Talk:Bong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] cleaning methods

perhaps a section on cleaning methods? I can write it if you want.What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, SOMEBODY Likes to smoke...

[edit] Ash-catchers and diffusers

These two nifty bong attachments are a staple among experienced smokers, and should be included in this article. What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) ...HEY what about percolators (sp?), you know the things that bring the smoke through another water chamber, that my favorite part of the "water pipe"! ~ConMan~

[edit] Bongs vs. other devices

A longtime smoker i've been considering the THC concentration difference between bong and other hits and their relative differences as far as potency and concentration of carcinogens. This is what i thought: compare: bong and bowl. 1. put same amount of weed in both 2. a hit's density/length/volume are all dependent interchangeably on the burning sensation that signals the end of your ability to take a hit 3. : if the burning sensation is a result of the burning tissue then a hit out of a bong will be longer/denser but we have left the amount of weed the same and the hit bubbled through water has lost THC by any amount (regardless there is some Ksp). 4. now make the system uneven and put more weed in the bong than in the bowl 5. hit again and realize that the hit can continue to greater duration/density than the bowl so while THC is lost to the water, the total consumption of weed is greater and there is also less unintentional loss (loss to air in a bong). Also are the carcinogens in marijuana soluble in water? There are sources on both sides of this matter. Some even go as far as to say that marijuana can't cause lung cancer because that fear related to smoking is a result of radioactive polonium which is in cigarettes improperly associated with weed. Got any ideas?

There are no carcinogens in marijuana. This claim I make is based on a study using a group of tobacco smokers, a group of marijuana smokers, a group who did not smoke, and a group who smoked both. Those who only smoked marijuana were less likely to get cancer than even those who smoked neither. Also, the amount of THC lost in water is so infinitely small that you can't even take a factor like this into account. What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read, there ARE carcinogens in marijuana, however, there are other chemical reactions that occur when smoking marijuana that seem to counteract these carcinogens, where as with tobacco, this doesn't occur.Mmortal03 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


I can't comment on this much because I'm not a professional (other then personal experience), but I think bongs are healthier is a big misconception (I like to have a bong every now and then, but have given it a rest because my lungs aren't as good as i thought they were) A bong seems to be more like a 'hit' and throws you around, but a joint or a hash pipe seems to make this a somewhat calmer experience, and my lungs don't feel wrecked, but i will leave this to the experts, just wanted to leave my comment in here Steve (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bong water

What do bong water energy drinks have to do with bongs? Or is it the result of a typical wikipediaism where every minorly tangential item is shoe horned in. --75.22.182.130 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Archive (2002-May 2006)

[edit] The user should been known as the smoker

For example the user of a plane is known as a pilot. Same thing here, should be known as the smoker.

Bong water + ash may become slightly alkali, but refering to the formation of Lye (sodium hydroxide) is a bit overblown. The actual pH will actually go slightly down (acidic) due to acidic cannabaloids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.26.110 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Needs Re-Numbering

When re-writing the "General" section into the "Basic Structure" section, I wrote about number 2 on the picture first because it made the explanation more linear and short. If you want to keep my re-write could someone please update the picture and my numbering. Thank you.

[edit] description

bottom two paragraphs of this seem contradictory. Joints are better, but bongs are better.. hmm

There are many heated debates about this subject... the fact of the matter is that they are both efficient in their own way. What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Has anyone ever lived that smoked tobacco out of a bong? Not a hookah, a bong?

Large portions of this article are without sources. Are there any unsourced sections that are worth looking for citations for?
brenneman {L} 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can aluminum (tin) foil be toxic?

The article seems unsure of this; one section says that aluminum foil is toxic when used as a bowl and should not be used, another section says that the vaporization temperature of aluminum is above that of a bic lighter flame, hence it is not toxic.

I think a definitive answer on this is important. Is foil, or an aluminum can safe, or is it not?

I highly recommend not to use foil. It tastes gross. ReverendG 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
One can observe the reaction when a piece of aluminum foil is placed under the lighter's or match's flame. It does catch fire, and I'm pretty certain there is very good reason to believe that this releases REMARKABLY harmful chemicals, such as poisonous oxides. In my opinion, this should certainly be noted in the article. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.233.243.229 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
I do not recommend aluminum foil for use but I am a veteran foil user and the only foil i believe would be toxic is from a cigerette pack.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.44.96 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

The studies are ambiguous, but certain researchers have linked aluminum to Alzheimer's. It also tastes very bad. I have no reliable source so this can't go in the main article, but I figured it was worth posting here because your health and safety is at risk. Stick to glass.What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bamboo

i would just like to point out that it is possible to make a type of bong/pipe called a steamroller (ive heard it lovingly named a bamboozie before) out of bamboo by taking a length of bamboo, making it a hollow cylinder, and placing a bowl in the side of one end. you simple place your mouth over the end farthest from the bowl and your hand over the other, you light the bowl, draw smoke into the bamboo cylinder, and then remove your hand from the end and inhale. Exactly like a shotgun, but for one person. --Mad Gouki 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is a form of pipe, not a bong. Bongs are water filtered.

