Talk:Cigar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Cigar as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Macedonian language Wikipedias.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cigar article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
2006 and earlier

.

Contents

[edit] Cigar Aficionado message board posts as references in article

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

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

[edit] Before

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation."[16] .
Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer, relative to cigarette smokers, for moderate cigar smokers who smoke one or two cigars per day; and that the risks increase with additional cigar usage. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" [17]. An analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. Schneiderman demonstrates that the NIH data shows that at 1-2 cigars per day, there is a lower overall risk of developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, compared to the non-smoking population; and since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be slightly protected from developing lung cancer and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers. The "all cause" of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day or less is not significantly higher when compared to those who never smoked[18].

[edit] After

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" but do not inhale the smoke[19], and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily) [1]. According to The Nuclear Energy Option by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh, the reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation."[20] Occasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Another study, conducted by the National Institute of Health shows an increased risk for oral cancers, but a lower risk of lung cancer (relative to cigarette smokers) for moderate users who smoke one or two cigars per day. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" [2]. The NIH study has been accused of using misleading statistics in citing tobacco health risks, with regards to cigar smoking and second hand smoke, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers.[21]

[edit] Proposed

Cigars contain nicotine, which can become addictive to smokers when used frequently. Nevertheless, cigar smokers on average face fewer health risks than do cigarette smokers, because most cigar smokers "puff" the smoke into their mouths, but do not inhale the smoke into their lungs[22], and most cigar smokers smoke only occasionally (less than daily)[23]. According to a report by Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh on the risks of early death due to exposure to nuclear radiation and other causes in The Nuclear Energy Option, the average reduced life expectancy of a "pack-a-day" cigarette smoker who inhales deeply is about 8.6 years, while cccasional inhaling of cigar smoke reduces life expectancy by 3.2 years on average. Non-inhaling cigar smokers showed negligible reduction in life expectancy on average, and the report concluded that "Cigar and pipe smoking do little harm if there is no inhalation."[24]

Another cigar smoking study, published by Cancer.org and conducted by the National Institute of Health states that "Cigar smoking increases your risk of death from several cancers, including cancer of the lung, oral cavity (lip, tongue, mouth, throat), esophagus (the tube connecting the mouth to the stomach), and larynx (voice box)."[25] But an analysis of the NIH data by Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. shows the NIH used misleading statistics and statements in citing the health risks, with regards to cigar smoking, relative to the health risks seen in the general populace and among non-smokers. The NIH data shows an increased risk of death, relative to non-smokers, from emphysema, and oral, buccal, pharynx, larynx, and pancreatic cancers, for smokers of 1-2 cigars a day, relative to non-smokers, and that the health risks increase with additional cigar usage. But the NIH data also showed a lower risk of death from lung cancer and coronary artery disease, and only a slight increased risk overall of death from "all causes" for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day, relative to non-smokers [26]. The NIH study goes on to state that the health risks associated with occasional cigar smoking (less than daily), which represents about 75% of cigar smokers, "are not known" [27]. Dr. Schneiderman concludes that "Since the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers smoke fewer than 1 cigar a day and don't inhale, the majority of cigar smokers appear to be protected from developing lung cancer" and coronary artery disease, relative to non-smokers, and that "The 'all cause' of death risk for smokers of 1-2 cigars per day (and sometimes more) is not significantly different when compared to those who never smoked."[28].


