this article as I started smoking a pipe, and I will say it seems far, far more complete now. The overview and practical use of this article is spectacular, and I was genuinely impressed while reading that it has a great collection of all the things I've learned over the years. Just wanted to say that, amazing, quality article. Truly encyclopedic. 2600:1008:B100:8E85:0:0:0:103 (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I don't know how good article nominations work, but this article seems like a great candidate. Punkonjunk (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would agree, with the following serious reservation: this article completely lacks information about the health effects of smoking a pipe. I've had a lot of trouble finding any trustworthy information about the health effects of pipe smoking from simple searches. You get so much stuff on pipe forums and pipe tobacco sales sites saying that it is better for you than cigarettes, or sometimes even that it is better for you than not smoking. I expect a lot of this is bull, and it's very irresponsible. Then again, on sites concerned with health or general information about smoking and nicotine addiction, there is very little specific information about pipe smoking, only about cigars or water pipes. For example, it's difficult to find any information about the amount of nicotine and tar taken in from inhaling pipe tobacco compared to cigarettes. I really think it would be great if the Wikipedia article could collate some helpful and specific information concerning the health effects; failing that, at least a warning about the general dangers of tobacco smoking would be sensible. BuffaloBill90 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article.

The photo at top appears to be broke. Just a heads up. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was deleted from Wikimedia. Below is the entirety of the discussion, which makes no sense to me. The file was deleted from Wikipedia itself in 2006 because a duplicate existed on Wikimedia Commons. I went ahead and reuploaded the image. Frotz (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the clean up. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

G. H. Hardy was English, it is doubtful whether this is a US work Phrood 14:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 *  Delete it's not Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs,en.wp) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I challenge the statement in the article: "Pipe smoke, like cigar smoke, is usually not inhaled. It is merely brought into the mouth and then released"

Where are the facts or statistics to prove this? Throughout the history of pipe smoking the smoke has been inhaled, not inhaling is an exception. Pipe smokers are not just "puffers". Pipe smokers do "puff" to keep tobacco burning etc, but they inhale as well. The notion of not inhaling is a health-conscious and politically-correct recommendation and trend of modern times in developed countries. That is a good idea, but this article should be about facts, i.e what in fact most pipe smokers do. I am a pipe smoker and I inhale, and all the ones I know inhale. We pipe smokers get smoke in our lungs because we inhale. Fact. If you puff, do not generalise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.210.128 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did some googling, and all user polls and surveys I see show a weight towards not inhaling. I myself inhale pipe smoke, and I know many who do, but I believe both traditionally and in a lot of cultures, this is uncommon. While I can't find a very encyclopaedic source, I don't think it's something one could contest with a simple "I don't do it" anecdote. However, if you or someone turned up a good source leaning the other way, or detailing regional differences in inhale vs exhale, that could help.Punkonjunk (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pipe smoke is seldom inhaled, and a simple search of the switch to cigarettes in the 20's and 30's will show that early tobacco companies emphasized that the cigarette is inhaled (it was a selling point. Believe it or not, inhaling was considered feminine at one point and puffing masculine). Pipe tobacco, just like cigars, is high in alkalinity and not generally intended to be inhaled. That being said, it is personal preference in the end of the day, but as a lifelong pipe smoker who was born before 1950 (when it wasn't such as strange thing to smoke a pipe), I can state earnestly that inhaling wasn't common back then either (nor was political correctness). Pipe tobacco has changed massively over the past few centuries and is almost unrecognizable today in comparison to what was smoked hundreds of years ago. I assure you it is not a politically correct statement to say it is not inhaled, in fact, pipe smokers (myself included) tend to view inhaling as amateurish or otherwise uncouth (at least my generation does). If one wants to nitpick, then the earliest form of tobacco use was chewing and nasal inhalation via "nose pipes" of Native American tribes. Contrary to popular belief, the peace pipe is usually filled with what are called "smoking herbs" and not, usually, tobacco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.15.125 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Once again our lead picture has been deleted. To whoever it was who uploaded that last batch, those were very nice, but they got deleted because they weren't marked properly. If it's your work, you need to mark it as such or else those bots will get testy. I'd add a picture of my own pipe rack, but seeing as though three of my pipes are already on the page, I figure someone else ought to get the glory. So, please, look at your pipe rack and consider taking a picture. Frotz (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone here have a reference (that doesn't point back to Wikipedia) for the statement that a calabash pipe is easier to hold in the mouth whilst doing other things? Most calabashes I've examined, including my own, are too heavy to do this comfortably. Frotz (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well if its notable enough to the product , there might be some WP:RS written about it somewhere, otherwise its technically not notable enough to write in Wikipedia. Good question tho, I myself have never used a calabash.EliteArcher88 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