[edit] Bong, water pipe, Hookah - what are the differences?

I've been dealing a with the terms Bong, water pipe and Hookah in recent edits, but I can't really understand what the difference is. Are bongs and hookah's both waterpipes, if so, what are the differences? Please can someone try to clear this up for me (and please do so in the lead intro of each article!) Jens Nielsen 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Their mechanism is slightly different, although they are both water pipes. I'm sure there's a diagram somewhere showing, idk though. In a hookah, the bowl is at the top and the smoke travels down an inner pipe, bubbles out of the water into the chamber, and then out of the chamber through a hose into the user's mouth. In a bong, the bowl is near the bottom so that it is close to the water, and the smoke doesn't have to travel though a long pipe to get to it. It bubbles directly into the chamber, which is often directly connected to where the user places their mouth. Also the bowls are typically different shapes, and a bong has a carb, and a hookah either doesn't, or it isn't intended to be covered. Also a hookah can have more than one hose, although it doesn't have to. (Don't take my word 100% though, this is just what I've gathered from the articles and my experience.) --Anaraug 04:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
AFIAK, a Hookah is less likely to be used for smoking marijuana or other potentially illegal drugs - judging from my experience, it is mostly used with special flavored tobacco. But as I said, this is just my personal observation and maybe also depends on cultural aspects. 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you add vaporizers to the list of things that need their differences clarified and explained among them?Mmortal03 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Bong?

The solar bong has to be a joke. There are no sources on the internet about solar bongs, and after constructing one I have found it does not work.

never heard of a solar bong, however, solar hits can be taken by replacing a lighter or traditional heat source with a sizeable magnifying glass and the sun. this is rarely done outside of california


Solar bongs are sold in almost every head shop.What's up Dr. Strangelove 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You should know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.140.213 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

there are too many pictures. ReverendG 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Restructuring plan

I'm the original writer of the principles and motivations sections some years ago (especially proud that my principles section got illustrated) and I think I know how to improve this article's structure greatly. Some of the restructuring's drastic, which is why I'm explaining it in advance. It is not my stated intention to remove anything at this point, but I do intend to isolate a number of things that aren't actually bong-related in a section that will ultimately be splintered into a new article (named "Other drug smoking methodologies" or whatever). Below is my proposal, with my signature interspersed to facilitate chaotic expansion.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction and categorization of article: paraphernalia=POV?

The introduction needs a lot of work. I think it's POV to call this drug paraphernalia, but not hookahs or cigarettes or tea kettles. Am I wrong, people? The legality of cannibus is clearly a peripheral issue. This is a technology: when it's used to combust a legal substance a bong is a legal object.rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First major structural change: section 2 leads with the technologies

The overall structure should be changed so that 1.1, parts of 2,2.1,3,4.1, are grouped into a major section (2') named Description of bong technologies. This will also contain a history section; all of those should be more cross-referenced to hookah.

proposed structure of revised section 2:

  • General physical layout of a bong
  • Physical principles of bong action
  • Other bong technologies
    • Enhancement of cooling effect (ice tricks, flavorings, special solvents)
    • Enhancement of combustion methodology ("vaporiser bong" would get gutted and go here)
    • Enhanced control of smoke delivery (slides, carbs, large vs. small chambers, etc)
    • Embellishments on the basic bong design
      • Improvised (homemade-MacGyvah-soldiah)
      • Bubbler
      • "Zong" (think this should be merged into enhancements of cooling)rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Motivations" section should be focused on health (or, perceived health) benefits, with a subsection on research into this area.rmbh 07:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second major change, section 3: care and use, also, a place to isolate anecdotal claims.

I'm going to place the relatively peripheral stuff in some sort of slush category. This will contain the sections 2.2, 2.3, as well as parts of 2.1, and whatever is excised from the material comprising the revised section 2 (above).rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Finally, place the gravity bong and other "pseudo-bong technologies" in some sort of collector section

rmbh 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Make a bong gallery that showcases some different styles of bongs. Acrylic, glass, fat bases, skinny bases, zongs etc... --Arm 03:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ReverendG 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco or Cannabis?