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

I object. This material belongs in health effects of tobacco smoking, not here. The entire contents of the proposed change should be merged with that article and deleted from this one. It does no good to litter multiple articles with the same warnings. Frotz 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If the material does not belong at all, then why are you reverting to an outdated and incorrect version which is improperly referenced? The material as it stands, which you reverted to, is inferior in every way to the improved version shown above. If you do not think anything at all belongs there, then the section should be REMOVED, not reverted to a poorly written version which is not properly referenced. Reversion is a tool used to repair vandalism and trolling, not to arbitrarily object to an otherwise valid and proper edit by an experienced editor. The section has been posted for a very long time - and you wait until now when it is improved to object to it existing? What is it you do not want readers to see? The facts? Please explain why we should revert to a poorly written improperly sourced version. I am being WP:BOLD by improving the article and including the properly sourced material with inline references. Your reversion to an inferior version has no justification whatsoever, and appears to constitute a non-WP:NPOV pushing away from the facts. If a version is to be posted, it MUST be the better version, not the version you reverted to. Your reversion to an inferior version is completely and utterly inappropriate. If you wish to Merge the section to another article, then use the Merge template. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted instead of deleting because at the time, I didn't have the time to carefully compare your version with the corresponding section in health effects of tobacco smoking. I took a careful look now. It seems to me that the two sections amount to duplicates. Therefore the health section be removed entirely and a link to health effects of tobacco smoking placed in the "See also" section. Copying this discussion to my chat page is not necessary. Frotz 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So I see that, despite a consensus having been reached during an RfC, all mention of the health effects of cigar smoking have been deleted, save a short link in the "See also" section. I don't see that as editing in good faith. In accord with the consensus reached during the RfC, a paragraph about the health effects of cigar smoking needs to be in the article.--HughGRex 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone proposed something and someone else objected. Nobody else said anything. That's not a consensus. Given how discussions on this subject went last November and December, it seems clear that this article should remain as-is with regard to health warnings. Frotz 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler

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

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

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

[edit] problem

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

[edit] Wait a minute.....