A proposed illustration ([1]) showing how to install a 1/4"-diameter screened crater in an existing typical wide-bowl tobacco pipe was, contrary to standard Wikipedia practice, deleted within hours from this talk page as, according to the veteran editor, "unconstructive" and possibly "vandalism". (Those terms may be accurate in describing some edits made to articles but there is a presumption of good faith on talk pages.)

Surely it is to be expected that cigarette smokers, seeking to control their habit without abandoning inhaling altogether, will consult this article to find out about tobacco pipes that are small enough to use for that purpose. For this reason it is convenient that the midwakh picture be present, and obligatory that options for downconverting an ornate or treasured pipe also be covered.

A disturbing aspect of the above-mentioned editor's thinking is perhaps hinted at in a message to the undersigned: "Smoking pipe (tobacco) is about tobacco, not cannabis." One typical way in which the highly monopolistic cigarette industry, armed with tons of advertising money and contributions to influence legislators, and with the help of many "useful idiots", defends its profit margin (based on compulsory overdose, such as the 700-mg. cigarette format), is to defame and criminalize small, relatively non-wasteful smoking devices as illegal cannabis drug paraphernalia.

But at least, Sir, thanks for not inhaling!Tokerdesigner (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not taking a position for or against the use of cannabis nor do I address its legal status. The critical point is that this article is for TOBACCO pipes, not cannabis pipes, nor tobacco pipes converted for convenient use with cannabis. We had a picture of a midwakh some time ago, but it was removed when someone created an article for the same. Further, this article is about western-style pipes. Another point is that you have a habit of littering articles with unsourced material and pushing this "mini-toke" thing. I am therefore reverting your additions again. Frotz (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The above response makes my point: the writer dismisses any attempt to include information about non-overdose pipes for tobacco use with convenient accusations of being related to cannabis. The title "Smoking pipe (tobacco)" promises something more than coverage only of "western-style pipes" (what is that, and where is the source for it?).

Perhaps my conspiracy theory is wrong, and Frotz is only pursuing a mellow nostalgia agenda in his guardianship of tobacco articles?Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking with Google, I find no references to this "non overdose" pipe except yours here on Wikipedia. Please show how this is notable. Perhaps you should check with alt.smokers.pipes and the pipes.org forums to see if they think this pipe design is notable enough to put in the article. Frotz (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Without searching for corroboration I would say the most notable thing about any smoking pipe is that it is an alternative to the hot-burning-overdose smoking method known as cigarette which kills 5.4 million per year (WHO, Feb. 7, 2008).) Over 90% of all tobacco users worldwide still use the massively advertised industry cash cow, cigarettes, while maybe 1% use a smoking pipe (tobacco)-- with a few more restrictions (must be western-style only, etc.) your article verges on irrelevancy. Among its editors there seems to be a contentment with marginality, an elite sitting comfortably in academe somewhere, ignoring the cigarette genocide, when some millions of endangered "inhalers" might benefit from switching to a pipe.

Argument for including a midwakh picture: the present linked mention is insufficient to hint that the midwakh is notably smaller than "western-style pipes", thus pictorially the article remains unbalanced in favor of overdose. (Unfortunately some months ago the kiseru picture became copyrightunavailable and there is presently none on Wikimedia, but arguably it belongs here too.) As I tried to indicate above, many inhalant smokers could use a small tobacco pipe to wean themselves away from the cigarette.