Someone keeps changing Bong to indicate that bongs are used primarily to smoke tobacco. It seems to me that while it might be possible to smoke tobacco in a bong, and this is a reason one might give for owning a bong, it is far more common for bongs to be used in the process of smoking cannabis. I have heard of tobacco pipes, but never tobacco bongs. What do y'all say? BobbyLee 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The user who keeps changing it claims that shops that sell bongs must claim that they are tobacco. I can imagine this being true, but unless he/she finds a verifiable source, then we can't include that information because of WP:NOR. In any case, we already have sources that refer to bongs being primarily used for cannabis, so there is no basis for changing that at all. I would be ok, with "A bong is used for smoking cannabis or ..list of other things.., but they must be sold as if they will be used for tobacco according to the laws in many jurisdictions (cite source)." Or something. We should discuss it further here before adding that though. --Anaraug 03:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok... I tried to strike a compromise, but now that user is blatantly ignoring policy which I have intentionally made him/her aware of, so we're no longer able to assume good faith... We might need to get an admin or someone to do something about it. Until then just keep reverting I guess. --Anaraug 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all English-speaking countries have such laws; the reality is that the majority of bongs sold worldwide are intended for Cannabis use. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know they are. I just meant that it still might be notable enough to mention that some jurisdictions have such a law, but I don't think it's important enough to actively go look for a source, etc. --Anaraug 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought of the term waterpipe referring to a bong used for tobacco, but when bong is used it's always weed (or crack). ReverendG 06:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be at it again. ReverendG 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I also see a lot of jargon: "can allow a user on a tight budget to conserve bud and still get toasted." Suggest "smoker to use substance very efficiently." Was whoever wrote the original smoking dope at the time?;-)209.43.10.224 05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Mike Williamson

agree with suggestion and, to answer your question, probably. ReverendG 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom & Greg

Vandalism. They're irrelevant to the article.

[edit] Percolator bong

Has anyone ever heard of the percolator bong? Its like a bong, but there are more then one water filters all fitted into 1 chamber. Less harsh then the zong. It would be a good thing to add to Wikipedias collection. --Arm 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco and cannabis

Both are used in abong, the former in many arab countries like Morocco, SqueakBox 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The apparatus used in Morocco is more accurately described as a Hookah; this article is clearly about a device that is most commonly used to smoke Cannabis. I don't think it's necessary to provide citations for what a bong is used for; it's common knowledge. If someone insists on citations, here are a few [1] [2]. The second reference mentions the fact that while it's common knowledge that bongs are intended for cannabis, Head shop owners in the US (and perhaps other locations) market them for tobacco consumption to skirt drug laws, which the head shop article already mentions. Here's an example of a court case. [3]. This article should reflect the reality that bongs are primarily used for marijuana use. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. They are used as such in the first world, in the arab world they are often used in public for tobacco. You reverting cites makes either a POV pusher or a vandal, SqueakBox 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who engages in persional attacks, see your edit summaries which are a personal attack on me. There is no reason to remove the cite requests other than POV pushing or vandalsim. Which is it? I suspect the former. Just give the refs or leave the article be, SqueakBox 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see via my recent contributions that there are no attacks in my edit summaries or messages regarding this topic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This and this clearly contain attacks in your edit summary, and if you are an experienced user you must surely know this, SqueakBox 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are automatically generated by the Administrator rollback tool. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And you had no excuse to use that admin tool when reverting me. That was telling everyone that I am a vandal, and for wanting cites for unreferenced information. Please dont abuse your admin tools like this, thety should be used for real vandalism, of which my request edits were clearly not an example, SqueakBox 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The rollback summary does not mention vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It implies it as the rollback is for use for reverting vandalism, I wouldnt be narked otherwise, hence the link to the contributions of the person being reverted so others can check their contribs for further vandalism. As an admin I would expect you to know this and not use the tool when reverts arent vandalism, SqueakBox 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking out sources is not vandalism.