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

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

[edit] Pop Culture

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

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

[edit] Health effects should be covered

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

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

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

My reason for deleting the health section is that everything it adds nothing new to the article that is not covered in the Tobacco and health article. Here is my reasoning: Suppose we have article Foo and articles Bar1 through Barn which discuss different topics having to do with article Foo. What you're doing is going through all these articles, adding a chunk from Barx. At the very least, this is messy and detracts from the usefulness of having subordinate articles in the first place. Furthermore, you pointed the health link at Cigarillo at Cigar rather than Tobacco and health (now fixed). Frotz (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That argument applies equally well to List of cigar brands and to United States embargo against Cuba as well to half a dozen other topics in Cigar; so should we also remove all discussion of cigar brands, the embargo, etc., from Cigar? No, the usual Wikipedia style, which you can see in high-quality articles such as Saffron, is to give a brief summary of the topic in the main article, and then refer to the sub-article. You can see an example of this in the section Saffron #Trade and use, which adds nothing new to the Saffron article that is not covered in the Trade and use of saffron article. If anything, the current summary of health issues in Cigar is too brief; it would be reasonable to make it longer, as health issues are a very common topic when the subject of cigars comes up, and the current health summary is almost telegraphically brief. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
List of cigar brands is just a list, subordinate to the topic of cigars, though it is a little too long. Discussion about the US embargo against Cuba is relevant because of the long reputation of the quality of Cuban cigars among other things: the article on the embargo is subordinate to the cigar article. The section on trade and use of saffron is relevant because trade and use of saffron is subordinate to saffron. Health concerns about tobacco is only tangentially relevant to an article on cigars. At best the two are siblings, neither superior nor subordinate. Frotz (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree that health concerns are only "tangentially relevant" to cigars. I just now visited scholar.google.com, a high-quality neutral website, and typed the query "cigar". Of the top ten results (these are highly-cited scholarly papers), seven were about health effects of cigar smoking. This high level of interest in cigars and health should not be ignored in an encyclopedic article. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree that the U.S. embargo on Cuba is subordinate to cigars. That is the tail wagging the dog. The embargo is many things, but it is not primarily about cigars. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also disagree that there must be a subordinate relationship for there to be a discussion. To give just a couple of examples, Fluorescent lamps briefly talks about health issues and then defers to Mercury poisoning and Urticaria. Also, Daylight saving time briefly talks about health issues and then defers to articles such as Skin cancer and Seasonal affective disorder. The practical health effects of fluorescent lamps and daylight saving time are relatively minor, and yet these web pages find room to mention health effects. Why should Cigar remain silent on the far-greater health effects of cigar smoking? Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You found seven articles about the health effects of cigar smoking. What about the articles you found talking about cigars themselves? The cigar section of the article United States embargo against Cuba is subordinate to Cigar. I wasn't talking about the other good embargoed. Regarding fluorescent lamps, the health section makes a minute mention of mercury, an antecdote (which should probably be removed), but focuses mostly on the light produced. That's directly relevant to the article. Health effects of Daylight Savings Time is subordinate to Daylight Savings Time and is relevant because of the obvious question of what messing with a person's internal clock can do. You still have not presented an example somewhere else of what you propose to do with cigar. Frotz (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "seven" were seven out of the ten articles in the first screen of Google Scholar. It wasn't seven articles that I had to look hard to find; it was 7 out of the top 10 articles that matched the query "cigar". There are some articles that talk about non-health issues. For example, Malone & Bero 2000 (PMID 10800432) is primarily about Internet marking of cigars to youth, Wenger et al. 2001 (PMID 11211641) is primarily about print media coverage of cigars, and Scheurer 1991 (US patent 5011009) is about cigar storage and transportation. These other subjects are also worthy of coverage in Cigar. But the vast majority of top-rated articles in scholar.google.com are about health effects, which helps to explain why health effects should definitely be covered in Cigar. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The cigar section of the embargo article is subordinate to the embargo article, not to Cigar. But anyway, this idea of "subordinate" makes little sense to me. There is a strong relationship between cigars and the embargo, so Cigar should discuss the embargo. There is also a strong relationship between cigars and health, so Cigar should discuss health. There's no important difference between the two here. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mercury and light are both important health considerations for fluorescent lamps. We have evidence that the former has put a child in the hospital due to mercury poisoning; we don't have evidence of such severe health effects for the latter. Regardless of the relative importance of mercury versus light, the issue of health is directly relevant to that of fluorescent lamps, which is why Fluorescent lamp has a section dealing with health. I fail to see the distinction between Daylight saving time, where health is "relevant because of the obvious question of what messing with a person's internal clock can do", and Cigar, where health is relevant because of the obvious question of whether cigar smoking contributes to cancer and other disease. These are similar notions and should be treated in similar ways. These two articles are not the only examples of something similar to what should be in Cigar; other examples enclude Cigarette and Cigarillo. Eubulides (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The articles on cigar storage and transportation don't spend a lot of space on the health questions of cigars, do they? The main subject of the cigar article includes issues like storage and transportation, not health questions. The fact you found a lot of health articles is not surprising given the villainizing that has been thrown about as of late. The concept of a "subordinate" article is that the content of some articles are subsets of others. For instance, a more expanded discussion of how the US embargo against Cuba has affected cigar smoking is a subset of cigar smoking in general. Some articles are siblings of other articles, for instance, an article on india ink and an article on gel ink. These both come under the banner of ink but neither deserves much, if any, mention of the other's article. This is the way it is with health aspects of smoking and of cigars. When you add pieces of an article to all similar articles, you disrupt the order that is created by having everything in its place. Furthermore, your recent actions make me wonder if you have an axe to grind with your fervor to plaster health warnings all over the tobacco-related articles. Frotz (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The subject of Cigar is cigars in general; it is not merely cigar storage and transportation. One does not expect a patent on cigar storage (US patent 5011009) to talk about health risks. One does expect a general-purpose encyclopedic article on cigars to talk about health risks, because health risks are a very common cigar-related topic; the vast majority of high-quality scholarly articles on cigars are about health risks. Wikipedia is supposed to exhibit a neutral point of view using the best and most reliable sources. The sources I have been adding are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. As for speculation about my personal motives, please assume good faith. Eubulides (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

"Nobody might object" is too high a standard; one cannot edit an encyclopedia that way, as there is always somebody who will object. WP:NPOV says that Cigar must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The consensus among reliable scientific sources is that cigar smoking poses a significant health risk. I read the talk page, and the previous discussion was between you and two other editors, HughGRex and T-dot, both of whom thought that Cigar should mention health effects. This hardly constitutes "settled several times as a tangent". Eubulides (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The polite thing to do is to see what other people may have to say BEFORE you add a new section, particularly one that diverges from the current content. You didn't do that. Frotz (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I will continue to attempt to be polite, keeping in mind that the Wikipedia guideline is to be bold as well. With that in mind I've made #Suggestions for strengthening the article below. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cigars are unhealthy.