Careful, don't drop that calabash!!Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you focusing on this "overdose" thing? Nobody seriously talks about using a one-hitter for tobacco. Small tobacco pipes are easily available. Furthermore, any pipe can be lit and puffed a couple times, set aside for some time (anywhere from a few minutes, hours, or days), then lit again later. Some feel that this treatment improves the taste of the tobacco.

About the calabash, I never try to hold it only with my teeth. It was a very fortunate find and I take care of it. Frotz (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. If "small tobacco pipes are easily available", then providing a photo of one of them with an explanatory caption, advising would-be switchers from the cigarette, can help balance the article.

2. Your comment about interrupted and resumed use reminded me of the other issue-- concerning e-pipe, which resembles the enigma of Magritte's "Ce n'est pas une pipe." Magritte is right: that stretched canvas with colorful dried crud on it is not a pipe. It looks like a pipe but it does not smell like a pipe; the armed sitguard won't let you get close enough to find out what it feels like.

Basically the same device as an e-cigarette with airstream-sensor, battery, heating element and herbal liquid to be vaporized, the e-pipe looks like a pipe, feels like a pipe, even tastes like a pipe, because the artful devisors since the 1990's have learned how to load any taste into the insertable cartridge, doubtless including that of your favorite pipe tobacco after it has been extinguished and relit again as described above. On those bases, e-pipe merits coverage in the article, even if only via a photo with descriptive caption and all-important link to e-cigarette article.Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Magritte's painting of a pipe isn't so much about pipes, but saying that a painting of a thing is not that thing, even though you look at it and say "It's a pipe.".

1) I'm not sure how to do what you're suggesting without running afoul of WP:NPOV.

2) This suggests that a picture of an actual e-pipe is needed, at the very least for the e-cigarette article. A pic of an e-cigar would be nice too. Do you have any? How's this for something to put below the section on hookahs?:

===Electronic Pipe===

An electronic pipe, or e-pipe, is actually a battery-powered vaporizer. Instead of delivering the smoke of burning tobacco, it vaporizes a propylene-glycol solution containing flavorings and nicotine.

My feelings on the e-pipe are that you'll probably find cartridges that taste like Prince Albert or Captain Black, but not the good stuff like Pease or Dunhill.Frotz (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good start on the e-pipe section. I have seen photos on e-cigarette company sites that look "like a real pipe", maybe an experienced editor can approach the proprietors and coax them into offering same. Also a Tokyo store advertising on a English-language website has many photos that would be usable on the kiseru article and here.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and added the section. I've made requests for photos before, so I'll ask for some of an e-pipe. Frotz (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Including a reference, or any coverage, on screening[[2] the crater is the only way to address the ignorance of many hot burning overdose smokers, who don't know (because the industry doesn't want them to) that smaller servings can be used (inhale or not) and that a screen is thinkable (let alone advantageous, because small particles won't slip down the channel and clog things up). This article, listed near the top of the "google" search results, probably attracts many readers who are thinking over their smoking options, and would be interested to know it is possible to use fine-grained material (such as the tobacco in some cigarettes) in a pipe instead, in which case a screen is advisable.

2. Suppressing a reference[3] to wikiHow is tantamount, in this case, to preventing readers from verifying that the idea of a small pipe (like the midwakh) is feasible; in that the wikiHow article, complete with a diagram, furnishes information on how to make one (whether large tobacco corporations approve or not). Meanwhile check that article aqain and see if you don't agree its approach is encyclopedic, objective, informative and that its inclusion is in the interest of public health.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

See WP:GREATWRONGS. Frotz (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Pipes have been used since ancient times. Herodotus described Scythians inhaling the fumes of burning leaves in 500 B.C. Romans, and Greeks adopted pipes from their neighbors to the east and they were subsequently used by Germanic, Celtic and Nordic tribes.

As tobacco was not introduced to the Old World until the 16th century, the pipes outside of the Americas were usually used to smoke hashish, a rare and expensive substance outside areas of the Middle East, Central Asia and India where it was produced.

Native Americans smoked tobacco in pipes long before the arrival of Europeans. Tobacco was introduced to Europe from the Americas in the 16th century and spread around the world rapidly. Until the past century, when mass marketing made tobacco cheaper and advertisers urged larger dosages, most pipe bowls were narrow permitting small amounts of herb to burn at low temperature.