Seriously. The US Government is not an authority on bongs. In any way, shape, or form. Tobacco can be used in a bong... but so can parsley and sage. The point is that CANNABIS IS THE MATTER THAT IS TYPICALLY SMOKED IN A BONG, and that TOBACCO IS THE MATTER THAT IS TYPICALLY SMOKED IN A HOOKAH. Okay? 71.147.39.11 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says, SqueakBox 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Bong

I have a nice picture of a bong(never thought I'd say that).10-23-2006-01.jpg I think this page has enough pictures to let someone know what a bong looks like and it might be a bit extraneous to add, but take a look @ this pic I have and see if it's worth it, maybe even as a file that links to the page. Flclovesun 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Maybe even to show the art of the specialized glass working? i don't know.Flclovesun 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

|Regarding the above mention of the steamroller: yes, it's quite legitimate, though it usually gave me some pretty intense headaches, for whatever reason; in absence of a some kind of coolant, however, it is a pipe, not a bong.

Regarding ice: IMHO, this facet receives insufficient attention, particularly since HS level physics alone reveals many advantages (and a few potential drawbacks for the unwary. ) In short, ices latent heat requires 80 calories/gram to overcome; this will NOT change temperature, merely create 0° C water. Another 80 calories will raise that gram of 0° water to 80°, or roughly 177° F. That's more than it takes to raise room temperature water to boiling temperature (though waters latent heat must be overcome before steam is produced.)

One advantages is immediately obvious, and arguably greater with ice in the BASE instead of/in addition to the CHAMBER. In addition, in a base with even a little ice water temperature CANNOT rise until ALL ice is melted. Simple experimentation will quickly confirm what I verified by experience: ice water stays very cold as long as even a little ice remains; once the last ice melts, the water is at or above room temperature in just a few hits. A similar effect is familiar to those familiar with heavy snow fall: temperatures won't fall much below freezing until the first snow sticks, but once lasting snow arrives it will be at or below freezing until it's all gone.

Another (comparatively rare) physical property of water is a potential trouble spot, particularly with LOTS of ice in the base (hence that isn't normally done:) water takes more space just before freezing than just after, (if you place a full glass of water in the freezer it will crack when it freezes. ) For the bong, this means if the water level is at or near the bowl (running the risk of soaking the cannabis/tobacco) melting ice WILL soak the cannabis/tobacco. So if you put ice in the base, don't overfill, leave a little room for the ice to expand as it melts. Ice in the chamber as well requires special care, since it will run down to the base when melted. Often one can simply tip the bong the after some ice melts, letting the excess water out the carb, or with a slide remove the bowl and pour it out the stem.

Last but not least is another benefit--IF you're not greedy. Otherwise, it's a deteriment: gas volume and/or pressure rise as temperature, per the Ideal Gas Law. An icy base is near 0°; body temperature is 27°: hits expand as the lungs warm them, literally pressing the smoke into the lungs, a potential benefit for concentration/speed. However, much as with the base, YOU CAN'T OVERFILL! Overfilling the base is annoying, but wee-er, cannabis/tobacco will dry; overfilling your lungs with low temperature gas is dangerous, because if volume can't increase, pressure MUST!

Good news: You can take smaller hits that are force fed into your lungs at (initially) near freezing (technically, they're NOT smaller hits, they just take up less space and get gravity bonged.)

Bad news: If you're greedy and try to monster hit you'll cough it up in a matter of seconds, and possibly burst a blood vessel if you try to hold it (you CAN'T;) continuing the gravity bong analogy, it's like if you had a trash can gravity bong and tried to shove it into your lungs: it's not gonna work, and trying could hurt.

The bottom line is if you're not greedy ice, preferably in the base, makes the experience more efficient in both resources and intensity; I won't smoke without ice in the base.

Regarding alcohol: while there is risk of some chemical bonding, THC and nicotine are both covalently bonded, like ethanol; they won't bond with the alcohol, but they WILL dissolve in it (but not water. ) On the other hand, ethanol is a gas at room temperature, meaning it can be inhaled WITH the THC or nicotine, and as with most drugs will produce a "multiplier effect." However, as already noted in the article, ethanol IS flammable, and it IS a gas at room temperature; just as there will be alcohol vapor in the chamber there will be in the stem, and if it reaches the flash point nasty things can happen. Ice, placed in the base (to cool the ethanol rather than the smoke alone) is probably a good idea here. Bad news: you'll get less of the ethanol vapors in the hits; good news: the bong's much less likely to ignite and/or explode.

I think that covers it; the best part is it can be verified in any HS chem lab.|

[edit] shotty info unsatisfactory

well, you removed the shotty page. fair play, it was a mess and probably needed combining with this article anyway, but youve totally failed to define what a shotty is in this article. maybe you should have read the article and made an effort to transplant the necessary information to this page. a shotty is a bong without a cup or gauze, and uses a plate of tobacco to block the tube while the weed rests on top. what happened to the details of the yatti kit? wikipedia nazis strike again!