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

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

[edit] Coverage in major U.S. print media

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

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

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

Judging from the edit you made, I'm guessing you didn't read your own referenced article very carefully. Take a look at their Table 2, titled "Mentions of Health Effects in Cigar-Related Newspaper and Magazine Articles: United States, 1987–1997"; this clearly shows that the overwhelming number of mentions of cigars in articles covered negative health effects. This doesn't square at all with your assertion that such articles "rarely cover health risks". Try again. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in Table 2 contradicts the edit I made. Table 2 counts all mentions of health effects and tabulates whether they were negative or positive. As you mention, most mentions of health effects were negative. However, this does not contradict the main point of the cited source, which is that the primary focus of U.S. print media articles was on the cigar business, cigar events, and trends. Only 4% of articles focused primarily on health effects; this compares to (for example) 39% of articles focusing primarily on the cigar business. Please see table 1 of the source. The edit that I made introduced this text:
Major U.S. print media portray cigars favorably; they generally frame cigar use as a lucrative business or a trendy habit, and rarely cover health risks.
which closely paraphrases the following text, taken from page 290 of the conclusion in the source's discussion section:
Overall, print media portrayed cigars favorably, linked cigars with popular celebrities, failed to provide health information, and generally framed cigar use as a trendy habit or lucrative business rather than as a health risk.
If there is some part of the text that isn't quite right, please let me know; it is intended to be a fair summary of the source and its main results.
Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's nowhere close to being a "fair summary" of what your source wrote. Don't you see the difference? They said "Overall, print media ... generally framed cigar use as a trendy habit ... rather than as a health risk.". You changed the meaning of this when you asserted that such articles "rarely cover health risks", which is completely at odds with your own quoted source. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point: I hadn't noticed that, and my mistake in wording was unintended. I reworded the edit to say "rather than as a health risk". Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll concede that that fixes that. But in your apparent zeal to warn the world just how awful cigar smoking is, you've missed something else: Your addition made even more of a hodgepodge of that section, which jumps from the characterization of media articles to top hats to god know what else. It's a real mess; care to fix it? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I could give it a whirl, though to be honest I hesitate to jump in, given all the time we've spent on the little one-sentence addition I've made to this section so far! Eubulides (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Without some balancing treatment, the entire section on health effects and this new one on the supposed irresponsibly favorable portrayal of cigars in the media is a huge NPOV violation. In point of fact there is a large body of both scientific and anecdotal thought that cigar smoking, in moderation, does not carry anything like the health risks of other tobacco forms such as cigarettes and snuff.
  • I disagree that the new addition says that the media are "irresponsibly favorable"; nothing in the wording says that the media are being irresponsible. Eubulides (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd originally written "supposed implicitly irresponsibly favorable portrayal," but that was just too convoluted. But the irresponsibility is certainly implied, as I read it. HiramShadraski (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my intent to give that implication. But I see that ILike2BeAnonymous made this further wording change which I hope addresses your concern about the wording. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also disagree that the Cigar#Health effects section is a "huge NPOV violation". The current wording does not claim that cigars carry the same health risks as cigarettes and snuff; it points out that the health risks are similar to cigarettes only in certain categories. That being said, no doubt the wording could be improved; suggestions for improvement are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, and this is as good a place as any to say that I do agree that the article should mention health effects (judiciously, of course): by comparison, it would be as irresponsible as, say, not mentioning health effects in the article on cigarettes. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the manner in which cigars are portrayed in popular-culture media is not really relevant to the topic. This material belongs in an article devoted to the political and cultural aspects of tobacco use in general.
HiramShadraski (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Political and cultural aspects of tobacco use certainly sounds like an interesting subject for an article. What would be the proper name for such an article? Frotz (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How about Social and cultural aspects of tobacco use? (Social, rather than political; the only political aspect I can think of is the US embargo against Cuban cigars, which is adequately covered in this article.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds very much like a POV fork, which we should strive to avoid. The Cigar article should present cigars warts and all, with all their advantages and disadvantages: it shouldn't wall off all the "negative" stuff off into a separate article. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Who said it would be solely about the "negative stuff"? That sounds like a projection on your part; certainly there are both positive and negative aspects (not to mention neutral ones) of cigar smoking which are social and cultural in nature, no? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that if all the "negative stuff" is put into a subarticle, leaving only "positive stuff" behind in Cigar, then we have a POV fork, even if the subarticle also has some "positive stuff". Let's put it this way: which aspects of cigar are "social" and which aren't? For example, most people would say that families are an important part of society, so shouldn't "Families in the cigar industry" be moved to the proposed social subarticle? How about "Cigar-related charities"; isn't that a social aspect too? If not, why not? Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
<--unindent Yes, I suppose that those things should go into the new sub-article, with a short summary (and a link to the new article) left behind in this article. But certainly not proposing using the new article as a dump for negative stuff. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line, here, is that if such claims are to be included, then balancing counterclaims should also be included. In my opinion, anyway. HiramShadraski (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Balance is of course fine, as long as it does not mean giving undue weight to unreliable views. Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for strengthening the article