• The passage shown in italics and the evidentiary Gerrit Dou illustration of a 1645 small-caliber utensil (the only one in the article along with over a dozen wide-bowl pipes, all 19th century or later) constitute the reverted edit.

• This is the listing in the Article History:

(cur) (prev) 03:40, 29 December 2009 Frotz (talk | contribs) (22,530 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Tokerdesigner; Rm speculation. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:22, 29 December 2009 Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (22,853 bytes) (balance illustrations in article by including one (1) historic narrow-gauge utensil) (undo)

• Note the reason offered for the revert. The following is the civil(?) "last warning" issued to talk-- note defiant speculation (?) about another editor's ulterior motives:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Smoking pipe (tobacco). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. I'm convinced now that you are a single-purpose editor. For the last time, please stop. Frotz (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• An earlier exchange in which the same editor deletes a contribution to the Talk Page, rare in English Wikipedia practice:

(cur) (prev) 05:11, 28 May 2009 Frotz (talk | contribs) m (2,304 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Tokerdesigner identified as vandalism to last revision by Frotz. (TW)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 01:19, 28 May 2009 Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (4,468 bytes) (anti-overdose conversion diagram) (undo)

• Editors are urged to review the entire article, note the disproportionate glorification of overdose-sized "bowls only", and discuss whether this revert and the "final warning" are warranted.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I consider you a single-purpose editor because most if not all of your edits have focused on the subject of small pipe bowls and what appears to be a mission to tell people about how large bowls are bad. See WP:GREATWRONGS. You have offered absolutely nothing in the realm of verifiability or citations for your assertions. In the absense of evidence otherwise, it looks like you did the research on this yourself. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Your historic narrow gauge utensil is more commonly known as a cutty clay pipe. There is no evidence anyone consciously designed this as a small-bowled pipe for the reasons you advocate. Following Occam's Razor, the bowl is small simply because tobacco was much more expensive at the time the painting was made. Frotz (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

the bowl is small simply because tobacco was much more expensive at the time the painting was made.

Thank you for responding. You have made my case by restating my added assertion above ("most pipe bowls were narrow") as well as the reason offered, i.e. expense of the tobacco. Point is, the unquestionably authentic 1645 picture itself is the evidence needed, in lieu of a "secondary source" text citation. Its very ordinariness for the time (I've seen other old pictures) proves, among other things, how ordinary narrow-crater pieces were. Without that picture the reader is denied either mention or evidence of a narrow-crater utensil history or option, thus the article is unbalanced. At risk of appearing "Greatcausal", Wikipedia editors have a duty to remind persons contemplating smoking, that a safer more moderate use method option still exists, despite all the adverti$ing for hot burning overdose which is geared toward teaching them to stay ignorant thereof.

There has always been a certain leeway for "red links" to articles which don't exist yet but may be recommended to exist. Analogously in this case, if conventional researchers afraid to lose their job have so far failed to publish any findings, proving the advantages of a narrow crater and low burning temperature, in a "secondary resource" journal, WP editors, an army of anonymous geeks in library computer palaces with no job to lose, can get things started by mentioning such issue and thus provoking someone from the "legitimati" finally to do the due diligence and produce the citation material needed. Meanwhile, there is a small residue of Original Research which must be the Research of Last Resort in hopefully rare cases (like smoking, cannabis, tobacco etc.) where research has been blocked for despotic purposes. You could put a "citation needed" flag on, I've seen those sit for months in some articles, and maybe justifiably, if thereby the citation eventually sooner or later turned up.

To the "Single Issue" issue: in the unique case of smoking there is this gorilla in the room, the 6,000,000 deaths-per-year genocide surpassing any other in history and worsening (especially in Asia). Despite protestations of Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO, most of the WP articles with the gerund "smoking" in the title are at the top of the google, and it cannot be surmised that that google-documented flood of readers is all just antiquarians who enjoy reading about quaint stuff, rather those readers are seeking how-to info, and up to now WP has been only offering an overdose of overdose how-to.