Hahaha I loke how this article is longer than the article on Lutheranism. 24.6.118.254 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry really off topic.

[edit] Tobacco

"A bong, also commonly known as a water pipe, is a smoking device, generally used to smoke tobacco, but also other substances, such as marijuana although that is not what it was intended for and not to mention illegal in most countries."

Generally used for tobacco?

In spite of the big "PIPES ARE FOR TOBACCO USE ONLY" loophole signs you see in headshops to avoid legal trouble, I have never met anyone on earth who uses a bong for smoking tobacco. It's laughable that an article claiming to be factual would state that bongs are "generally used to smome tobacco," and that a minority of bong users are using them for cannabis.

Face it. Bongs are for getting stoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.62.102 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need a legality note in the opening

The distinction between bong and water pipe should be made clear in the opening paragraphs airing on the side of protecting the reader from possible misuse of the word "bong" in public discourse. Because the usage of the word bong in a head/smoke shop can get one evicted from the store and the use of the word bong to describe one's water pipe to a police officer may be grounds for probable cause, the difference between water pipe and bong should be given more distinction than "bong, also commonly known as a water pipe."


I added a note in the introduction to use the slang "bong" with caution in public because of the aforementioned reasons, but it was deleted.

It should be clear to people who only scan the intro that "bong" is slang, should not be used interchangeably with water pipe in U.S. shops that sell smoking devices, and should not be used interchangeably with water pipe when communicating with U.S. peace officers, and "water pipe" should be used in place of "bong" when in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.218.176 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are other places on the internet to get bong-shopping tips and appallingly bad legal advice. (Please see Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.)
The claim that Tommy Chong went to prison "because he called his smoking devices "Chong's Bongs" instead of water pipes [emphasis added]]" is bunk.

"[A]nother agent, pretending to be a head-shop customer in Texas, asked Tommy Chong, during an in-store appearance on behalf of Nice Dreams, if the company’s pipes were good for smoking marijuana. Chong didn’t hesitate to answer yes — a reply that would be used against him in court." LA Weekly

By all means, clean that section up. Otherwise I will remove it entirely the next time I see it in its current state.
.s
X ile 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk
It's not just U.S.-centrism, but Utah-centrism (WHOIS 67.182.218.176). Unsourced utter bollocks from a user relating his experience in an unusual legal environment. Copy it from the history and paste it into the Drug laws in Utah article. It does not belong here without proper sources. - X ile 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] Pop culture refs

Any and all pop culture references not consistent with the content policies verifiability, no original research, and neutral point-of-view will be removed by me within 240 hours of this posting or on sight, whichever comes later. Please see Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X ile (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 July 2007