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

[edit] The lead

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

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

[edit] Distribution

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

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

[edit] Marketing

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

[edit] Characterization

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

[edit] Popularity

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

Data for this are available from reliable sources. I have already mentioned Malone & Bero 2000 (PMID 10800432). There is also Vander Weg et al. 2008 (PMID 17706889). I'm sure there are other sources; I have not attempted to survey them all. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I made this change as a first cut at a popularity section. Eubulides (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cigar bars

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

[edit] Cigar stores

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

[edit] Smoke

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

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

[edit] Useless sections

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

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

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

[edit] Further comments

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "External links" should go

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

At least two of the links add to the encyclopedic value of the wiki. Both are review sites, both are established and contain a wealth of information (on cigars in general) that someone would find useful. More importantly, they were added in good faith years ago, neither is driven by advertisements or is commercial in nature. I removed the decatur spirits link as its for a commercial entity, and also the United Arab Emirates smoking guide (which would only be useful to about 1% of the people surfing this English wiki). It makes no serious difference to me if all the links are removed or not, but the remaining two info and review sites are inarguably useful to someone who wishes to learn more about cigars. 68.155.82.233 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to keep the link to the "most useless cigar page" because it explains much of the confusion over measurements versus names. If this cannot be done, it would be nice if we could get permission to include that text and graphic here. Frotz (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Identifying counterfeit Cuban cigars" article seems appropriate specifically as an external link. It does not have a commercial agenda (it is certainly acceptable to link to commercial sites for informational purposes), it is extremely concise, and it has a neutral POV. The information there is encyclopedic in presentation, but not appropriate directly in Wikipedia. I believe both excluded links match numbers 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:LINKS#What_should_be_linked . Given the length of this article and the usual WP ratio of external links to article content, four links does not seem like too many. — Epastore (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The "useless cigar page" isn't particularly easy for people to follow, nor does it really answer any questions that an easy to follow chart would. The person who designed that page admits that it was done in a different method just for kicks. It's a novelty, it doesn't add to the value of the wiki. As far as the article on identifying counterfeit cigars, it does have a commercial agenda. Before you even scroll down, there's a rotating ad pushing cigar art ranging from $100-$400.68.155.82.233 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant the article itself doesn't promote an agenda. I don't think there's any restriction against linking to pages which have ads on them. That's most of the internet. — Epastore (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I disagree that those links listed above are neutral. Except for the first, they are decidedly anti-tobacco. Frotz (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By "neutral" I meant in the Wikipedia sense: they cover their professed topics neutrally. If we use neutral in the sense you're describing, the existing external links are all pro-tobacco, so they're not "neutral" either. I don't think that's the relevant criterion, but if we're going to apply it, we should apply it consistently and remove the existing external links. Eubulides (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions like these are never "settled"; someone will always disagree with whatever consensus is made. I have not altered the external links myself. I can't speak for the other editors, but the arguments given for keeping the existing links are surprisingly weak. The existing links were chosen arbitrarily, and they are not up to the standards of external links that appear in high-quality Wikipedia articles. It's not that big a deal (Cigar has other, more-important weaknesses, some of which are described above) but it's an easy problem to fix. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's take one of those links, the "most useless page" one, as an example; I've been defending this one against a couple editors who just seem to want to arbitrarily remove it without offering adequate explanations why. Now to me, it fits the criteria you listed above for inclusion pretty damn well: it's well-written, contains information not available elsewhere, and is relevant to the topic of the article. I'd like to hear your specific objections to including this link here; perhaps this could be used, by extrapolation, to explain why you're against the links here in general (unless, of course, you care to address them individually). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Most Useless Cigar Page is a classic example of what should not be in "External links". If that material is relevent to Cigar, its main point should be briefly summarized in the text, and The Most Useless Cigar Page should appear as a citation under "References". If the material is not that relevant to Cigar, the URL should be removed. "External links" should be used only for high-quality resources that address the entire subject of Cigar and contain lots of material that cannot easily be summarized in Cigar; they should not be used for relatively minor points like that. For good examples of "External links" sections, see Crazy Taxi (series), Stede Bonnet, Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and Bruno Maddox; at this writing these happen to be the four most-recently chosen featured articles. Notice that two of them have no "External links" sections at all. Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That page should be introduced with a paragraph on the variability of size names versus their actual measurements. Simply appearing in the links section is too abrupt. The alt.smokers.cigars FAQ should stay. Maybe the one on counterfeit Cuban cigars should stay, but it might be better to have a paragraph on fakes and then link from there. The others should go because they're too narrow in scope. Frotz (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's pointless to continue spamming the same two links. We have a link to where you can enjoy cigars in the United Arab Emirates, that content is absolutely useless to 99% of the people reading the cigar wiki. We leave that in, we might as well have an external link to 150 other pages on the web that specify where you can buy a cigar in every major city in the U.S. and worldwide. The second link has a commercial agenda. It's a commercial website, and its pushing hundreds of dollars in cigar art. Furthermore, it's not an authority site. If contributors are insistent on having a counterfeit Cuban cigar link, then link to Cigar Aficionado's feature on it, and/or their gallery of counterfeit labels. But there's no consensus to keep those particular links, so they're not staying on this wiki. 68.155.82.233 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see that the "useless page" has been dealt with and integrated into the article proper; so far, so good. Now about the link to the page about identifying fake Cuban cigars: looking at this page, it too seems appropriate for inclusion in the article. Do people want this integrated into the article as well? Seems to me there is a valid function for external links; i.e., reducing potentially bloated articles. What do y'all think? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The goal of "External links" is not simply "reducing potentially bloated articles". It is to link to sites that contain lots of relevant general-purpose material that cannot easily be summarized. Certainly the topic of fake cigars is relevant to this page, but it hardly qualifies as being lots of general-purpose material. It should be summarized (I think a sentence or two would suffice) and a good citation given. Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, please don't put words in my mouth, even by implication: I never clained that the goal of external links is reducing article bloat; it is one possible function (a valid one, I believe). And I think you have far too narrow a view of the use of external links. Far more useful, it seems to me, than more "general-purpose" material, most of which is presumably covered in the article proper, are links that illuminate particular aspects of the topic (such as, in this case, how to spot fake cigars), aspects that may not even deserve treatment in the article, but which encyclopedia readers may find useful, relevant, interesting and, yes, even amusing. So lighten up a bit, 'k? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I'll reword it as follows: "External links" is not for "reducing potentially bloated articles". It is for linking to sites that contain lots of relevant general-purpose material that cannot easily be summarized. The way potentially bloated articles are slimmed down is to break them into subarticles; see Wikipedia:Summary style. If the particular topic of spotting fake cigars is relevant, it belongs in the main text. I disagree completely that aspects that "may not even deserve treatment in the article" deserve external links. That's not how how-quality Wikipedia articles work. I've given several examples of featured articles that use "External links" sections only very sparingly; it is no coincidence that there is a strong correlation between high-quality Wikipedia articles and minimizing "External links". Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that all but the UAE page ( only because of limited geographic scope ) contribute to the quality of this page, and it seems like the vast majority feel the same way. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the linked-to material is relevant or high-quality. The issue is whether the material belongs under "External links". "External links" is not supposed to be used as a "may not even deserve treatment in the article", no matter how high-quality the linked-to material is. If the linked-to material is relevant it should be discussed in the main body of the text, and the external link should appear as part of a citation. Eubulides (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you demonstrate a strait-laced, "strict constructionist" approach to the admissibility of external links. You're thorough at enumerating what sorts of links don't belong, but I haven't read anything from you about what sorts of links are desirable. I agree with you that this is not a place for link-farming, and that the most egregious offenders should be removed. But after that, perhaps you could chill out just a tiny bit, and at least consider the inclusion of links that others seem to deem valid, even if you have reservations. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did mention what sorts of links are desirable, when I wrote "'External links' should be used only for high-quality resources that address the entire subject of Cigar and contain lots of material that cannot easily be summarized in Cigar." The fake-cigar article doesn't even come close to being a good candidate for "External links". Other articles might be better; I haven't reviewed them in detail. Eubulides (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
<— So tell me; why must external links "address the entire subject of [cigars]"? I don't think this is even written in the guidelines here, but in any case, I fail to see why a good valid site that addresses one particular interesting aspect of the subject cannot be included. I know for sure that such links are included in other articles here, usually without any objection whatsoever. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I can find dozens of good sites that meet the criterion of mentioning cigars even if they "may not even deserve treatment in the article". That is far too loose a criterion, and helps to explain why the current choices are so controversial: they are arbitrary. It is true that many lower-quality articles have link farms but this is discouraged and Cigar should not continue to follow their lead.
I see that we have a new featured article, Treatment of multiple sclerosis. It has no "External links" section at all. Cigar should be taking a hint from high-quality featured articles like that. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health Effects

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

That's pretty vague. What change is being proposed, exactly? Eubulides (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what is being proposed is that commentary on the dangers of smoking cigars should not be scattered throughout the article. Instead they should be put in their own section. Frotz (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but that's what the current article does, or at least tries to do. Let's put it this way: what specific wording in the current article is being objected to? and ideally, what specific change is being proposed? Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What Frotz said above, and while we're at it, let's please resist the urge (I'm addressing Ebulides here) to pepper the article with cautionary warnings against smoking the evil stogie, like government-mandated scare labels. It's enough to lay out the case of health effects in a single section, and leave it at that. (Please keep in mind that this is not a health manual or place for anti-smoking propaganda.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with either you or Frotz. I'm just asking what specific wording (if any) is being objected to. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, why sweat it? Whatever few remaining misplaced references to health should be moved to the health section. In searching for those instances (I simply searched for the word "health"), I only found one or two references. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't know about if cigars are as serious a health risk as are conventional American cigarettes have been and still are. Natural tobacco does not have all the additives that is present in pretty much every conventional American cigarette: arsenic, super-amped nicotine, petroleum tar, salt peter, etc.
Plus, many of the late celebrities who smoked cigars lived well into their 90's--even in the latter years of the 20th Century, this was considered a very long life indeed. George Burns smoked until he was 98 years old, but then he died. Well, we all die of something. We don't outlaw guns in the USA but they kill more people a lot younger than do cigars. Kulturvultur (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cigar #Health effects doesn't claim that cigars are as serious a health risk as cigarettes. It cites Symm et al. 2005 (PMID 15995804), a reliable source on the subject; I doubt whether anecdotes about George Burns or U.S. Grant would be nearly as reliable. Eubulides (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikihowto?

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

[edit] Naked links in the article body considered bad

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

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

[edit] Whats the deal with CUBAN cigars?

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

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

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

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

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

I think something about this ought to be said in the article. How this can be done properly? How about this at the bottom of the embargo section:
"Much of the reputation for quality comes from marketing because most of the master cigar makers fled Cuba when Castro took over.". Frotz (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source for that addition? Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(Non-encyclopedic aside) As a life long Cigar smoker of all kinds (including Cubans) I can state that there is definitely a "belief" that Cuban cigars are superior in quality in the cigar aficionado community - and from smoking them (and hundreds of other kinds) - I concur. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Romanticizing Che

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

Sure, maybe use another quote from the source like. ~ According to Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara "A smoke in times of rest is a great companion to the solitary soldier." and include the source link for them read themselves and decide the relevance.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also per the source - Cigar Aficionado is the premier Cigar magazine in the World - and the "bible" for most cigar enthusiasts. Can you think of a more influential source than that for info on cigars ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
For cigars Cigar Aficionado is a good source; for the "business of revolution" it's not. I like the "companion" quote better; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Glad we could come to agreement.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)