Final example: another article on tobacco pipe smoking loaded with dozens of lines of pure uncited how-to description, again all about how to overdose. When I proposed putting the midwakh illustration in that article, near a brief mention of midwakh already present (again, it would have been the only small pipe shown in the article), the motion was denied on grounds that there is the midwakh article, referred to, where the picture can be found. The point, however, is balance-- to have some evidence right there in the article, next to all those glamorous big pipes, that small pipes "also" exist. The midwakh picture will do a better job of informing them how relevant the petite midwakh is than the easily-ignored reference/mention alone.

Thus to address this huge life-or-death "Single Issue" of finding ways, either for confirmed smokers or for children at risk to take up smoking, who have consulted these articles, to find their way to harm reduction methods instead of being lured unwittingly into the same old hot burning overdose.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If your point was simply that pipe bowls were smaller a few hundred years ago, then I would have indeed confirmed your point. However, you ascribe a reason for this that is simply not supported by any visible evidence. The rest of your response can be summed up with WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:AXE, and WP:SNOW. We're all about verifiability here, not pushing any particular agenda. Frotz (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Apology for inadvertently stealing your sentence! I somehow moved the text instead of just copying it. Time was running out on the good old anonymous liebrewery computer.

2. My point is, the picture (Dou, 1645) is the verification.

3. Not blaming you personally but the evidence (how many pictures of this versus of that, for example) is that there is extraordinary deference for the tobacco industry overdose standard all over the Wikipedia.

• Until 2008, there was just one (1) picture on the Cannabis smoking article. It showed a cigarette rolling machine, a pile of unsifted cannabis bud, a rolled "joint", and a pack of cigarette papers with the brand name "BUGLER" staring out at the reader (trademark of a big international tobacco corporation. Except for Big Tobackgo, no industry ever gets that kind of sweetheart treatment on WP).

• On the article Joint there was a "how-to" (see Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO) illustration showing how to mix cannabis with addictive tobacco in the same joint. This practice, long prevalent in Europe and the middle east, may be a prominent part of the eventual decades-later world yearly cigarette death toll (WHO, Feb. 7, 2008: 5.4 million).Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

All that picture verifies is that pipes had smaller bowls in the 1600s than they do now. Nothing there ascribes a reason. I hypothesise that bowl size has more to do with the relative price and availability of tobacco. Here is my reasoning: When tobacco was first introduced to Europe, it was very expensive. That was how most if not all things newly brought over were like. So, we have an expensive product in high demand and low supply. Naturally, then, more people get into the business of tobacco. Through basic economic theory, this works to increase the supply and decrease the price of tobacco. Now more people can afford to smoke larger bowls, so again according to basic economics, we see bowls grow larger. There you have it. What about this chain of facts and extrapolation is unlikely? What is the precise path you followed to reach your conclusion? By the way, what does any of this have to do with Cannabis smoking or Joint? Frotz (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

.

Again, we agree! Both as to the early existence of small crater pipes and as to the reason why (and as to the path followed to the conclusion). Can we not then agree to include the sentence, cited above: Until the past century, when mass marketing made tobacco cheaper and advertisers urged larger dosages, most pipe bowls were narrow permitting small amounts of herb to burn at low temperature.

In lieu of the Gerrit Dou picture, would this other be acceptable?

Similarly to the cannabis-related articles, today's pipe-size issue is health-related. A question still neglected in all the articles is that of inhale vs. non-inhale. One source (I'll look it up later) claims of US tobacco smokers 1% use pipes, 5% cigars, the remaining 94% cigarettes. Presumably almost all the latter are inhalers, as are almost all cannabis users. Assuming you, like Bill Clinton and my late Dad (lived to 92), "don't inhale", this is still relevant because the large size of pipes shown in a heavily visited WP article undergirds the genocidal overdose message cigarette companies benefit from in maintaining their empire.