Real smart, X ile, to set a deadline and then forget to sign and provide the relevant date. Ack — X ile 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Talk
As there is a difference of opinion regarding the popular culture section, I suggest that we attempt to obtain some form of consensus regarding this, rather than just reverting eachothers edits. I consider bongs to be an important part of popular culture, their usage has a social impact, they are refered to both seriously and in jest, in numerous songs, movies, books etc. Popular culture references are NPOV, people are able to add positive/negative references, as they are purely stating facts. Popular culture references are commonplace in wikipedia, so it would seem that consensus supports themSennen goroshi 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How many encyclopedias do you own have Popular Culture/Trivia sections in them? This IS an encyclopedia, go somewhere else with crap, this is for well sourced relevant information. SpigotMap 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit on the content. 1. obtain some consensus before removing sections. 2 Do not refer to my edits as 'crap' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a limit to the content and it is set by policies, guidelines, and editors. Trivia/Pop Culture sections are nothing but a collection of crap that can't be put anywhere else. These sections will either be sourced and integrated or removed. This one can't be integrated because it contains nothing but CRAP. I don't have to obtain consensus before removing sections, I wasn't opposed after the removal until now. How about YOU obtain consensus before adding irrelevant unsourced sections? And sign your posts. SpigotMap 09:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, please dont refer to my edits as/or containing "crap" - secondly I didn't realise that you did not have to obtain consensus, before making numerous reverts, I must have misunderstood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Sennen goroshi 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
What you guys are doing is edit-warring. I have protected the page until this gets sorted out. Please don't just blindly change the article, or you could be in violation of WP:3RR. I left the version without the trivia section, because although the article has had a trivia section for quite some time, Sennen Goroshi needs to explain why this loose collection of facts deserves to be there, in light of WP:TRIV. Remember, please discuss, and lets all be friends here. AdamBiswanger1 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
fair enough, I think that as many articles have "references in popular culture" (or something similar) sections, that as long as it does not detract from the main article, and is not overly long, then it is relevant, verifiable and most importantly interesting for the reader. I have no issue with restricting that section to a few lines, and only notable references - ie. not every song that mentions bongs. I am aware of the guidelines regarding trivia sections, and because of that think it should be a minor section, and should never dominate the whole article. I also think the fact that a couple of wikipedians deleted or proposed its deletion, despite the fact that it existed for a long time does not show consensus - this is not a paper dictionary, there is no limit (within reason) on space, and to have a few verifiable, non-intrusive facts included does no harm, and in some cases might be useful for the reader. Oh and..thanks for stepping in, this was getting a little silly, in my own defence, I did try to discuss this with the other editor, but just got responses along the lines of "This one can't be integrated because it contains nothing but CRAP" and "This IS an encyclopedia, go somewhere else with crap" which did make me think that just going ahead and editing it, might be better than trying to discuss it, when all I was getting was abuse in response to my requests. Also reading "I don't have to obtain consensus before removing sections" made me think that if I did get consensus supporting my opinion, that the editor would just revert anyway, as he seems to think he does not need consensus. I considered making a complaint re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility but wondered if talking to him about it, might be a better choice. I dont think that has got me very far as yet.Sennen goroshi 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, trivia sections should only include things that give cultural insight into whatever it is, or are significantly unexpected or unusual. But that's just my opinion. Could you post an abbreviated version of the trivia section you would like below? AdamBiswanger1 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Even with references, the "popular culture" items were all "In (some show) (actor) is walking through a room and a bong is seen in the background" or something of that nature. Also, even though other articles have trivia sections, they are being worked out and integrated slowly. Regardless this is this article, so an argument of other crap exists is not valid. SpigotMap 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that trivia sections generally should be avoided, but if there is information in these sections that substantively adds to the article, then it should be included. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
* A case involving a high school student in Juneau, Alaska who was suspended for holding a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from his school during a winter Olympics torch relay contested that his 1st amendment rights had been violated, lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is the only piece of trivia that could be possibly kept and integrated, with sources. The only problem is if you add this, then anything involving bongs and amendment rights could be added (not sure of US law on amendments). What about Tommy Chong? Were his rights amendments offended when his shop got raided and bongs were taken? SpigotMap 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the following
  • In the Simpsons episode "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" (9F21), Bart unintentionally purchases a bong at the Springfield swap meet. On the way home he says, "I bought this cool pencil holder." Homer then replies, "Heh heh, far out man! I haven't seen a bong in years."
  • A case involving a high school student in Juneau, Alaska who was suspended for holding a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from his school during a winter Olympics torch relay contested that his 1st amendment rights had been violated, lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • The song titled "Hits from the bong" from the 1993 album Black Sunday by Cypress Hill makes numerous references to bongs in the lyrics.

one Simpsons reference (there is no need for references relating to drug culture movies - as you take those references for granted) and the Simpsons are notable

The court case - it is relevant, and was merely a reference to a bong, not usage/possesion of a bong.

Cypress Hill song - 1 song reference, and possibly the most famous song with the word bong in the title as well as in the lyrics.

Three references would be enough to warrant a refernces in popular culture section, but at the same time would be few enough so as not to overwhelm the article/previous sections. I would imagine that if a more notable reference came to light in either TV or music, instead of adding to the section, the new reference could replace the current reference. If another court case occurred then it might be better to add a new reference, rather than deleting the current reference. In short, 3 references, with the most notable TV/Movie reference, the most notable musical reference, and the court case. Cases related to bong usage/possesion/sales need not be here, just cases related to referring to bongs ie Bong hits for Jesus. What do you think? I'm more than happy to discuss this, and obviously willing to abide by any rulings/overwhelming consensus - this is what should have happened from the start, discussion and compromise, rather than 2 editors getting a little to close to a 3RR related ban.Sennen goroshi 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. the point here is to integrate trivia items. How are you going to integrate a simpsons appearance in to the article? I can see a section on controversy or something, but a simpsons appearance section? Generally, you don't need consensus to remove a trivia section, you need consensus to keep it after an editor removes it. SpigotMap 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that you did not require consensus to remove it, however I do require consensus to keep it, I'm sorry due to me to rather new to wikipedia, I'm unaware of many rules such as that - could you point to where that is stated, please?

It's confusing but there seem to be many contradictions for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TRIV#What_this_guideline_is_not " There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

   * This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
   * This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format.
   * This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized."

that seems to state that you should not remove trivia, and in some cases a list is better than nothing.

I see no issue with having 3 examples in a popular reference section, I was more than willing in the spirit of compromise to reduce the original list to 3 notable examples, does that compromise go both ways? Are you willing to agree to a small section, with the most notable examples? I think that would be a good solution as it does not dominate the article, and it was given as the last section, would give people the option of reading, after they have digested the main facts.

Try to remember that this is not a paper dictionary, we have the luxury of almost unlimited space, we should be trying to give the reader more information, rather then less, as long as the extra information does not detract from the article.Sennen goroshi 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Maybe the problem lies in my opinions regarding popular references - while I agree that a huge list of movies/songs/books that mention X is a waste of time, and unless you are talking about a cultural icon, should not exist, I do think that a few references enhance wikipedia, I can see why people dislike the pop references sections, and they do need to be trimmed/incorporated in most articles, however the rulings/edits/consensus in wikipedia should always be flexible and only enforced when not to do so, would detract from wikipedia, common sense should win over everything else, wikipedia is not a scietific paper, it is not limited to 1000 words per article, so work out - does this detract from the article or not?Sennen goroshi 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to un-protect this article b/c it looks like we can come to a civil conclusion. AdamBiswanger1 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks, I certainly will not make any major changes until we have either come to an agreement, or there are some more opinions in favour of retaining or removing the pop culture section. On that note, it would be nice if a few people gave their opinions, in the end if there is overwhelming consensus supporting either of us, then I will be happy to go along with the consensus - it would be nice to come to some form of compromise, but as it stands, it would only be a compromise based on the opinions of two editors. One further comment in support of my suggestions - bongs are part of culture, they are a part of some groups' social activities, they deserve a popular references section in the same way that Nike, Cadillac and Michael Jordan do, and pens, tables and wallpaper do not. But please, some more opinions please - otherwise we may come to an agreement, only for the next pair of stubborn editors to have the same issues.Sennen goroshi 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What does a Simpsons spotting add to this article? How does it improve on it? The legal trouble I can see, but that's not pop culture, that's legal trouble. Pop Culture/Trivia sections are a placeholder for information to be added to the article, judged, and or removed. A list of random junk should not be left in an article forever. SpigotMap 03:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


It adds to an article, because while it might not be of interest to you, it would certainly be of interest to others, and also as it is an article regarding an object which has social implications, it is relevant to document what sort of impact it has had on pop culture - while it most certainly doesn't inform the reader about bongs, it is still relevant. Oh, and as we seem to be discussing this now, rather than just reverting eachother (which is a nice improvement) I might as well ask again, are you willing to compromise at all here? or will you just delete my proposed section that has a mere 3 references?Sennen goroshi 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm going to post below the section to see which little bits of trivia a)are mentioned by someone/something very notable, and b} contribute something substantive to our cultural understanding of the Bong. AdamBiswanger1 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the proposed section

  1. In the Simpsons episode "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" (9F21), Bart unintentionally purchases a bong at the Springfield swap meet. On the way home he says, "I bought this cool pencil holder." Homer then replies, "Heh heh, far out man! I haven't seen a bong in years."
  2. In the Simpsons episode "The Way We Was" (7F12), Homer and Marge recount the story of how they met. At their prom, Principal Dondelinger works the door and chaperons the prom. At the door, a student tries to enter with a bong, Dondelinger says "Wait a second, is that a bong?" The student then points at his throat and Dondelinger replies, "You have asthma? All right. Move along."
  3. A case involving a high school student in Juneau, Alaska who was suspended for holding a sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across from his school during a winter Olympics torch relay contested that his 1st amendment rights had been violated, lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  4. In the Futurama episode "Bendin' In the Wind," Fry brings a 1000-year old VW microbus back to Planet Express. As he shows the crew the vehicle, Professor Farnsworth asks where the device to slow and speed the passage of time is. Fry reaches under the seat and pulls out a bong.
  5. On an episode of the short-lived Clerks cartoon TV show, Leonardo Leonardo unveils his super-convenience store that rivals the Quick Stop. Jay remarks the L-shaped (for "Leonardo") building resembles a "big bong." A dog walks by and he adds that the canine also resembles a bong.
  6. In the animated series Code Monkeys, the character Dave has turned his computer into a bong. He also possesses an allegedly-superior "dega bong".
  7. On an episode of Saturday Night Live in the sketch "Jarret's Room" Jarret's roommate enters with a 3-foot long purple bong saying, "Bong," to the beat of the Star Wars theme song.
Ok. I crossed out the factoids that seem to contribute nothing to the understanding of the Bong. It's just my opinion, so feel free to post below. There may well be a need for a trivia section here, but some of these in particular aren't very strong. AdamBiswanger1 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I would agree with you, due to the fact that the references you suggested are all verifiable, I would also like to propose that if a more notable reference surfaces, that it would replace one of the existing references, not be put here in addition to the existing references, thus keeping the section small - the only proviso I would suggest is that if another legal issue arises, it is place in addition to, rather than replacing the current legal case - two media references are enough.Sennen goroshi 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Where does the legal issue come in to play? I've been around here a while and I've never heard anything about that. AdamBiswanger1 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I think I messed up and didn't manage to explain very well... What I meant to say was.......the three references you said were the best are good, three references are enough, if a better TV/Music/Movie reference comes along, then instead of adding one more, it should replace the existing article, rather than adding to it ......however (and this is where things got confusing) there is one reference to a legal case due to the "bong hits for jesus" issue, if someone else gets into legal trouble due to a reference to a bong (pretty unlikely) then that reference should be added to the list, rather than replacing an item. well thats what I think anywaySennen goroshi 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok- it sounds good. I think this is pretty reasonable conclusion we've reached. Any thoughts/comments/objections, SpigotMap? AdamBiswanger1 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with it, if it's cited. Currently none of them are cited. SpigotMap 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank for citing, Adambiswanger1. I think we've reached a common ground :D. Btw, you didn't have to reference websites, you could have just cited the episodes, but I'm not familiar with how to do that. SpigotMap 03:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

The mention of Bongs appearing on TV shows here is ridiculously non-notable. Based on this criteria for inclusion thousands of bongs seen in movies and TV shows should be mentioned in this article. Instead I suggest removing the references that are here and instead include things that are notable, for instance if a reviewer or other journalist mentioned bongs or their use in a film, book or TV show, that would be a more usable criteria for inclusion.66.41.66.213 06:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I think the number one thing this article is lacking is a history section, documenting the first uses and evolution of the bong. Anybody know this info? AdamBiswanger1 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The majority of this article is unsourced. It would be unnecessary to tag every single missing citation, most of which is most likely not verifiable and actually original research. This article needs massive trimming along with much more sourcing. For those not familiar, EVERY claim in this article needs to be backed up by a reliable source. If you can not verify something, it needs to be removed, as it is original research. SpigotMap 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleaning

why is there a section on pop culture references but not a section on maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.236.151 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use picture

The picture illustrating the use of a bong seems a little like the user was more concerned with being recognized (a valid concern) than with actually illustrating how a bong works, and, therefore, the picture doesn't do much more than show a guy smoking a bong. Also, if you click on the picture and bring it up full-size, you can see that he's sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle; I don't know if that's necessarily the image WP should be projecting.... —  MusicMaker5376 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't add much; I could care less if it stays or goes. --David Shankbone 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The image is so grainy/low resolution it doesn't seem to add much to the article. Wouldn't care if it was gone either.--Sandahl 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it...it smacked of "hey, lets put a picture of us getting high on Wikipedia!" OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Much agreed. —  MusicMaker5376 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a picture of a bong being smoked at a public event and the face is not that identifiable, facing down with shades on. I will upload it and put it here and see what people think. Johnny Two Tokes (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, apparently I am to new to be trusted to upload a picture. Johnny Two Tokes (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Tobacco" vandal

Since at least 2007, this user has been on a crusade to remove references to cannabis in this article despite references that indicate that, regardless of legality in various jurisdictions, that cannabis is the most common (but not the only) substance smoked in a bong (whereas tobacco may well be more common in a hookah). The user typically uses vague or misleading edit summaries when doing so ([4],[5],[6]). I'd blocked this user's static IP for six months following their most recent crusade to remove cannabis references from the lead. Now it appears that they are using dynamic IPs in the 71.109.* range. Free free to report or block on site. If it persists, a range block may be in order. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Novelty" bongs?

I added an entry in "variations" section to give some info about bongs constructed from various items for novelty or awesomeness value (and so people coming to this article after hearing about the recent skull-bong fracas will get some information). However, I'm not sure "novelty bong" is the right term; I haven't seen any name given to this sort of thing, but perhaps "homemade" or "jerry-rigged" bong would get the idea across better. dclayh (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)