If cigarette or "joint" addicts (reasonably) seek health advantages by switching to a pipe, there should be an admonition either to abandon inhaling or to adopt a very small crater.Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

We agree to what happened, but not on the motivation. You're asserting a motivation that is simply not supported by historical record. That makes it an opionion and/or original research; which is not what we do here on Wikipedia. I prefer the Gerrit Dou picture over the Arab because it's not at all clear what is going on in the latter picture. Your suggestions in the third paragraph still run afoul of WP:GREATWRONGS. You appear to be on a mission to tell the world about how small pipe bowls are the way to go. If anyone has a mission here, it should be documentation and citation, not evangelism. Frotz (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Other metal tobacco pipes include the very small Japanese kiseru and Arabian midwakh."

Progress has been made on another Pipe smoking-related article toward clarifying the issue of whether a specific design of pipe (narrowness of bowl) applies to inhalant or non-inhalant use. I feel the distinction "tobacco pipe vs. non-tobacco pipe" is far less useful to the reader. It can probably be easily verified of the kiseru and midwakh that they are so small precisely because intended for inhalant use-- of tobacco or anything. So since those pipes are mentioned anyway-- less pertinently under "metal"-- coverage of the inhalant vs non-inhalant distinction belongs in this article too.

(Also: why exclude the sebsi because it is "mainly" used for cannabis, when anyone can use a sebsi any time to inhale from a small plug of cigarette tobacco and possibly a verifiable percentage of all Moroccan smokers do.)

Wikipedia tolerates lingering "red links" which serve as challenge to researchers (unless you or I get it done first) to complete fact-checking; this is one of those legitimate "exceptional" cases. If some mention of this "inhalant" issue here resulted in some inhalant tobacco users getting the idea of switching from cigarettes to a small pipe, millions of lives and a huge share of national health care budgets would be saved, Jimmy would win a NewBowl Prize and $$millions would be raised for Wikipedia (WP:Ignore all rules).Tokerdesigner (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Herodotus described Scythians inhaling the fumes of burning leaves" - anyone can confirm that part? I've checked (but briefly by searching key words) in Herodotus "The Histories" and I couldn't find anything about smoking leaves, just smoking cannabis seeds in small tents.Asiemieniak (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article is getting too many pictures. One picture for each type of pipe is good, but we now have multiple briar and meerchaums. This is disrupting the alignment of having an example of each type right next to its description. Your thoughts? -- Frotz(talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree - but have just made the problem worse by adding a reference to Churchwarden pipe, plus a picture. Is it possible to align the text with the pictures? Hjcross (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The second paragraph is unsourced and reads like copy from an aficionados' handbook on various pipes. In fact, there are many spots in this article that verge on celebratory. --TheDiogenesBarrel (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the section "Sweetening" there's some sources missing. Well, here is in fact one source for how to sweeten a pipe: http://www.thepipe.info/info/congos.html

I have no idea how to edit that into the article, so i'm leaving it here and hoping someone else will know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongkret (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Hookah article has a lengthy discussion of the [associated health risks], it seems odd that this article doesn't mention such things. Far be it from me to suggest pipe smoking is seen as more culturally acceptable to the Wikipedian community than hookah smoking, thus excusing it from censure? But in any case it's a glaring inconsistency. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pipe smoking, while not healthy, is by far the "healthiest" of tobacco consumption methods behind snuff. The average pipe smoker only has a slightly higher chance of cancer than a non-smoker (and this can be confirmed by a google search). The risks exist, but to a lesser extent than any other type of tobacco use (again, behind snuff, which has an almost nonexistant risk level). I see, personally, no reason to have an extensive part of the article devoted to this, but a small "Health Risks" section of an unbiased nature could merit inclusion of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.15.125 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Never saw anyone with cancer of the tongue, lips, or palate from smoking a pipe, have you? It's arguably worse to live with half your face carved off than to die from lung cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tobacco pipe. 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://archive.is/20140711103157/http://academia.edu/7338814/ to http://academia.edu/7338814/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

One of the best poems ever written is ´´ The Pipe ´´ by Baudelaire. Perhaps one of the english versions could improve this article! ( Ulftomme ) 2A00:1830:A001:F007:0:0:0:6 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a phrase that reads "Most pipe tobaccos are less mild than cigarette tobacco" which sounds confusing and I'm not sure what it means. "less mild" in flavor? in nicotine content? Also, this would mean it's more powerful in some respects, and I'm not sure how that's being measured. OrlikGS89 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply